Bailiffs employed by private companies do not possess the authority to arrest, restrain, or detain individuals.

[JS3]

I am deeply troubled by the guidance and inaccurate information shared within this discussion.

Marston's Enforcement Officer invited to house of vulnerable elderly man. - Bailiffs - Help with Dealing with Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents including HCEO - Consumer Action Group

The original poster is navigating the complexities of assisting their elderly uncle, who displays signs of lacking the capacity to manage his affairs, and is facing the threat of arrest.

Allow me to clarify unequivocally: Bailiffs employed by private companies do not possess the authority to arrest, restrain, or detain individuals. This prerogative solely belongs to a constable on duty, identifiable by proper uniform or presentation of a warrant card.

An "no bail" warrant under Section 117 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 has never granted arrest powers to a company. It appears that an individual in this discussion, potentially a bailiff, is spreading misinformation by suggesting that agents have the authority to make arrests.

The guidance referencing section 50 of the now-repealed Magistrate's Courts Act 1952 was sourced from an operational manual distributed by Marston (Holdings) Limited to trainee agents. Upon examination, this advice was found to be inaccurate, misleading, and outdated.

The concept that a limited company can be sanctioned to conduct arrests is entirely unfounded.

Furthermore, the designation "Enforcement Officer" is misleading; these individuals are simply enforcement agents and lack the authority to conduct a "financial assessment" of debtors. This responsibility is vested in the court under Section 88(8) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

I noticed that the aforementioned post received commendation from a user purporting to possess expertise in bailiff regulations, which is concerning.

The term "welfare department" originates from an article published in the CIVEA newsletter to its members in 2014, encouraging compliance with Regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Parliament has never endorsed the creation of such a department by a company.

The correct and sole course of action for the original poster's uncle is to ascertain whether he has established a Lasting Power of Attorney. If not, they should pursue Deputyship under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The appointed attorney or deputy can inform the court and the bailiff that the debtor lacks capacity, and all assets are held in trust under the administration of the attorney or deputy.

While I acknowledge that many contributors to this platform may not possess expertise in legal matters, the guidance provided here poses a risk to the original poster's uncle, necessitating my intervention, a step I would not typically take.

[dx100uk]

 

25 minutes ago, JS3 said:

a step I would not typically take.

why not....??

We value informed help and need it badly over many threads here over these and other bailiff matters that are mostly simply ignored by many people that do know.

please feel free to help us out whenever you can.

dx

 

[blfuk1]

I think my username makes it fairly clear I am a bailiff and have been for over 40 years.  I only post advice when I am confident it is correct and do not post 'opinions' or make judgments. - I simply seek to correct errors which may guide someone in the wrong direction to prevent further detriment.

I have personally undertaken many arrests before being ''elevated' to a desk, the first in 1989 for unpaid general rates. I have bailed individuals or arrested them and transported them to either a court or a police station for custody and transported several unfortunates directly to prison.

The Ministry of Justice contacts Approved Enforcement Agencies (AEA) (currently Marstons, CDER and Jacobs - I don't work for any of them) to provide enforcement services to execute warrants of control and warrants of arrest (financial arrest warrants, with and without bail, community penalty breach warrants, which long ago were the preserve of the police and committal warrants - arresting and transporting straight a defendant to prison).

That I'm afraid is an absolute fact.  I would say, without fear of contradiction, that between the three AEAs, they execute tens of thousands of arrest warrants each year.  In the last round of tenders for the contracts, the three companies were required to employ [TUPE] the court employed civilian enforcement officers [who only undertook arrest warrants and were also civilians!]. Prior to that contract, arrests were undertaken either by the CEOs or the AEA.  In some regions, the vast majority of arrests were undertaken by AEAs and have been for the past 20 odd years since the transfer of responsibility [for arrest warrants] from the police to the magistrates' courts under the Access to Justice Act 1999.

s.93 of that Act dealt with authorising AEAs and The Approval of Enforcement Agencies Regulations 2000 set out the detail.  Those Regs have since been superseded by Schedule 4A to the MCA 1980 which was inserted into that Act by the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004.  

AEAs are appointed by the Lord Chancellor/Secretary of State for Justice and persons employed by the AEA are 'authorised' to execute warrants of arrest under section 125B of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.  Schedule 4A to the Act sets out powers of entry, search and the use of force to undertake an arrest.

However, as noted, local authorities have long since issued arrest warrants to 'bailiffs' since at least the early eighties.

In short, it is not factually correct to say that "Bailiffs employed by private companies do not possess the authority to arrest, restrain, or detain individuals. This prerogative solely belongs to a constable on duty, identifiable by proper uniform or presentation of a warrant card." 

While the EA is not acting as an EA when arresting people, it is EAs in the vast majority of cases [and not constables] that are dealing with arrests.  Some of the AEAs will employ persons who do nothing but arrests and do not act as EAs at all.

 

  

 

Edited March 4 by blfuk1
error

[JS3]

The legislation cited, namely section 93 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, amends section 125 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, stipulating that no-bail warrants must be executed exclusively by a "civilian enforcement officer." Furthermore, section 125b elucidates that such an officer is an individual employed by a specified authority and authorised to execute warrants.

It is important to note that this legislation does not confer upon enforcement agents the authority to arrest individuals.

It is conceivable that there may be confusion between civilian enforcement officers and enforcement agents, each governed by distinct legal frameworks dictating their respective roles. It is imperative to expressly clarify that enforcement agents do not possess the power to arrest debtors.

Upon investigation, records indicate an incident where a civilian enforcement officer attempted to arrest a debtor but was incapacitated during a confrontation. Subsequently, the debtor claimed self-defence. Further inquiry revealed that the debtor had received a document suggesting that the enforcement agent possessed the authority to arrest, despite lacking the physical capability to do so.

Given the circumstances outlined in this discussion, wherein the individual lacks mental capacity, arresting them and transporting them to a police station is unlikely to be a prudent course of action without incurring potential legal liabilities. Therefore, I maintain that the advice provided to the original poster may deviate from the assistance they require.

Additionally, the assertion that enforcement companies execute "tens of thousands of arrest warrants each year" is debatable. This claim would imply an arrest rate of one person per 2500 individuals in the population of England and Wales annually, whereas only a single instance has been publicly documented, dating back over a decade.

While civilian enforcement officers possess the authority to effectuate arrests, it is my belief that the content of your post could mislead members of this website into overestimating the powers bestowed upon enforcement agents.

[blfuk1]

The point I was making was that someone employed by Marstons as an enforcement agent, can also be directed to execute an arrest warrant and this is often the case.  Clearly, he cannot have a warrant of control [to act as a ‘bailiff’] and a warrant of arrest at the same time for the same offence against the same person – ‘dual process’ is not permissible.

I noted this because your previous post stated [incorrectly] that bailiffs employed by private companies do not possess the authority to arrest, restrain or detain individuals and that only a constable could.

The fact is that the three Approved Enforcement Agencies contracted by MoJ to deliver services to HMCTS, including Marstons, also execute warrants of arrest, detention and committal.  They can assign those arrest warrants to any of their authorised employees, including enforcement agents.

s.125A of the Magistrates’ Court Act states:

(1) A warrant to which this subsection applies may be executed anywhere in England & Wales by a civilian enforcement officer.

(3) The warrants to which subsection (1) applies are any warrant of arrest, commitment, detention …..

s.125B states

(1) A warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies may also be executed anywhere in England & Wales:

d. by an employee of an approved enforcement agency who is authorised in writing by the agency to execute warrants.

Accordingly, Marstons can authorise any of their employees, including certificated enforcement agents, to execute a warrant of arrest!

In terms of volumes, it is no exaggeration to say tens of thousands – I believe the current figure for all types of arrest warrant dealt with by the Approved Enforcement Agencies is around 150,000 with Marstons responsible for some 60,000 per annum in three regions, S West, N West and N East of England.

While this is not much help to Sprouting, he should at least be aware that Marston’s employees CAN execute a warrant of arrest against his uncle.  Considering his circumstances, it is unlikely they would, provided they are given the full facts and that these can be evidenced.

[dx100uk]

discussion thread created here now .

please post to this thread.

dx

 

[Nicky Boy]

I can see this situation creating problems with the public.

I, for one would resist in the strongest way possible to being "arrested" by someone who just appears to be a bailiff.

[BazzaS]

Why?

a) ANY citizen can arrest another (though it is likely unwise if they aren’t sure of their ground). If arrested it isn’t wise to resist unless fearful for one’s safety : best move is to say “OK, you’ve arrested me, now call the police to ensure no breach of the peace”

(and a civil action for unlawful arrest +\- possibly false imprisonment) - even if the CPS  feel the threshold for criminal charges of false imprisonment haven’t been met.

b) if they say the arrest is under a warrant: ask to see the warrant. If no warrant - or if unsure - again, police to ensure no breach of the peace.

Edited March 5 by BazzaS

[JS3]

I am affirming that you intentionally disseminated misleading information to an individual entrusted with the welfare of his vulnerable uncle, who sought advice and assistance on this platform in good faith while confronting the threat of arrest by a bailiff.

It is evident to me that you likely did so under the influence of 'bailiff advice' whom I now discern, based on her preceding contributions on this platform and her prior identity, to possess a lengthy history of disseminating inaccurate information regarding bailiffs. She consistently utilises proxies to disseminate such misinformation and promptly extends commendations as demonstrated in this discussion.

It is apparent to me that your username 'blf1uk' previously operated under an alternate identity, as evinced by the consistent utilisation of language and methodologies on this platform, alongside endorsements from 'bailiff advice.' This former persona, identified as "HCEOs," was uncovered in 2015 by an investigative journalist from the Observer Newspaper. Given your linguistic proficiency mirroring that of HCEOs, it is reasonable to infer that you are indeed xxxxxx a High Court Enforcement Officer.

This leads me back to your prior assertion of possessing an extensive 40-year career as a bailiff. Online public records corroborate your birth year as 1977. This disparity suggests that you misrepresented yourself to the participants of this website by insinuating that you conducted street arrests at the age of 7, a period when you would have been attending primary school!

Edited March 5 by dx100uk
name removed