Councils refer 2.1 million debts to bailiffs in 2014/15

[citizenB]

I received the following via a National Debtline twitter feed link

 

 

http://www.stoptheknock.org/

 

 

Research by the Money Advice Trust, the charity that runs National Debtline and Business Debtline, has revealed that councils in England and Wales referred 2.1 million debts to bailiffs in 2014/15 – up 16% in two years.

 

 

Click on the map for your area and it will give you the stats for that particular Local Authority. Out of interest I clicked on Peterborough to see what information would be given. Very interesting.

 

 

 

In 2014/15, Peterborough City Council instructed bailiffs to collect debts from individuals and businesses on 6278 occasions - down 20% in two years.

 

The number of debts passed to bailiffs was equivalent to 7.21% of properties in the area, ranking the council at 101 out of 326 for local authority bailiff use in England and Wales.

 

 

And Oxford

 

 

 

In 2014/15, West Oxfordshire District Council instructed bailiffs to collect debts from individuals and businesses on 1181 occasions - up 41% in two years.

 

The number of debts passed to bailiffs was equivalent to 2.33% of properties in the area, ranking the council at 270 out of 326 for local authority bailiff use in England and Wales.

 

 

[citizenB]

https://twitter.com/natdebtline/status/636864535765364736?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&sig=394bb66265810c87e8d0ec184b115ab37a134a05&al=1&refsrc=email&iid=43ec43ad170148f6bf33db24e44a7ecb&autoactions=1440697502&uid=263631004&nid=244+1489

 

This was the twitter feed link.

[brassnecked]

My council Conwy CCBC Temple of Waste, Bodlondeb, Conwy are up 63% in use of bailiffs.

[Bailiff Advice]

This subject was mentioned on another thread yesterday and I responded to say the following:

 

The reports are very worrying but nonethless, not at all surprising and sadly, once again they highlight the fact that although 'alternative remedies' (such as an Attachment of Earnings/or Attachments against Benefits) are available they do not seem to be used and instead, bailiff enforcement is looked at as the first (instead of last) resort.

 

The reports are of concern for another reason:

 

From reports that I have seen it does not appear to be the case that the number of liability orders granted has increased, and with penalty charge notices.... (for parking related debts) the number of warrants issued must surely have declined over the same period given that during this time regulations were amended regarding the use of CCTV.

 

This raises raises the question of WHY has there been such a significant increase in the number of debts being referred to bailiffs and I am minded to believe that the removal of the '14 day' letter by local authorities may well be to blame. Prior to the new regs being introduced on 6th April 2014, the legislation provided that once a Liability Order has been issued, that there was a legal obligation on the local authority to send a '14 day' day letter to advise that a Liability Order had been granted and that unless payment was made the debt would be transferred to a bailiff (or other enforcement methods instigated). During this 14 day period a significant number of debtors used to contact the council to either make payment, set up a payment arrangement or set up an Attachment of Earnings or Attachment against benefits. For reasons that I still cannot understand.....and do not agree with.....the Department for Communities & Local Government removed the obligation upon councils to send the '14 day' letter.

[mikeymack2002]

The same thing is said here too

 

http://www.governmentbusiness.co.uk/index.php/news/6331-council-use-of-bailiffs-sees-16-per-cent-increase-charity-reports

 

 

Joanna Elson, chief executive of the MAT, said: “Something is seriously wrong here. On the front line of debt advice we know that sending the bailiffs in can deepen debt problems, rather than solve them – and it can also have a severe impact on the wellbeing of people who are often already in a vulnerable situation.

 

“Bailiff action is not only harmful to those in arrears – it is also a poor deal for the council taxpayer. Our research shows that those local authorities that use bailiffs the most are actually less successful, on average, at collecting council tax arrears. This is a lose-lose situation.”

 

 

Edited August 28, 2015 by citizenB
added quote

[Bailiff Advice]

 

The reports are of concern for another reason:

 

From reports that I have seen it does not appear to be the case that the number of liability orders granted has increased, and with penalty charge notices.... (for parking related debts) the number of warrants issued must surely have declined over the same period given that during this time regulations were amended regarding the use of CCTV.

 

In fact I have just been sent copies of the up to date figures for road traffic debts in London and this confirms that almost 250.000 LESS tickets were issued during 2014/15.

[E Munch]

I like the interactive map but the conclusions reached from statistics are laughable. If the authors were ever taught statistics, their former teachers will be turning in their graves.

 

To conclude there is a causal relationship between high bailiff use and poor overall collection is like saying the Money Advice Trust causes debts to mount up based on figures to show that the people who contact MAT mostly have large and multiple debt problems. An equally valid statement would be that the figures show that councils only turn to bailiffs when they have a bad debt problem that they cannot resolve by other means.

 

Also comparing growth and decrease in instructions between two particular years cannot be used to conclude there is an overall increase or decrease in use for a particular council. What is needed is a trend in use over a number of years to iron out the variations due to things like computer change overs, staff shortages that were short lived.

 

Incidentally I know Bailiff Advice has concerns about the use of in house bailiffs and the figures for Brighton and Hove which are long time in house users, I understand, show that "the number of debts passed to bailiffs was equivalent to 11.45% of properties in the area, ranking the council at 59 out of 326 for local authority bailiff use in England and Wales." Are we to conclude from this that the use of in house bailiffs makes councils much higher users of bailiffs?

Who knows but one thing for sure these figures won't prove it conclusively one way or the other.

Edited August 28, 2015 by citizenB

[Bailiff Advice]

Thank you for your response Munch. There is two further reasons that could have led to the higher that usual increase in the 2014/15 tax year. As many will know, on 6th April last year new legislation came into effect regarding bailiff enforcement and it is a known fact that many local authorities (for one reason or another) were holding back cases until after 6th April (and indeed a lot longer as well).

 

Secondly, a lot of local authorities have awarded contracts to EA companies to enforce EXPIRED warrants. These are being collected under the 'debt collection' part of the companies as opposed to the bailiff enforcement (therefore no enforcement agent fees are charged to the debtor).

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Incidentally I know Bailiff Advice has concerns about the use of in house bailiffs and the figures for Brighton and Hove which are long time in house users, I understand, show that "the number of debts passed to bailiffs was equivalent to 11.45% of properties in the area, ranking the council at 59 out of 326 for local authority bailiff use in England and Wales." Are we to conclude from this that the use of in house bailiffs makes councils much higher users of bailiffs?

 

I do indeed have concerns about in house bailiff enforcement and have made my views known to various bodies over the past year. Brighton & Hove have used in house bailfifs for a very long time and another LA with in house enforcement is Merton Council who sadly I receive many complaints about.

 

However, by far the largest 'in house' bailiff operation must surely be that of Capita and Equita/Ross & Roberts. I rest my case......

[E Munch]

I did not think you were thinking of links after outsourcing but whilst you mention it have you got Civica/Dukes on your radar? They are operating in Worcestershire and Gloucestershire at least and that map shows big increases in referrals recently, if such increases are real. https://www.civica.co.uk/revenues-and-benefits/articles/499-South-Worcestershire-councils-commence-strategic-partnership-with-Civica

It's all smiles and handshakes for the press when announcing projected savings but I'm not sure anyone goes back and looks to see if the savings really were made.

[mikeymack2002]

Yet more confirmation Councils prefer to use Bailiffs read here please http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34073292 this is rather than using ALL options available and here

 

 

http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/8203-Bedford-Borough-Council-refers-9-276-debts/story-27689131-detail/story.html

 

 

and more about it here

 

http://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/LGA+responds+to+Money+Advice+Trust+report+on+council+use+of+bailiffs+28082015164000?open

[citizenB]

Following on from mickeymack's post above:

 

From the Bedfordshire article

 

http://www.bedfordshire-news.co.uk/8203-Bedford-Borough-Council-refers-9-276-debts/story-27689131-detail/story.html

 

The 9276 bailiff referrals made by Bedford Borough Council in 2014/15 represent an increase of 62 per cent on two years ago, when the council reported 5725 referrals in the 2012 calendar year.

 

9726 referrals - This was a 62% on the previous reporting period - so they knew they had a serious problem previously, why did the council not put in place some steps to deal with this in ways other than bailiff referrals ?

 

and

 

Last year National Debtline provided free, independent advice to 315 residents in the Bedford area.

 

Why were National Debtline only able to offer help to 315 of those referrals . How may did CAB help ?

 

 

What reasons did these people fail to pay their Council tax for - were they cant pays or wont pays ?

[citizenB]

With so many services being closed down with Councils saying it is because they aren't permitted to increase the CT, it makes you wonder what you are paying for anyway.

 

I have seen some FOI requests either totally ignored or the Councils saying they cannot provide information on the breakdown of how the CT is being spent ?

[citizenB]

Another article linked by mickeymack :

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-34073292

 

Cardiff Council apparently is the highest user of Bailiffs - again why - although if other articles are to be believed, Cardiff is one of the most deprived area of the UK - so their answer to that is , let us deprive our residents some more by "increasing" their debt and making their lives even more miserable ?

 

The Councils response of "Cardiff Council said bailiffs were used as a last resort and it had "a duty" to council tax payers to recover debt." is disingenuous and doesn't ring true. Why haven't they done something about this previously ?

[citizenB]

And finally..

 

 

http://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/LGA+responds+to+Money+Advice+Trust+report+on+council+use+of+bailiffs+28082015164000?open

 

Cllr Claire Kober, Chair of the Local Government Association's Resources Board, responded to the Nat Debtline report by saying..

 

"Bailiffs are only ever used as a last resort by councils. Before the situation reaches a stage where bailiffs are involved several letters will have been written, people will have been encouraged to apply for financial support, and efforts will be made to arrange new payment plans or to attach the debt to a salary.

 

"Anyone having trouble paying their council bills should get in touch with their local authority for financial help and advice."

 

 

 

It is my understanding that only one letter is sent now ?

 

What help is being offered to those who do make contact ? Or are they put off by either the length of time they have to wait to be connected to a human being who CAN deal with the problem or are they treated badly by those who eventually speak to them ?

[Conniff]

If we round that figure up and down to £100 per liability order, that works out at £210,000,000 (two hundred and ten million pounds) and that is in just one year.

This is the reason they aren't interested in helping those in trouble, they are on a bloody good screw and don't want to give it up.

 

And that amount was made only on those they sent bailiffs to, it doesn't include those that went out and took a payday loan so they could pay it off before the bailiffs.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Conniff

[Bailiff Advice]

The following is a copy of the statement from the Local Government Association in response to the news that the Money Advice Trust that councils have referred 2.1 million accounts to bailiff in the year 2014/15:

 

 

 

Cllr Claire Kober, Chair of the Local Government Association's Resources Board, responded to the Money Advice Trust's report on council use of bailiffs.

"Reduced government funding for council tax support has left councils needing to find £1 billion by 2016 to protect discounts for those on low incomes. Many are facing an unpalatable choice between charging the working-age poor or low income families, who may have never paid council tax before, or finding additional savings to spending on local services to meet the shortfall.

 

"No council wants to ask those on the lowest incomes to pay more. But also faced with a 40 per cent cut to core government funding to run local services over the past five years, many have had little choice but to reduce council tax discounts.

 

"Councils have a duty to their residents to collect taxes so important services like caring for the elderly, collecting bins and fixing roads are not affected. But we realise that times are tough and will always seek to take a sympathetic and constructive approach.

 

"Bailiffs are only ever used as a last resort by councils. Before the situation reaches a stage where bailiffs are involved several letters will have been written, people will have been encouraged to apply for financial support, and efforts will be made to arrange new payment plans or to attach the debt to a salary.

 

"Anyone having trouble paying their council bills should get in touch with their local authority for financial help and advice."

 

The above was also posted in post 15 along with the link the article/response was taken from.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?451160-Councils-refer-2.1-million-debts-to-bailiffs-in-2014-15&p=4784626&viewfull=1#post4784626

Edited September 1, 2015 by citizenB

[brassnecked]

The following is a copy of the statement from the Local Government Association in response to the news that the Money Advice Trust that councils have referred 2.1 million accounts to bailiff in the year 2014/15:

 

 

 

Cllr Claire Kober, Chair of the Local Government Association's Resources Board, responded to the Money Advice Trust's report on council use of bailiffs.

"Reduced government funding for council tax support has left councils needing to find £1 billion by 2016 to protect discounts for those on low incomes. Many are facing an unpalatable choice between charging the working-age poor or low income families, who may have never paid council tax before, or finding additional savings to spending on local services to meet the shortfall.

 

"No council wants to ask those on the lowest incomes to pay more. But also faced with a 40 per cent cut to core government funding to run local services over the past five years, many have had little choice but to reduce council tax discounts.

 

"Councils have a duty to their residents to collect taxes so important services like caring for the elderly, collecting bins and fixing roads are not affected. But we realise that times are tough and will always seek to take a sympathetic and constructive approach.

 

"Bailiffs are only ever used as a last resort by councils. Before the situation reaches a stage where bailiffs are involved several letters will have been written, people will have been encouraged to apply for financial support, and efforts will be made to arrange new payment plans or to attach the debt to a salary.

 

"Anyone having trouble paying their council bills should get in touch with their local authority for financial help and advice."

 

Platitudes, and a Pilate mentality as in washing their hands of the problem. They make an already unpayable debt even more unpayable, as in how the hell a Liability Order and it's associated cost, along with adding bailiff fees somehow makes the debt more affordable for can't pays.

 

If I was to sell up buy a camper van and go on the road and owed one penny in council tax, no doubt Conwy CCBC would gain a liability order for that penny and the bailiffs would seize my camper, (unlawfully as it would be my home) for the debt of around £500 inflated from that penny by fees and charges.

[Coughdrop]

 

"Bailiffs are only ever used as a last resort by councils. Before the situation reaches a stage where bailiffs are involved several letters will have been written, people will have been encouraged to apply for financial support, and efforts will be made to arrange new payment plans or to attach the debt to a salary.

 

"Anyone having trouble paying their council bills should get in touch with their local authority for financial help and advice."[/i][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent]

 

This is absolute rubbish. So, last bit first, what will the LA do? They'll give you a chance if you contact them straight away, two if you're lucky, then they'll throw you to the wolves. They are going to give very little in the way of financial help and advice.

 

As for 'Bailiffs are only ever used as a last resort by councils' I think this is one even edited would be proud of. If, for a range of reasons, the debtor fails to engage early and stick to an agreed repayment agreement, one of the first things they will face is a letter from bailiffs. This is not acceptable, and puts debtors on a course where potentially they will suffer enormous harship because of the greed of the councils to get their money now.

 

The entire area has become a pigs ear again with more and more stories of poor behaviour by bailiffs and a sadly lacking number of people taking their cases to the LGO to look at.

Edited September 1, 2015 by slick132
Defamatory remark and name edited

[brassnecked]

Coughdrop, imho the bailifs and councils don't give a toss about the LGO. If they did the Augean Stables of Enforcement would have been cleansed long ago. Bailiff is first resort especially where the council is infested by Capita.

[Bailiff Advice]

If we round that figure up and down to £100 per liability order, that works out at £210,000,000 (two hundred and ten million pounds) and that is in just one year.

This is the reason they aren't interested in helping those in trouble, they are on a bloody good screw and don't want to give it up.

 

And that amount was made only on those they sent bailiffs to, it doesn't include those that went out and took a payday loan so they could pay it off before the bailiffs.

 

The average summons costs is around £100 (although it is significantly more for cases of non domestic rates). However the ACTUAL number of Liability Orders granted each year is around 3.4 million. It has been the case for a considerable number of years that the 'summons cost' has been seen as much needed 'income' buy all local authorities.

[Bailiff Advice]

There is two further reasons that could have led to the higher that usual increase in the 2014/15 tax year. As many will know, on 6th April last year new legislation came into effect regarding bailiff enforcement and it is a known fact that many local authorities (for one reason or another) were holding back cases until after 6th April (and indeed a lot longer as well).

 

Secondly, a lot of local authorities have awarded contracts to EA companies to enforce EXPIRED warrants. These are being collected under the 'debt collection' part of the companies as opposed to the bailiff enforcement (therefore no enforcement agent fees are charged to the debtor).

 

The headlines from the Money Advice Trust make alarming reading but I really do believe that the above explanation is very likely to be the a major cause of the increase in referrals to bailiffs.

[mikeymack2002]

So what you are saying BA is the council's use defaulters as an income to keep services up and running?

 

No wonder this is on the increase then

[brassnecked]

Defaulters are a cash cow that keeps on giving year on year as they never catch up with the Council Tax owing so are in a perpetual circle of bill, default, summons, LO, bailiff. Council tax is regressive as it takes no account of ability to pay, and due to the Property value bands not being revised, a new build Starter Home will be in a significantly higher band than some council houses, and 'tween the wars semis.

[mikeymack2002]

For some Councils the wont pays face bankruptcy like in this case http://stratfordobserver.co.uk/news/warning-of-consequences-of-not-paying-council-tax-8041/ then paid up afterwards go figure,