Last chance to hinder the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill

[Recycler]

When the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill was first published in July 2006, the limited consultation was timed to prevent scrutiny by a Parliamentary Committee and to limit responses from stakeholders. An e-mail from officials explained they would not hold meetings or enter into correspondence to discuss concerns and that no significant changes would be made to the Bill. Since the Bill began to go through Parliament in November, Government Ministers have taken very little notice of stakeholders’ concerns. On Wednesday (27 June) the Bill is expected to become law. This is the last chance anybody has to prevent what most people think is bad law.

 

We need YOU to ACT NOW! Write to your MP or use "They work for You"

 

 

Over the past year I have heard the proposed new law condemned by advice agencies, creditor groups and bailiff associations. As chair of the Enforcement Law Reform Group, I’ve come to realise that what these various organisations want isn’t incompatible but the Government has stonewalled all of them.

 

It seems to me that if the Bill is to be stopped, all the interest groups must target the most vulnerable part. I think this is the bailiffs’ powers of entry and re-entry for bailiffs in Schedule 12, paragraphs 14-30. These paragraphs are ‘gobbledygook’: legalise that is so hard to understand that even people who agree with the intention think they should be redrafted. The Plain English Campaign thinks the paragraphs have a good chance of winning its annual Golden Bull Award later this year.

 

The paragraphs affirm the existing right of forced entry to people’s homes created by the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 and create a new procedure for bailiffs to force entry to premises in all other cases. The paragraphs also curtail an existing right of re-entry for bailiffs in a way that makes it more likely that bailiffs will remove goods earlier than is usually the case now.

 

Austin Mitchell MP, a senior backbench Labour MP has tabled an amendment to the offending paragraphs that is worded more logically and clearly. Crucially, the amendment prevents all forced entry to people’s homes. If Parliament were to support this, I believe it would delay the Bill and create an opportunity to try to get other important changes.

 

If you agree, you should rally support by contacting your own MP and asking him or her to support Austin Mitchell’s amendment.

 

A couple of days ago, the Government responded to an E Petition on the Prime Minister’s website calling for the provisions for forced entry and custodial offence for obstructing a bailiff to be removed from the Bill. The response is a smokescreen: it explains only on the new procedure for forced entry and conveniently ignores the existing power of forced entry created by the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 (which the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill affirms). I do not believe that it is candid about the impact the Bill will have on ordinary people.

 

Wednesday is the last opportunity to hinder the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill. If you think that worth the effort, please contact your MP and ask him or her to vote for Austin Mitchell’s amendment.

 

Please feel free to post on your website or circulate this message.

 

Philip Evans

[SOMEFRIENDLYUK]

Thanks for the link recycler-i have sent my first letter to my MP as a result. Lets hope Austin Mitchell carries the day.

[Saffronflowers]

I had a meeting with my MP on Friday and highlighted this - he was truly shocked and said that he would get on to his committee dealing with this, especially with the damning evidence that I had of ghost visits.

 

SFx

[Recycler]

OUTLINE NOTE FOR MPs Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill

 

 

The following information maybe useful to you if you choose to support the amendment tabled by Austin Mitchell MP about bailiffs’ powers of entry and re-entry. While I have no wish to see the Government defeated on the day we get a new Prime Minister, it’s the amendment most likely to be supported by backbench Labour MPs.

 

First, the powers of entry and re-entry in the Bill (Schedule 12, paragraphs 14-30) are gobbledygook and the Plain English Campaign thinks they’re a front-runner for the annual Golden Bull Award. Opposition attempts in the lords and Commons to substitute a clear version were rebuffed and the Minister, Vera Baird, defended the paragraphs as ‘good statutory language’.

 

Second, the bailiff industry isn’t going to be sufficiently regulated to ensure these powers will be used properly. I’m NOT saying that a majority of bailiffs would abuse the powers but regulation will not hinder unscrupulous bailiffs. The Government’s promise to implement additional powers of forced entry only when the Security Industry Authority regulates bailiffs is unrealistically optimistic. SIA regulation will be less effective than what we have now. At the moment, someone can complain about a bailiff, and get redress, even if what the bailiff did wrong isn’t so bad that he or she should lose his certificate. As the Government’s own consultation paper makes clear, under the SIA a debtor won’t get any redress even if the bailiff loses his licence!

 

Third, at the moment, Government does little or nothing to ensure that local councils use only certificated bailiffs to enforce council tax, business rates and parking penalties. The Government’s own estimate of 1,482 certificated bailiffs and 1,200 un-certificated indicates that perhaps half of bailiffs are allowed to act unlawfully. Why should we believe Government would be more diligent in the future?

 

Fourth, Government does little or nothing to comply with it’s own National Standards for Enforcement Agents or to ensure that local authorities and magistrates’ courts conform. This leadership vacuum encourages people get away with whatever they can. Again, if Government does not observe its own standards now, what can change?

 

Fifth, Government does little or nothing to monitor the forced entry power it created in the Domestic Violence Crime & Victims Act 2004. The statistics produced at the Second Reading, and in response to a subsequent PQ, expose poor control and the very wide gap between what Ministers think is happening on the streets and what is actually happening. With this track record, why should we believe the Government will do any better when bailiffs get still tougher powers under the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill?

 

Sixth, Government Ministers have failed to act on their own criticisms of un-certificated bailiffs. (For example, Vera Baird MP in an interview with The World Tonight, broadcast by Radio 4 on 12 June 2007.) They don’t acknowledge that only the Ministry of Justice and HM Revenue & Customs can contract un-certificated bailiffs. The criticisms are, in fact, a smokescreen of unfair generalisations but the Government’s failure to do what it thinks is right is all too evident.

 

Seventh, the Government has no incentive to regulate bailiffs. Bailiffs collect £billions of Government revenue and across central and local Government, and among the police and judiciary, there is instutionalised complacency about the behaviour of bailiffs. In spite of the rhetoric, nobody wants to rock the boat because the money is too important. Why should that change if the Government gets its own way under the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill?

 

Eighth, when the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act was going through Parliament, the Government did not make clear the magnitude of the change it was making to English law. The power of forced entry was a last minute amendment to a Bill that had nothing to do with bailiffs and the Minister responsible told MPs that it was to close a loophole in the law. As there was no consultation, the advice agencies and bailiff associations didn’t know what was happening and so couldn’t point out that the change was breaching two fundamental principles of English law. These were that ‘an Englishman’s home is his castle’ and that criminal fines should be treated like civil debts so that enforcement didn’t constitute an additional punishment. Can we now believe the Government is being entirely candid about the impact of the new powers in the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill?

 

Ninth, the Government has created so many new fines and penalties that it has warped our sense of what is ‘criminal’. When Ministers defend the need to force entry to homes on the basis that the defaulter has been found guilty of a crime, it insults our intelligence. Many will have had only fixed penalty notices. And in any event, many ‘traditional’ crimes today are poverty-related and so fines are a shortsighted punishment. I have no fondness for rowdy drunks, litterbugs or people who ride bikes on pavements but I’m not convinced their behaviour makes them criminals. And I don’t think that failure to pay fines should mean that they and their families lose their right to the privacy of the homes when bailiffs break in. Shouldn’t we work for better way of dealing with such social problems in a civilised society?

 

Tenth, money has become so divisive in our society, and there is such incentive to use it recklessly, that there should be limits on how debt is enforced. As a personal finance tutor, I am less concerned about irresponsible lending and irresponsible borrowing than I am about irresponsible marketing that creates the pressure to spend. It’s not just advertising: the way the media portrays ‘normal’ life through soap operas and other drama all adds to the pressure on people to live above their means. I realise that many people are in debt through no fault of their own. And I’m not excusing people who get themselves into debt. But they and their families shouldn’t have to lose their right to the privacy of their own homes. Where there’s no social justice, there’s no justice at all. Can’t we find a better solution to the UK’s overindebtedness problems than onerous bailiff law?

 

Philip Evans 0020 8319 8888 (tel & fax) pip AT moneyabuse DOT org (e-mail)

 

WriteToThem.com - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free a great way to lobby your politicians.

[Guest Herbie]

Thank you Recycler for posting Philips Evans's note.

 

I have spoken with Philip today and he has kindly drafted a letter that can be sent out to MP's.

 

I would like to first explain just what can happen if this Bill passes on WEDNESDAY without Austin Mitchell's amendments. Remember Wednesday is the day that Tony Blair leaves office, and is a "good day" to bury bad news.

 

This bill, in it's present state, is bad news.

 

As we know, at present, a bailiff is ONLY allowed to enter into homes by "peaceful means". By that, he can enter through an open door etc, or by being invited in. He CANNOT force entry unless enforcing fines or income tax arrears. If allowed to pass, this Bill will change this......and more.

 

The Bill proposes that a bailiff can, with prior judicial permission, FORCE ENTRY into your domestic premises to take your goods to sell.

 

If this is not bad enough, under the Bill, it will be an offence for any person who intentionally obstructs the bailiff, and you can be liable on summary conviction to IMPRISONMENT for a maximum of 51 WEEKS or a FINE not exceeding £2,500 or BOTH.

 

This will not only apply to unpaid council tax, business rates, parking charge notices etc, but to County Court Judgments which can cover a variety of civil debts.

 

The following letter can be sent to individual MP's by e-mail, by no later than Wednesday morning.

 

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.

 

 

 

 

[Name and address of sender]

 

[Name of MP]

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

 

[Date]

 

 

Dear …

 

TRIBUNALS, COURTS & ENFORCEMENT BILL : BAILIFFS’ POWERS

 

I am writing to ask you to support an amendment to the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill tabled by Austin Mitchell MP. The amendment will set out bailiffs’ powers of entry and re-entry in a much clearer way than that what’s in Schedule 12, paragraphs 14-30. The amendment also omits any power for forced entry to people’s homes.

 

Please consider the following.

 

The powers of entry and re-entry in the Bill are gobbledygook and the Plain English Campaign thinks they're a front-runner for its annual Golden Bull Award. All attempts in the Lords and Commons to substitute a clear version were rebuffed and the Minister, Vera Baird, defended the paragraphs as ‘good statutory language’.

 

Bailiffs aren’t going to be sufficiently regulated to ensure these powers will be used properly. The Government’s promise to implement additional powers of forced entry only when the Security Industry Authority regulates bailiffs is unrealistic. SIA regulation will be less effective than what we have now. At the moment, someone can complain about a bailiff, and get redress, even if what the bailiff did wrong isn’t so bad that he or she should lose his certificate. As the Government’s own consultation paper makes clear, under the SIA a debtor won’t get any redress even if the bailiff loses his licence!

 

At the moment, Government departments fail to ensure that local councils use only certificated bailiffs to enforce council tax, business rates and parking penalties. The Government’s own estimate of 1,482 certificated bailiffs and 1,200 un-certificated indicates that perhaps half of bailiffs are allowed to act unlawfully. Why should we believe this would change?

 

Government Ministers have failed to act on their own criticisms of un-certificated bailiffs. They don’t acknowledging that only the Ministry of Justice and HM Revenue & Customs can contract un-certificated bailiffs to enforce income tax, vat and fines. The criticisms are, in fact, a smokescreen of unfair generalisations but the Government’s failure to do what it thinks is right is all too evident.

 

Government has no incentive to regulate bailiffs. Bailiffs collect £billions of Government revenue. Across central and local Government, and among the police and judiciary, there is instutionalised complacency about the behaviour of bailiffs. In spite of the rhetoric, nobody wants to rock the boat because the money is too important.

 

Government does little or nothing to monitor the forced entry power it created in the Domestic Violence Crime & Victims Act 2004. The statistics produced at the Second Reading, and in response to a subsequent PQ, expose poor control - and the very wide gap between what Ministers think is happening on the streets and what is actually happening. With this track record, why should we believe things would improve if bailiffs were given still tougher powers?

 

When the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act was going through Parliament, the Government did not make clear the magnitude of the change it was making to English law. The power of forced entry was a last minute amendment to a Bill that had nothing to do with bailiffs and the Minister responsible told MPs that it was to close a loophole in the law. As there was no consultation, the advice agencies and bailiff associations didn’t know what was happening and so couldn’t point out that the change was breaching two fundamental principles of English law. There is now doubt that the Government is being entirely candid about the impact of the new powers in the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill.

 

Government has created so many new fines and penalties that it has warped our sense of what is ‘criminal’. When Ministers defend the need to force entry to homes on the basis that the defaulter has been found guilty of a crime, many will in fact have had only fixed penalty notices. Without wishing to condone rowdy drunks, litterbugs or people who ride bikes on pavements, their behaviour shouldn’t mean that they and their families lose their right to the privacy of their homes when bailiffs break in.

 

Money has become so divisive in our society, and there is such incentive to use it recklessly, that there should be limits on how debt is enforced. I realise that many people are in debt through no fault of their own. And irresponsible marketing by banks and credit companies, plus TV portals of a ‘normal’ way of life, create unprecedented pressure on others to borrow and spend. There must be better solution to the UK’s overindebtedness problems than letting bailiffs break into people’s homes.

 

When the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill was first published in July 2006, the limited consultation was timed to prevent scrutiny by a Parliamentary Committee. An e-mail from officials explained they would not hold meetings or enter into correspondence with stakeholders and that no major changes would be made to the Bill. Contrary to what the Government claims, the bailiff provisions in the Bill are not based squarely on the findings of its enforcement review and so the new bailiff law has been criticised by bailiff associations as well as advice agencies and creditor groups. Since the Bill began to go through Parliament in November, Government Ministers have taken very little notice of stakeholders’ concerns.

 

For these reasons, please support Mr Mitchell’s amendment.

 

Yours sincerely…

 

 

 

[Name of sender]

[Saffronflowers]

You can use this link to email them

 

WriteToThem.com - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

[Belaflat]

Austin is my MP, I might just vote for him next time around.

[alexteh]

Sent a letter to my MP (Michael Howarth)

[Belaflat]

Amendment dfeated on wegnesday.

[seanamarts]

I have had a response from my local MP Douglas Carswell.

His reply as follows;

 

Thank you very much for contacting me recently about the bailiff industry.

 

As your member of parliament, I believe that those people who have a debt owed to them have the right to have that debt enforced, however there must be a balance between this right and fair enforcement of debts.

 

I welcome some of the new rules in relation to seizure and control of goods that are contained in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill and it is all welcome that the different rules that used to apply to different debts are being removed in favour of a single system. However, given the new powers in this Bill, and the increased powers that were contained in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victim Act 2004, I believe that it is time for a proper system of certification and we think that there should be a clear regulatory system for bailiffs.

 

I welcome the fact, that following pressure from Conservatives, the Government have agreed not to implement the powers to apply for reasonable force until the regulatory system that they have promised is in place. However, I still have great concerns about other elements of the Bill, including the changes being made to the ancient common law right of resisting entry to your home.

 

Conservatives will be pressing the Government to secure safeguards to protect vulnerable people, including single women and those with children. If these safeguards are not secured we will vote against this Bill.

 

Once again thank you for taking the time to write to me.

 

Any advice on how I should respond to this

[2Grumpy]

How about a copy of the TV progs that show the nice behaviour of our kind bailiffs

 

And some examples of their incorrect actions & mistakes, phantom visits etc

 

And question how will a leopard really change its spots, it might cover them up for a bit, but are bound to revert to type & then it is too late.

[2Grumpy]

Grrrrr

Balance indeed.

When you consider the family on benefits with a debt caused by sky high interest rates, illegal penalty charges and a lack of knowledge to contest a judgement compared with the loan company or other creditor with money, legal clout and now the ability to go ahead and break in to steal property. It beggars belief.

I still have difficulty reconciling this bill coming from a labour government with the Conservatives insisting on some checks being introduced. Old world turned on its head!

 

Just wondering if any DCA / Bailiff owners have made any contributions / loans / received peerages recently

A single system for debt recovery is like imprisoning everyone found guilty in the criminal courts - including speeding fines, dropping litter, drunk etc