What is a vulnerable person/group?

[brassnecked]

I wonder if it may be useful to break it down slightly as well?

 

i.e.

 

1. What process does an EA have to take if informed of vulnerable person/Group?

 

2. What action does a Debtor have to take to prove to an EA that they are a vulnerable person/group?

That would be most useful to focus in what steps are needed to prove vulnerability, and what the EA should do if confronted by it.

 

I am fed up with tit for tat posts., so I went a little Postal and upset Grumpy..

[stu007]

It would be great to break it down this way as in a Question with the answer and possibly at the end of the discussion having a useful guide that would assist others

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Steps.

Continue as no proof has been seen and claim is not believed for various reasons.

Stop and give x days for debtor to provide proof.

Stop and give x days for debtor to seek help.

Stop and refer case back to client for instruction.

Stop and refer back to client refusing to enforce.

 

Those are the five main responses that we would have.

 

There is almost always proof of vulnerability. Whether its just by the ea seeing with his or her own eyes, doctors letters, blue badges, pregnancy books, soiled dwellings, benefits letters, drug paraphernalia....the list goes on.

 

It is very rare that a truly vulnerable person is enforced upon, but yes, unfortunately, some slip through the net or only rear up and provide proof after enforcement has taken place.

[brassnecked]

It would be great to break it down this way as in a Question with the answer and possibly at the end of the discussion having a useful guide that would assist others

That is what I thought this thread was about, but I was sadly disappointed.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Grumpy long time no see. The original question was to find out why there is a difference between groups of vulnerable people. The definition is all over the place.

 

I was hoping to be able to use the information that is used in law and not in a guidance. This got lost some how..

 

As I said it is a very tough subject to discuss. As an EA do you think differently?

 

Been busy.

 

The law as you put it, recognizes vulnerable categories, and some individual vulnerabilities for a specific task. But it is not a law that makes that individual vulnerable in all walks of life.

 

If you think that being vulnerable for the purpose of claiming benefits means they are vulnerable for the purpose of enforcement, then yes, I do think differently.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

It would be great to break it down this way as in a Question with the answer and possibly at the end of the discussion having a useful guide that would assist others

 

Ask away. If anyone has any theoretical situations where a claim might be made, feel free to ask and I will try to answer from an EA's point of view what would be asked for and what the next steps would be. The first troll question and I'm out of here though.

[brassnecked]

Steps.

Continue as no proof has been seen and claim is not believed for various reasons.

Stop and give x days for debtor to provide proof.

Stop and give x days for debtor to seek help.

Stop and refer case back to client for instruction.

Stop and refer back to client refusing to enforce.

 

Those are the five main responses that we would have.

 

There is almost always proof of vulnerability. Whether its just by the ea seeing with his or her own eyes, doctors letters, blue badges, pregnancy books, soiled dwellings, benefits letters, drug paraphernalia....the list goes on.

 

It is very rare that a truly vulnerable person is enforced upon, but yes, unfortunately, some slip through the net or only rear up and provide proof after enforcement has taken place.

Great just what we need to know those steps help immensely with advice

[brassnecked]

Ask away. If anyone has any theoretical situations where a claim might be made, feel free to ask and I will try to answer from an EA's point of view what would be asked for and what the next steps would be. The first troll question and I'm out of here though.

That is a golden offer Grumpy, thanks, as to the troll, perhaps we can chuck a fat Billygoat Gruff at them.

 

As to vulnerability, if a situation has fallen through the gaps and the EA is clued up, and proof is provided then it can be factored in to debt management rather than a futile debt avoidance scenario.

[stu007]

Ok Grumpy

 

Question

As a Debtor I contact you as EA and claim to be a vulnerable person/group, what process do you as EA have to follow to either confirm or deny that person/group is classed as vulnerable?

[Bailiff Advice]

I wonder if it may be useful to break it down slightly as well?

 

i.e.

 

1. What process does an EA have to take if informed of vulnerable person/Group?

 

2. What action does a Debtor have to take to prove to an EA that they are a vulnerable person/group?

 

It would be great to break it down this way as in a Question with the answer and possibly at the end of the discussion having a useful guide that would assist others

 

As I have already mentioned, I intended starting a thread at the beginning of the week on the subject of bailiff enforcement and 'vulnerability' (which is not to confused with 'vulnerability' for benefit purposes).

 

The thread that I have drafted is similar to the STICKIES that I have written in that it provides questions and answers. There is a desperate need for such a thread. However with Mikeymack wishing to discuss the subject of vulnerability according to the DWP (which is for the purpose of benefit applications) I felt that it was better to leave this subject for another time as it would cause confusion to have two threads running at the same time on similar subjects.

 

I will most likely post up the new thread over the weekend.

[stu007]

[fletch70]

Gloria

well with a MA you must realise that you are not qualified to diagnose but my point was how can anyone diagnose online with no face to face interaction.

 

BN

I was not playing tit for tat just making a point that over several threads Glorian has made some outrageous comments about people with MH issues such as,all MH problems can be cured and generally accusing MH Esa claimants of swinging the lead.

I wonder if he/she is actually IDS

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?454102-How-can-I-get-Esa-for-Anxiety-amp-Depression

 

I think the issue for Glorian is that they have decided they have depression (self diagnosis). They were unable to convince a qualified practitioner to issue a certificate in order that Glorian could take some time off work.

 

I don't know whether subsequent posts are as a result of the self diagnosed depression or whether those comments are just part of their normal nature !

[Peterbard]

Steps.

Continue as no proof has been seen and claim is not believed for various reasons.

Stop and give x days for debtor to provide proof.

Stop and give x days for debtor to seek help.

Stop and refer case back to client for instruction.

Stop and refer back to client refusing to enforce.

 

Those are the five main responses that we would have.

 

There is almost always proof of vulnerability. Whether its just by the ea seeing with his or her own eyes, doctors letters, blue badges, pregnancy books, soiled dwellings, benefits letters, drug paraphernalia....the list goes on.

 

It is very rare that a truly vulnerable person is enforced upon, but yes, unfortunately, some slip through the net or only rear up and provide proof after enforcement has taken place.

 

Yes this is pretty much what i have been saying previously. I do not think that it can ever be fully regulated because there are such a vast variety of cases every one being different.

There are as you say bits of legislation which cover the more extreme scenarios, sect 14 of the TCoG for instance says that someone who cannot understand the process cannot enter into a controlled goods agreement, it does not mean however that if there is someone else on the premises who is authorised, that they cannot, also there are the requirements to leave goods with the debtor whilst they find help if vulnerability is suspected before removal for sale.

Other than this and perhaps other general measures , i really dont see what the legislator can do.

 

It has to be down to guidence and good practice.

[fletch70]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?454102-How-can-I-get-Esa-for-Anxiety-amp-Depression

 

I think the issue for Glorian is that they have decided they have depression (self diagnosis). They were unable to convince a qualified practitioner to issue a certificate in order that Glorian could take some time off work.

 

I don't know whether subsequent posts are as a result of the self diagnosed depression or whether those comments are just part of their normal nature !

 

Thanks Citizen B

It can be very difficult when you feel like you need some help but it feels no one is prepared to offer it. Sadly not all G.P.s are mental health aware. Some still think you just need to pull yourself together.

Then there are the government targets where a good Gp is seen as one with fewer referrals.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Ok Grumpy

 

Question

As a Debtor I contact you as EA and claim to be a vulnerable person/group, what process do you as EA have to follow to either confirm or deny that person/group is classed as vulnerable?

 

Vulnerable in what capacity.

[mikeymack2002]

My point exactly BA there are far to many versions of vulnerabilities. Maybe now time has passed I could have included the words classes of vulnerable people similar to what xx has for xx purpose. That would cause more confusion.

 

Take the letters that the DLA DM send to claimants? I will add this when on PC. The reason for this is someone in authority has already made that decision... I believe that this may help that's all...

[mikeymack2002]

Grumpy you have listed some 5 reasons that you would consider as vulnerable I would like to take a little more time to get a more detailed response to it I will post it when I get to a PC...

[Peterbard]

I think that on this thread there is confusion regarding differences between vulnerability that makes someone unable to pay their bills and vulnerability as regard to dealing with enforcment officers. I stated the definition regarding vulnerability for enforcement earlier on, it has nothing to do with the persons ability to pay.

 

it is about the debtors ability to deal with enforcment action. W|ill the interaction with the bailiff worsen their condition are they able to understand what is being said etc. Any disputes regarding sums due etc, were addressed at the earlier stages a judgement has been made and the EAis just enforcing it, he has no say in whether the judgement is correct or not. This is why legislative procedures which are used in determining sums due are of absolutely no use in the enforcment context.

[Bailiff Advice]

On Saturday evening I did indeed make a post to advise that I was looking to start a new thread on the subject of bailiff enforcement and vulnerability and in particular so, given that I had only just completed an analysis of a very lengthly report form the Local Government Ombudsman on precisely this very subject. Obviously with busy work commitments I had only finished the draft for the thread last night and had only noticed this morning that you had already started such a thread. I am perfectly happy for this thread to be used instead. No problem at all. I will use the draft thread that I had completed as a news page on my website instead.

 

You have mentioned yourself that this subject has been the topic of 'several heated debates' recently. Indeed it has and and if this thread goes the same way as many others with silly arguments then I will not be motivated to contribute to the thread. After all, this is an important subject.

 

A thread is needed on bailiff enforcement and vulnerability (as opposed to DWP and vulnerability for hardship purposes or benefits) and I will put up a thread over the weekend.

 

The case with the LGO (briefly mentioned above) has now concluded and like all other cases will in time (normally three months) appear on the LGO website. Whether the full report or a shortened version appears will not be known for a while. Needless to say it would not be fair to publish too much information at present but I can safely post the following:

 

The case concerned a debtor with unpaid parking charge notices. The vehicle was taken by bailiffs OVER A YEAR AGO.

 

Out of Time witness statements were submitted (not really too sure why). They were rejected. The debtor did not bother to file N244's to have the decision reviewed.

 

Shortly after the rejection of the Out of Time applications (which was approx 3 months AFTER the car was taken) the debtor contacted the council to say that he was 'vulnerable'. He provided NO evidence at all. In that letter he also claimed that he had not been GIVEN the Notice of Enforcement!!!

 

A short while later an 'internet sourced' (the LGO's description not mine) 'vulnerable household' letter was sent to the council with an alledged ten grounds on which he considered he could be vulnerable. Crucially, no evidence was again provided. This letter included an additional 'Final Resolution' clause with threats of legal action against the council. That letter has largely been responsible for the vehicle remaining in the car pound for a further TEN MONTHS.

 

When the council questioned the debtor on 'vulnerability' he responded to say that he had 'mental health' issues and that he was attending a clinic. The only evidence provided was a short email confirming the date of an appointment at a mental health community centre.

 

The LGO stated that the council needed to know how the alledged grounds impacted on the debtors ability to deal with the matters

 

In determining whether there had been any wrongdoing by the council or bailiff the LGO stated that the council should look at whether the PCN’s had been incurred due to ‘unexpected or unforeseeable circumstances' and whether his 'mental health' issue affected his driving or limited in any way his understanding or parking restrictions and regulations.

 

Reviewing the penalty charge notices (there are multiple tickets) the LGO noted that the debtor had made a number of appeals to the council and accordingly it was considered that he was 'capable of understanding, defending and challenging PCN’s'

 

The LGO then stated that even if 'vulnerability' were proven, this would not remove the responsibility on the council to recover the debt. Instead, the council could assist the debtor to repay the debt over a longer period. The council agreed to a repayment proposal of £19 per week (against a debt of over £3,000). The debtor did not pay and instead, asked if the council could accept £5 per week. The LGO found no fault at all with the council and in the absence of any payments (in 14 months) confirmed that the car (worth £10,000) can be sold.

[Peterbard]

Grumpy you have listed some 5 reasons that you would consider as vulnerable I would like to take a little more time to get a more detailed response to it I will post it when I get to a PC...

 

Where was this MM ?

[brassnecked]

Fletch, sorry you were not the target regarding tit for tat.

[Bailiff Advice]

Where was this MM ?

 

I think that you will find that grumps provided the following 5 steps:

 

 

 

Continue as no proof has been seen and claim is not believed for various reasons.

Stop and give x days for debtor to provide proof.

Stop and give x days for debtor to seek help.

Stop and refer case back to client for instruction.

Stop and refer back to client refusing to enforce.

[Peterbard]

I think that you will find that grumps provided the following 5 steps:

 

 

 

Continue as no proof has been seen and claim is not believed for various reasons.

Stop and give x days for debtor to provide proof.

Stop and give x days for debtor to seek help.

Stop and refer case back to client for instruction.

Stop and refer back to client refusing to enforce.

 

Oh I see, i was looking for,"5 reasons that you would consider as vulnerable " not actions taken on a claim of vulnerability.

[Peterbard]

A thread is needed on bailiff enforcement and vulnerability (as opposed to DWP and vulnerability for hardship purposes or benefits) and I will put up a thread over the weekend.

 

The case with the LGO (briefly mentioned above) has now concluded and like all other cases will in time (normally three months) appear on the LGO website. Whether the full report or a shortened version appears will not be known for a while. Needless to say it would not be fair to publish too much information at present but I can safely post the following:

 

The case concerned a debtor with unpaid parking charge notices. The vehicle was taken by bailiffs OVER A YEAR AGO.

 

Out of Time witness statements were submitted (not really too sure why). They were rejected. The debtor did not bother to file N244's to have the decision reviewed.

 

Shortly after the rejection of the Out of Time applications (which was approx 3 months AFTER the car was taken) the debtor contacted the council to say that he was 'vulnerable'. He provided NO evidence at all. In that letter he also claimed that he had not been GIVEN the Notice of Enforcement!!!

 

A short while later an 'internet sourced' (the LGO's description not mine) 'vulnerable household' letter was sent to the council with an alledged ten grounds on which he considered he could be vulnerable. Crucially, no evidence was again provided. This letter included an additional 'Final Resolution' clause with threats of legal action against the council. That letter has largely been responsible for the vehicle remaining in the car pound for a further TEN MONTHS.

 

When the council questioned the debtor on 'vulnerability' he responded to say that he had 'mental health' issues and that he was attending a clinic. The only evidence provided was a short email confirming the date of an appointment at a mental health community centre.

 

The LGO stated that the council needed to know how the alledged grounds impacted on the debtors ability to deal with the matters

 

In determining whether there had been any wrongdoing by the council or bailiff the LGO stated that the council should look at whether the PCN’s had been incurred due to ‘unexpected or unforeseeable circumstances' and whether his 'mental health' issue affected his driving or limited in any way his understanding or parking restrictions and regulations.

 

Reviewing the penalty charge notices (there are multiple tickets) the LGO noted that the debtor had made a number of appeals to the council and accordingly it was considered that he was 'capable of understanding, defending and challenging PCN’s'

 

The LGO then stated that even if 'vulnerability' were proven, this would not remove the responsibility on the council to recover the debt. Instead, the council could assist the debtor to repay the debt over a longer period. The council agreed to a repayment proposal of £19 per week (against a debt of over £3,000). The debtor did not pay and instead, asked if the council could accept £5 per week. The LGO found no fault at all with the council and in the absence of any payments (in 14 months) confirmed that the car (worth £10,000) can be sold.

 

Yes it is a problem. Many advice forums are treating vulnerability as the new debt avoidance tool, after the failure of earlier "advice" this is just the newest idea. Unfortunately it is likely to cause problems for everyone involved as did the previous ideas.

The reason this can never work is of course that the vulnerability provisions have nothing to do with the debt, the debt will exist for as long as the judgement exists. If some vulnerability issue has the effect of prohibiting bailiff action the debt will just be enforced another way.