Sometimes things go wrong with enforcement

[mikeymack2002]

Sometimes things go wrong with enforcement and it pays to complain to your LA see the attachment regarding how thing can go if the EA doesn't follow the correct procedure... Complaining to the LA and NOT by going to Court could change peoples views on how to complain about an EA... Any thoughts?

 

 

Has anyone read this report from the LGO? John Kruse was quoted in this complaint....

 

 

 

'Council Tax

Mr D complains on behalf of Mr B and Mr C about the actions of a bailiff employed by Rossendales (a company of enforcement agents) instructed by the Council to collect council tax arrears owed by Mr B. In December 2013 the bailiff visited Mr B while he was staying with Mr C and threatened to remove and sell goods owned by Mr C to clear the debt. Mr C paid Mr B’s debt, but Mr D says this was only under duress'.

 

Information gathered from here >> http://www.lgo.org.uk/downloads/CO%20Benefits%20and%20tax/2015-2016/2193-13-019-267-Bury-MBC-22-July-2015.pdf

[Bailiff Advice]

The LGO report was not generally discussed on here in July given that the events complained about happened in 2013 which was before the new(ish) regulations came into effect in April 2014.

 

Also, the local authority came in for a great deal of criticism ( and rightly so I think).

 

At the time (2013) most bailiffs tended to rely upon the court of appeal case of Observer v Gordon which regrettably ruled that bailiffs could assume that all goods in the property belonged to the debtor. Thankfully, the new regulations have done away with this daft notion and the position now is that the bailiff has to have 'good reason' to believe that the goods are owned by the debtor. There is now far more responsibility placed on the enforcement agent as well given that he can only take control of goods 'belonging' to the debtor.

 

The other area of criticism concerns the bailiff and providing identification. Unfortunately, poor internet advice leads debtors into believing that a bailiff enforcing a council tax debt should provide a copy of a Liability Order. This is simply untrue. What he does need to provide is a copy of his 'authority'. This is satisfied by producing a copy of correspondence from the council confirming that the enforcement agent is instructed by them to pursue the liability order.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

At the time (2013) most bailiffs tended to rely upon the court of appeal case of Observer v Gordon which regrettably ruled that bailiffs could assume that all goods in the property belonged to the debtor. Thankfully, the new regulations have done away with this daft notion and the position now is that the bailiff has to have 'good reason' to believe that the goods are owned by the debtor. There is now far more responsibility placed on the enforcement agent as well given that he can only take control of goods 'belonging' to the debtor.

 

 

The position now is that if the enforcement agent takes control of goods that belong to another person then the 'third party' would need to write to the enforcement agent as outlined under section 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

Thankfully, the LGO report makes clear the importance of ensure that enforcement is not only carried out in accordance with legislation.....but must also be in accordance with the contract between the enforcement agent and the relevant local authority. The problem with this of course is that the individual enforcement agent would not have a clue about what is in a contract and accordingly, responsibility must rest with those carrying out the training functions at the enforcement agency.

[ericsbrother]

To me the most worrying but unsurprising thing is that the council just took Rosser's word for it all and even agreed to write what Rossers wanted in their investigation report apparently without investigating anything. I believe that this is because there is a mindset at most council's housing and benefits depts that those they come into contact with are all unworthy ****.

[Bailiff Advice]

To me the most worrying but unsurprising thing is that the council just took Rosser's word for it all and even agreed to write what Rossers wanted in their investigation report apparently without investigating anything. .

 

No doubt about it at all. The LGO has made clear that the council have made a huge number of mistakes.

 

The LGO were also critical of the procedures surrounding the body worn camera. I know of one company that have now stopped using them pending further discussions with the Information Commissioners Office.

[andydd]

To me the most worrying but unsurprising thing is that the council just took Rosser's word for it all and even agreed to write what Rossers wanted in their investigation report apparently without investigating anything. I believe that this is because there is a mindset at most council's housing and benefits depts that those they come into contact with are all unworthy ****.

 

Indeed, complaints to the bailiff, Rossendales and the council did nothing, its not untill this final appeal to the ombudsman do things get sorted, alas Mr B was dead by then ! Pretty despicable behavior by them all especially the council right from the beginning as it was clear he genuinely had no money anyway and couldnt possibly realistically agree to any sort of plan.

[mikeymack2002]

So a serious question to ask here what has been learned from this mistake? Not much has been printed about this subject. Although I as well as others hope that these points have been taken seriously. Has anyone got any other cases similar to this that have happened post '14? That would be interesting reading to say the least!..

 

 

I am going to spend some more time reading up on much newer complaints and similar cases and hope to see this will be hard. But if there are any known case perhaps these could be posted on this thread to see if there are still any erroneous practises being practised....

 

 

A final question I would ask is does the EA still have that much power as to create and keep an issue like this continuing on as though they are above the law?

[ericsbrother]

I like the idea of body cameras. I dont like the idea the wearer can turn them off when it suits them.

[mikeymack2002]

I think they should be worn when out of the vans, but there is a data protection issue, or the camera may see something that should not be captured. Let alone recorded. In public that's fine but when in someone's home that is a no-no unless its the Police....

[Bailiff Advice]

So a serious question to ask here what has been learned from this mistake? Not much has been printed about this subject. Although I as well as others hope that these points have been taken seriously. Has anyone got any other cases similar to this that have happened post '14? That would be interesting reading to say the least!..

 

I am going to spend some more time reading up on much newer complaints and similar cases and hope to see this will be hard. But if there are any known case perhaps these could be posted on this thread to see if there are still any erroneous practises being practised....

 

Any known case of serious wrongdoing would normally appear on SCOOP. There really are much rarer. The truth of the matter is that there are significantly less complaints since the new regulations have come into effect. EAC2 complaints are much rarer. Interpleaders applications are almost none existent. Also, since the new(it) regs more enforcement companies have dedicated Welfare Department and in fact, having such a department is more likely to help wins bids for new local authority work.

 

I have been posting for a very long time on here (since 2007) and also to a much lesser amount on other forums. Since the new regulations came into effect the following is true:

 

The number of 'bailiff' enquiries on LB has dwindled to such an extent that they are lucky to receive one or two enquiries a week.

 

Money Saving Expert (MSE) is another example. One or maybe two enquiries possibly a day.

 

This forum also has less enquiries.

 

The 'Guru's site is now almost reserved for enquiries from debtors who had believed the nonsense about paying the court or council direct and are now facing further bailiff action.

 

The Facebook sites have now mainly gone the Freeman on the Land /debt avoidance route and are being shunned by genuine debtors. They continue to be monitored by bailiffs and with comments such as one yesterday (to heat up cooking oil to throw at a bailiff) this is necessary.

 

The GOODFY site (FMoTL)...just one enquiry in the past two weeks.

 

The fact of the matter is that more and more people (in particular for parking ticket debts) are paying in full within the compliance stage or with council tax and court fines, setting up a payment arrangement (during the compliance stage).