Knocking on a Locked Door – Regulating Bailiffs

December 4, 2012 6:02 pm

Author:

Share this Article

It’s well known and understood that if you owe someone money they can arrange for bailiffs to seize property belonging to you and for them to sell it to cover the debt.  What is less well-known is that there are different sorts of bailiff, and indeed enforcement officers, and that the law relating to debt collection is complex and often centuries old.

Each year around four million cases are passed to bailiffs with a value estimated at over £1billion.  Non-payment of council tax meant last year there were almost 3 million summons issued with around half of the cases being passed to bailiffs for collection. That’s a lot of people coming in to contact with bailiffs.

But what is a bailiff and broadly what can they do?  Well there are County Court bailiffs and High Court enforcement officers.  Then there are Certificated bailiffs and private non-certified bailiffs.  Generally bailiffs must only use peaceful means of entry – that doesn’t mean pushing past someone.  Then again, in certain circumstances a bailiff can break in.  Bailiffs can seize goods – but not all goods.  Clear?

Complaints are not uncommon, indeed last year alone there were almost 25,000 private bailiff cases referred to the Citizen’s Advice Bureaux, but who to complain to depends upon the type of bailiff and the nature of the complaint.  Moreover, while parts of the enforcement industry are strictly regulated others have only informal regulation through trade associations.  And while some businesses carefully train their staff, others have, shall we say, a less rigorous approach.

There are also sadly too many cases of bailiffs acting aggressively and incorrectly applying these assorted laws.  Anecdotes and documented cases abound about bailiffs clamping vehicles used for work, seizing children’s toys, tricking their way in to a property, claiming there have criminal warrants, and ignoring the cases where people have specific vulnerabilities.

And then there are the fees. It is widely accepted that the current fee structure is complex with each enforcement power having its own costs arrangements.

Still not clear?

Well, it’s hardly surprising.  Bailiffs are covered by a variety of laws, secondary legislation and common law.  This complexity isn’t good for the debtor, the creditor or even the bailiff.  Trying to train a bailiff must be as big a nightmare as knowing if the bailiff at your door is acting correctly.

A big part of the problem is the long history of amending and adding to the legislation governing bailiffs.  More recently an attempt was made in the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to sort out this mess, but much of the act as it relates to bailiffs didn’t come in to force before the 2010 General Election.

The current government published updated voluntary guidance in the form of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents which sets out behaviour to be expected from bailiffs.  However, critics have pointed out that there are only six small changes from the original document and this clearly doesn’t constitute a major reform of the law.

On 17 February 2012 the government issued a consultation paper, “Transforming bailiff action”, which outlined the reforms being proposed, many of which would be achieved by implementing Part 3 of the 2007 Act.  The consultation closed on 14 May 2012 and yet here we are some six months later still waiting for the government’s response – or better still some legislative proposals.

So we are left asking why given the confused mess that is our bailiff system nothing has been forthcoming.  It can’t be because of the coalition’s rule about not bringing in new laws unless old ones can be removed, given the long list of laws that could be swept away by simplifying the law.  Could it be the workload at the Ministry?  Well observers only need to look at the paucity of legislation before parliament to see that there are opportunities to act.

An amendment has been tabled to the Crime and Courts Bill, currently being discussed in the House of Lords, to be debated today (4 December). It’s a start but is unlikely to provide the solution – what we need is a proper law to bring all the various laws, guides and systems up to date and in one place.

I would hope that given the economic nightmare that is driving more people into the arms of debt collection the government would move swiftly to respond to its consultation and set out a clear framework so if the knock on the door comes it is from an enforcement officer who knows the law, has had proper training, is registered and regulated, and then maybe people can concentrate on the underlying issue of indebtedness, not a system that is fatally flawed.

Rob Flello MP is the Shadow Justice Minister with responsibility for bailiffs

Amendment 111 to the Crime and Courts Bill in the name of Baroness Meacher and Lord Beecham will be debated in the House of Lords today (Tuesday 4th December)

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.seers John Seers

    A very good subject to highlight. A bit of a mystery why they are not very strictly regulated.

  • http://twitter.com/ian_norris เลи и๏яяเร

    Why wasnt the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 process completed you had 3 years? what stopped pt3 in Nov 2008?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.crowder2 Jim Crowder

    There’s a lot of stuff that’s suddenly happened since spring 2010, hasn’t it? Was this not sufficiently important before then? What changes in the law have happened since then to make this so important?

    There seems to be a focus on people who don’t pay their bills and debts. Nothing about people who are owed money and never get it back. Shouldn’t we have a discussion about those victims too?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.crowder2 Jim Crowder

    There’s a lot of stuff that’s suddenly happened since spring 2010, hasn’t it? Was this not sufficiently important before then? What changes in the law have happened since then to make this so important?

    There seems to be a focus on people who don’t pay their bills and debts. Nothing about people who are owed money and never get it back. Shouldn’t we have a discussion about those victims too?

Latest

  • News Back to Black? The return of In The Black Labour

    Back to Black? The return of In The Black Labour

    18 months ago Anthony Painter, Hopi Sen and Adam Lent released their pamphlet “In the Black Labour”, which generated a substantial amount of coverage after calling for Labour to embrace “fiscal conservatism”. Now they’ve written a follow up essay, entitled “Moving Labour ‘into the black’”, which argues that: Labour should not do an about-turn on fiscal policy and welfare as it did under pressure eighteen months ago. The leadership needs to go further than recent speeches – publish fiscal rules [...]

    Read more →
  • News What’s my name again? Obama calls Osborne “Jeffrey” three times at G8

    What’s my name again? Obama calls Osborne “Jeffrey” three times at G8

    There’s a damning report in The Sun this morning that Barack Obama repeatedly referred to George Osborne as “Jeffrey” during the G8, suggesting that Osborne’s management of the British economy hasn’t turned him into a globe straddling economic colossus. Who knew? The Sun believe that Obama was confusing George Osborne with singer Jeffrey Osborne, and produced the following (via Guido Fawkes): Yet we think there might be someone else that Osborne reminds Obama of. An English guy called not Jeffrey, [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured The propaganda of the class war

    The propaganda of the class war

    I have become fascinated by Made in Chelsea. Not by the storylines or characters. I honest couldn’t care less if Binky is going out with Proudlock, or whether Ollie is gay or straight (or if the concept of bisexuality ever makes it to SW3), though I was surprised to find that Fran and Cheska were two separate people. Given that this is supposed to be reality TV, the most extraordinary thing is how bad the acting is. If you were [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

    Why Labour is fighting for the legalisation of Humanist marriages today

    Monday saw the first day of Committee on the Same Sex Marriage Bill, where it became clear after a three hour debate on how to distinguish Same Sex Marriage from so called “traditional” marriage that opposition to this bill has not gone away. Despite a huge defeat on Second Reading, opponents reheated and repeated their earlier speeches, in part because their arguments rely on belief and prejudice not evidence or fact. So we sat until 11pm debating conscience clauses, Registrars [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

    Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

    Well that was a bad PMQs for Ed Miliband – the second in a row. Perhaps he hasn’t gotten back into his stride after such a long period without the weekly Wednesday joust, but whatever it is, Miliband isn’t hitting his marks at PMQs. Meanwhile Cameron – who has been jousting with world leaders this week – seemed far more o top of his game than we’ve been used to seeing him lately. Alas the problem for Miliband was that [...]

    Read more →