Time to think again about an enforcment ombudsman?

[Coughdrop]

An interesting timeline here:

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Migrated_Documents/corporate/bailiff-timeline.pdf

[Coughdrop]

The webpage suggests this is up to date - perhaps someone can correct this if it is incorrect:

 

To my mind, the Local Government Ombudsman are perfectly well able to deal with complaints and they do a very good job and seem to fully understand the enforcement regulations. I have frequently posted copies of decision from them on this section of the forum.

 

The above comment is interesting, as a page from the CAB states the following:

 

Only some complaints about bailiffs were dealt with by existing independent ombudsman services. For example, the Local Government Ombudsman dealt with complaints about bailiffs employed by local authorities. However, there was no such organisation to deal with complaints about bailiffs collecting all other debts.

 

This would seem to indicate the LGO is not able to deal with all complaints regarding enforcement, as not all enforcement activity comes within their remit. There needs to be another independent body for areas not covered by the LGO.

 

I'll return to the issue of regulation for people / companies who charge for enforcement advice later. This is becoming a very interesting area.

[ploddertom]

Originally Posted by Someone said

To my mind, the Local Government Ombudsman are perfectly well able to deal with complaints and they do a very good job and seem to fully understand the enforcement regulations. I have frequently posted copies of decision from them on this section of the forum.

 

If you are going to quote from someone can you at least have the decency to let us know who that is rather than the non-descript name you have used above.

[Peterbard]

Originally Posted by Someone said

To my mind, the Local Government Ombudsman are perfectly well able to deal with complaints and they do a very good job and seem to fully understand the enforcement regulations. I have frequently posted copies of decision from them on this section of the forum.

 

If you are going to quote from someone can you at least have the decency to let us know who that is rather than the non-descript name you have used above.

 

I would personally prefer it if people comment on the subject rather than quote what other people say in this manner PT.

[Coughdrop]

If you are going to quote from someone can you at least have the decency to let us know who that is rather than the non-descript name you have used above.

 

It seems I can do no right at present. Last time I used names the person complained about it. It was because of that complaint that this time I anonymised it. I'm not inclined to risk further hostility by naming people. I'd rather have the hostility of not naming them!

 

Name people it's wrong, don't name them it's wrong. Very bizarre.

 

It is a quotation from this thread though, and the person was not directly relevant to the context which was the comparison with the CAB position mentioned in the same post. I believe the post makes a potentially valid point if it is up to date. Can you shed light on that?

[ploddertom]

It seems I can do no right at present. Last time I used names the person complained about it. It was because of that complaint that this time I anonymised it. I'm not inclined to risk further hostility by naming people. I'd rather have the hostility of not naming them!

 

Name people it's wrong, don't name them it's wrong. Very bizarre.

 

It is a quotation from this thread though, and the person was not directly relevant to the context which was the comparison with the CAB position mentioned in the same post. I believe the post makes a potentially valid point if it is up to date. Can you shed light on that?

 

The link you alluded to has very little to do with the context of this thread.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[honeybee13]

Off topic post removed.

 

HB

[Coughdrop]

It was very relevant. If you read it, you'll understand. I can see you seem a little angry, unjustified, but hey ho!

 

BA states one thing - CAB state something further (not different as such, they include BA's bit, but go further with it). If BA's bit was relevant, the CAB bit is most definitely relevant. Itf BA's bit was not relevant, it should be deleted along with the post by me.

 

Simples!

[Bailiff Advice]

Last time I used names the person complained about it. It was because of that complaint that this time I anonymised it.

 

 

Coughdrop,

 

As you will know, I have a passion for accurate information. I therefore should be permitted to correct your above post.

 

I complained today because on two occasions, you deliberately referred to the name of my website....not my name....not my username...but my website.

 

The thread title alone was selected by Wonkeydonkey and anyone contributing to the 'discussion' thread, would have been in no doubt whatsoever, that the thread was intended to address the subject of whether or not it was 'time to think again about an enforcement ombudsman'.

 

Instead, of addressing this point, you took the discussion 'off topic' and used it instead to steer the subject towards whether or not individuals or companies providing 'advice' to debtors should be subject to regulatory control. Your reference to my website was a clear and blatantly obvious 'dig' .

 

PS: You have also made repeated complaints to moderators today about one word that a respected member on the forum used in one of her posts. You accused her of making you ill.

 

Can we please now get back to the subject matter of this thread.

[Bailiff Advice]

The following link is to an excellent page from the CAB website which highlights the extraordinary efforts that have been taken over a ten year period to 'regulate' and modernise the bailiff industry.

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Migrated_Documents/corporate/bailiff-timeline.pdf

 

It should be noted though that the page is not up to date. The last entry was in 2013 (a year before Part 3 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act was implemented).

[Coughdrop]

The following link is to an excellent page from the CAB website which highlights the extraordinary efforts that have been taken over a ten year period to 'regulate' and modernise the bailiff industry.

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Migrated_Documents/corporate/bailiff-timeline.pdf

 

It should be noted though that the page is not up to date. The last entry was in 2013 (a year before Part 3 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act was implemented).

 

Thank you BA. I started post 28 asking people to correct it if it was out of date, but the page bore this year's date, so I assumed it was fair to post it. It might have been fair to assume it was up to date, and maybe it is?

 

I'll read your link with interest, thank you.

[Coughdrop]

The following link is to an excellent page from the CAB website which highlights the extraordinary efforts that have been taken over a ten year period to 'regulate' and modernise the bailiff industry.

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Migrated_Documents/corporate/bailiff-timeline.pdf

 

It should be noted though that the page is not up to date. The last entry was in 2013 (a year before Part 3 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act was implemented).

 

See post 26. I think you'll find it is exactly the same link, and yes, it is an excellent page - that is why I posted it. I wonder how many actually bothered to view it? Not a dig - a comment. Clearly you, at least, had overlooked it. It is worthy of a second mention though.

[Bailiff Advice]

The following link is to an excellent page from the CAB website which highlights the extraordinary efforts that have been taken over a ten year period to 'regulate' and modernise the bailiff industry.

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/Global/Migrated_Documents/corporate/bailiff-timeline.pdf

 

It should be noted though that the page is not up to date. The last entry was in 2013 (a year before Part 3 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act was implemented).

 

The following statement from that page is also not accurate.

 

Only some complaints about bailiffs were dealt with by existing independent ombudsman services.

 

For example, the Local Government Ombudsman dealt with complaints about bailiffs employed by local authorities.

 

However, there was no such organisation to deal with complaints about bailiffs collecting all other debts.

 

As mentioned above, the new regulations came into effect in April 2014. Having checked with the Local Government Ombudsman site today it would appear that in the two years since the regulations came into effect, they have dealt with the following:

 

304 enquiries relating to a council tax complaint that involved bailiff enforcement.

 

418 enquiries relating to enforcement of an unpaid penalty charge notice (including congestion charging) that involved bailiff enforcement.

 

Taking the above into consideration, I am quite content with my earlier comment that the Local Government Ombudsman are perfectly suited to deal with complaints.

[Coughdrop]

Superb! That is why I posted it, to ask if it was accurate.

 

Forgive my ignorance here, but CT is clearly public authorities. Are PCN's not issued by public authorities?

 

My understanding is the LGO look at final complaints for councils and some other organisations which provide public services. They would not, therefore, look at complaints about say, a CCJ moved up to the High Court for enforcement.

 

This is what I took the CAB view to mean - those other debt streams need regulation also.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Coughdrop

[AndyOrch]

Thread now closed