Do you want to see bailiffs regulated? Read on...

[Peterbard]

Hi

Yes i wa s sent this from Lord lucas.

I did not however agree to back this particular option. this is the reply i sent and his reply to me.

 

Dear Philip

 

Thank you for your e-mail I found it very interesting and informative and agree with most of what is said.

I have been at the forefront of bailiff action on many occasions working for various voluntarry services in the Greater Manchester area and have had may experiances of the way that bailiffs ignore the current legislation. What wories a lot of us is what is going to happen when they are given additional powers to enter properties using force and restrain debtors.

Many of us would welcome the introduction of additional safeguards on baliff actions but unfortunately experience has shown that untill know any legistaion designed to regulate their actions are ignored, the record of prossecution for bailiffs exceeding their powers illustrates this, therefore we feel that the first and most important matter on the agenda is to prevent the bailiffs having the lawfull right to use force on civil warrents. I will however read the ammendments to be tabled by Lord Lucas and consider what has been said

Yours

Peter.Bardsley

 

Dear Peter

 

I agree with you entirely. I think the powers of entry are both confusing and misguided. Although the Minister has said more than once that they restate the present position, and although she is wrong, what's needed is no forced entry to domestic premises under any circumstances without a prior court hearing and a court order. This is the only way to protect the poor and vulnerable - and yet make sure the affluent don't hide provisions designed to protect the poor. But that argument has been exhausted in the Lords and must be resumed in the House of Commons.

 

Another severe flaw in the Bill is the ways that bailiffs are to take control of goods. To avoid removing goods, a bailiff must either have a controlled goods agreement with the debtor or secure goods on the premises. To insist the agreement is with the debtor is too restrictive: the Minister almost agrees and says that it doesn't necessarily have to be with the debtor - but that's what the Bill says and she won't amend it. To say that goods must be secured on the premises suggests some physical security that must surely harm a family's welfare. Both Professor Beatson's report and the White Paper say the goods can be secured by locking them in a room - but just what room should a bailiff commandeer? A bedroom, perhaps? But, again, we exhausted the arguments in the Lords and must return to the fight in the Commons.

 

I am also worried about the use of force against people and am entirely un-satisfied by the Minister saying she won't implement it if its not wanted. It was helpful when she said in Parliament that the power is wanted by High Court Enforcement Officers because now we can say how ridiculous that is. HCEOs already have a power of arrest - they, of all bailiffs, don't need a power to restrain! And we really see how foolish the power is when we compare it with the HCEO's arrest power. Having restrained a debtor, what does the bailiff do with him? The bailiff cannot detain the debtor or arrest him. So what can we expect a debtor to do immediately he is released but to resume obstructing the bailiff. That can only lead to violence! This argument has also been lost in the Lords but I do sense enough dismay that we may be able to resurrect it at the Third Reading.

 

But returning to the issue of regulation, whatever law is enacted -no matter how good it might be - streetwise bailiffs will run rings around it. That's why we need regulation. I think we have no hope of halting the Bill's progress in the Lord's to get proper regulation inserted into the Bill but Lord Lucas's amendment keeps the argument alive and I hope that enough backbench Labour MPs will act to keep it in while we lobby for something better.

 

Finally, I should say that regulation is essential to tackle fee abuse. Again, no matter how tightly drawn the new fee structures are, bailiffs will find ways to exploit them. It will be no good telling abused debtors to start legal action because that will be beyond most of them. I've worked with bailiffs since I was a manager in a county court in the 1980s and, since the poll tax, I have watched how malpractice has become part of the culture. The Government has wanted a free service for too long and even the most honest bailiffs have had to take a liberal attitude to the fee scales. The poison is in the blood and it will take a generation to purge - and then, only with a proactive regulator

 

If you are unable to support Lord Lucas, I of course understand. But I hope his amendment is drawn clearly and widely enough that those who support regulation can express their support for this. I know it falls short of what we all want, but it help us take the fight to the House of Commons.

 

With apologies for another long e-mail - and my best wishes,

 

Philip

I am still strongly of the opinion that the only way to stop this happening is to ensure the Bailliffs are not given the power in the first place then there would be no reason for additional regulation which probably won't work anyway. I have been present in situations where bailiffs have flauted the legal perrogative and then given the debtor a piece of paper saying this is the address if you want to complain,not much use it is the debtors word against theirs and the damage has been done.

Peter