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 Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Labour have spoken out about complaints that Fiona Woolf QC, head of the public inquiry into historical sex abuse, has links with Leon Brittan. Brittan was the home secretary at the time when the dossier about alleged pedophiles went missing. And Woolf, who is also Lord Mayor of London, admitted yesterday that since 2008 she had dinner with Brittan and his family on five separate occasions but she has said she has “no close association” with him. A number of Labour MPs […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    Here we are again. Another week, another Wednesday, and another wrangle between Cameron and Miliband about the NHS. This is getting a bit old. Cameron attempted to get Miliband on the back foot – he kicked off PMQs by posing questions to the Labour leader about the Welsh NHS. Rather predictably, the rest of PMQs descended into the two party leaders arguing about who can be more trusted with the NHS. But, there was something a little more sinister about […]

    Read more →
  • Comment There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    A couple of weeks ago saw the UK elect for the first time a UKIP MP – Douglas Carswell, with a huge majority of 12,000 votes. UKIP made enormous strides in the safe Labour seat of Heywood & Middleton as well, reducing the Labour majority from 5,971 to 617. This rise in the ‘acceptable’ far right should be a cause of concern not just to the Tories but also to us. It is clear from these results there is no […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    The result in Heywood and Middleton may have shocked some people, but not all. Some warned this could happen after UKIP took or seriously challenged safe council seats in the north, topped the national vote at the Euros, and polled strongly in Labour areas. Their highest average share of the vote in the 2014 elections came in Labour areas like Rotherham, Mansfield and Hartlepool. We’re told if we campaign on the “issues” people will come back to Labour. This fails […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Last night Young Labour voted on whether or not to come out in support of the free education demonstration set to take place on the 19th November. Reports suggest, they voted against the motion. This result could easily be interpreted as another sign that the argument against tuition fees is dead in the water. In reality, it tells us that opposite is true. The very fact that this was a topic for discussion at Young Labour’s national committee, that there […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y