Thanks to the Internet, Andy's killer exposed

Who is responsible for the actions of the bailiff? (This article has been taken verbatim from this months letter from the Consumer Action Group.)
The answer to this is simple. It is the local authority.

It is important to be aware that the statutory regulations provide for the local authority to levy distress as soon as a liability order has been made and further, that the local authority can charge fees to the debtor as outlined in Schedule 5. Therefore, strictly speaking, the fees recovered are due to the council.

Some local authorities have their own in house bailiffs, but most councils contract out the levying of distress to private sector bailiff fees. As the regulations confirm, the fees are due to the council but in reality, almost all local authorities allow their agents to keep the fees for the work that the bailiff has undertaken to recover the debt.

In 1997, the fees that could be charged for “attending to levy” (where no levy was made) was set at just £20.00 for a 1st visit and £15.00 for a 2nd such visit. By 2003, so many councils had contracted out the levying of distress to private bailiff firms and the bailiff industry called upon the Government to substantially restructure the level of fees.

A Consultation Paper was issued and following responses, the government agreed to raise the fees for a 1st visit from £20.00 to £22.50 and for a 2nd such visit, from £15.00 to £16.50. A further small increase was agreed a few years ago and the current fee is now set at £24.50 for a 1st visit and £18.00 for a 2nd visit (to attend to levy).

The Consultation Paper also suggested that a maximum fee for a “van attendance” should be introduced but sadly, this was not implemented.

Both increases for a 1st and 2nd visit were minimal and in the response to the Consultation Paper the government confirmed that the reason for this was because:

• “The fees payable in respect of the levy of distress are intended to cover the costs incurred by the local authority in making the levy and are due to the local authority”

And that:

• “Whilst many contracts between local authorities and bailiff companies may “assign” the fees to the bailiff company, the fees are not, and were not intended to be, the fees of the bailiff”.

They also stated that the local authority cannot profit from enforcement.

Of utmost importance is the following comment from the 1997 Consultation Paper:

• “Where an authority does contract out the work to a private sector bailiff company it is important that both sides should remember that the bailiff is working on behalf of the authority. Local authorities cannot abdicate responsibility for the actions of their contractor”.

• “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that the levy is carried out in a lawful manner and that the fees charged are in accordance with the regulations”

Furthermore; the Government reiterated that:

• “Fees payable in relation to the levy of distress are intended to cover the costs of the local authority and are due to the local authority. Proposals were made to change some fee levels because it was considered that they were no longer meeting the costs of the local authority. However, fees charged to a debtor should only recompense a local authority for the costs arising from that debtor. They should not be increased to allow for costs from other debtors which have not been recovered nor to allow for an element of profit”

Many debtors write to bailiff companies to complain at the level of fees charged to their account. This is wrong. In reality, they should be writing a formal Letter of Complaint to the local authority (with a copy to the bailiff company) as it is the local authority who are wholly responsible for the fees charged by their agents and furthermore, as confirmed above, they are responsible for ensuring that the levy is carried out in a lawful manner and that the fees charged are in accordance with the regulations and finally.....the local authority cannot profit from enforcement.

So for two year of campaigning for Justice from the evil bailiff system in relation to the legalised murder of Andy Miller, it transpires that Blackpool Council's reluctance to comment is because they are culpable for the actions of their employees, sub contractors or call them what you will. With my local councillor fully aware of what I was doing, it is rather suspicious that she was on the Police committee therefore ought to have had some insight into what was happening. Afterall, letters had been sent to the ineffectual Police Complaints authority, to MPs and to every authority in the land - and all the time the guilty authority was that here in Blackpool. Were they all too busy with dodgy house deals, forming building companies, doing ruinous plans for the town that the plight of a thoroughly decent Blackpool man and his children became irrelevant?

Andy Miller was a Veteran, but that sinecure the FESLC with all its JPs, local Councillors and declared bankrupt employees just went about their nefarious activities in wondrous ignorance. And some have the audacity to threaten with legal action anyone who dares identify their iniquities? Hero Major Jim, never was a Royal Marine, has kept that pretty quiet. Anyway, Hero Jim, you have my address, just send your minions to serve a writ on me, but have that cowardly letter you sent to the local RMA ready as evidence