Dear Notyetavet |
|
|
Consultation Paper on
Bailiff Reform.
In May 2011, I wrote a Newsletter
concerning the proposed Consultation Paper on bailiff reform which was due to be
released in July 2011. Unfortunately this was delayed and it was not until
February 17th 2012 that this Consultation Paper was finally published and there
will now be a statutory 12 week period in which public responses can be made.
This Consultation has been ongoing for around 5 years
and a few days ago, I was reminded of the infamous “witching hour” speech in the
House of Commons by Austin Mitchell MP in March 2007 where he was claimed that
the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order was “producing a huge extortion
racket” with local authorities “colluding with cheating bailiffs to
impose huge and excessive charges that are then justified by lies and enforced
by bullying”.
Interestingly, he also said that the present structure
is based on the old fashioned view that bailiffs should distrain on goods and
that the emphasis should instead be on getting the debt paid. On the matter of a
regulator...he said that “cowboys need a sheriff” .....“the mafia
cannot be regulated by the mafia” and that “crooks need a rule
maker”
He also confirmed that the
government had begun a consultation process in January (2007). Five years have
passed since then and frankly, this delay should never have been allowed to
happen. From the many questions raised on the Consumer Action Group forum it is
clear that many bailiffs are acting in a deplorable manner and charging fees
that are not in accordance with statue law. On 13th January 2012, the advice and
enforcement sector were surprised to receive notification that the Ministry of
Justice had updated their National Standards for Enforcement Agents. The changes
appeared to have been rushed and personally, I believe that the revised
Standards are not sufficient.
The original National Standards from
2002 had been introduced after consulting with 16 organisations. In considering
the recent changes, it would seem that the Ministry of Justice sought views from
just 2 organisations!! Since its release there has been a lot of criticism from
both the advice and enforcement sectors and thankfully, the Ministry of Justice
have realised that this was wrong and the first part of the Consultation Paper
is seeking suggestions for proposed changes!! This
Consultation is of vital importance if there is to be real change to this
industry and the public cannot let this opportunity be lost. Consumer Action
Group intends to respond formally to the Consultation in May and in doing so;
will be taking into consideration comments made by the public on the forum. We
would therefore urge you to visit the link at the end of this Newsletter.
The Consultation Paper consists of 203 pages. It has been split into 9
Chapters and I will be writing a weekly Newsletter regarding each Chapter as
follows:
Chapter 3:
Non regulatory options: Questions 1-3 This Chapter deals
mainly with the National Standards for Enforcement Agents (NSEA) and the
Government are seeking views on the contents of the NSEA and in particular;
whether you agree with the contents and if not, to supply proposals for
inclusion or argument against inclusion. A separate Newsletter has been issued
today regarding this Chapter and views and comments would be welcome. A link can
be found at the end of this newsletter.
Chapter 4: Clarifying the law: Questions
4-32 This Chapter is of vital importance and can be
demonstrated by the following headings and the numbers of questions!!
- Prior
Judicial authority to force entry
- Goods which
may be taken.
- Controlled
Goods agreement
Thankfully, under this Chapter,
the Government have confirmed that a bailiff may not use force against a person for
the purpose of conducting a levy against goods for a civil debt. However, this
Chapter needs to be read very carefully indeed.
In the meantime, on the
forum there are sub headings where views would be welcome regarding Exempt Goods
and Defining Vulnerability.
Chapter 5: Costs of Enforcement Rated
Services: Questions 33-45 Unless the fees are set at a
fair rate, complaints will continue. For the collection of council tax, it must
be understood that a 1st visit fee of £24.50 was set many years ago and common
sense alone would dictate that this low figure cannot in any way cover the cost
involved and inevitably, fees must rise. Once again, this Chapter is vitally
important and a Newsletter dedicated to Chapter 5 will be issued
shortly
Chapter 6:
Regulatory Regime: Questions 46-49 This Chapter will be
very disappointing to many as the Government confirm that they do not wish to
place burdens upon the enforcement industry and therefore, they will not be
appointing an independent regulator. Under the fee structure review paper Alex
Dehayen has commented that “careful and considered implementation of the
proposed fee structure, supported by
appropriate regulation is vital to the fee structure’s success”.
Again, a separate Newsletter regarding the Chapter will be issued
shortly. In the meantime; views and comments from the public would be welcome on
the forum and the link to the sub heading regarding regulation of the bailiff
industry can be found below.
Chapter 7: Competence requirement: Questions
50-52 This short Chapter addresses the matter of
professional qualifications, training etc and at this moment in time, I cannot
see that there is anything further to add to the recommendations as outlined.
Chapter 8: Remedies
and Complaints Handling: Question 53 Again, this Chapter
is a very important one and without an independent regulatory body, concerns
must be raised as to how complaints are to be handled. There is currently the
provision that a debtor may make a complaint about a certificated bailiff by way
of a Form 4 Complaint. However, such complaints are fraught with difficulty and
it has been known for large costs orders to be made against the complainant by
the court. A separate Newsletter will also be issued shortly regarding this
important Chapter.
Chapter 9: High Court and County Court
Jurisdiction: Question 54. At present, all county court
judgements under £600 may only be enforced by a county court bailiff and the
amount of the judgement increases by £100 if the creditor requests a warrant.
Judgements over £600 can be “transferred up” for a High Court Enforcement
Officer (HCEO) to enforce. The consultation paper is seeking views on whether
all judgements....irrespective
of the value....should be enforced by an HCEO. This will be discussed at a later
stage but it is important to note that if the proposed fee scale for high court
debts is imposed, this would add a fee of not less than £750 to a CCJ.
Personally, I have very serious concerns at this proposal and although a
Newsletter will be issued shortly regarding this last Chapter, a sub heading is
already on the forum where views and comments would be welcome.
Once again, this Consultation is of vital importance
and Consumer Action Group will be responding formally to the Consultation in May
and in doing so; will be taking into consideration comments made by the public
on the forum. We would therefore urge you to visit the links below:
Thank
you for taking the time to read this Newsletter. A further newsletter regarding
Chapter 3 of the consultation paper will be issued next week.
Tomtubby
There will not be another opportunity to have good
bailiff law and to protect vulnerable debtors from aggressive bailiffs and this
consultation will give the public the opportunity to influence change.
You can submit your response to
the consultation on-line HERE There
is a new forum to discuss the implications of the new proposals and how we
should respond to the consultation HERE
There
are 6 sub-forums under the following headings:
If
you want more help, advice or even just some moral support then come to The
Consumer Action Group website where we offer help on pretty well every
consumer problem COMPLETELY FREE. |
|
|
There will never be a good bailiff law as long as they are protected by colluding Councils and disinterested courts.
ReplyDeleteJust thinking councils across the land bleat on about unpaid c tax and such.The use of bailiff firms is used by them all.The amounts collected are shouted by said firms and not councils.The fees for collection are always taken first the council gets whats left.The amount owed in rents ctax p fines continues to rise, the system does not appear to collect nor deterr the dept only upset or kill inocent people.tHE PRESENT BAILIFF SYSTEM COULD BE SHOWN NOT TO BE WORKING your thoughts guitar mne
ReplyDelete