Vulnerability should not be seen as a use for debt avoidance, but is a factor of mitigation in Debt Management, that should flag up issues and special circumstances. around setting up a suitable repayment plan. just my thoughts.

The vulnerability of itself may well indicate why the Principal debt was not repaid depending on it's nature and impact on the debtor's cognitive behaviours and understanding.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the position with 'vulnerability' for enforcement proceedings if far better than it ever was under the old regulations. Further improvements are needed and will be included in the revised National Standards (when they are introduced).

Since April 2014 almost all enforcement companies have dedicated Welfare Departments and in fact, when tendering for local authority contracts such departments are a vital requirement. The problem that is being faced at present is mainly due to misinformation on the internet.

As an example, if anyone bothers to waste a day looking at questions on the many 'Beat the Bailiff' facebook pages they would quickly discover that the classic 'advice' given to debtors (even before any questions are asked) is to suggest either of the following:

Vulnerability should not be seen as a use for debt avoidance, but is a factor of mitigation in Debt Management, that should flag up issues and special circumstances. around setting up a suitable repayment plan. just my thoughts.

 

The vulnerability of itself may well indicate why the Principla debt was not repaid depending on it's nature and impact on the debtor's cognitive behaviours and understanding.

Indeed but again nothing to do with enforcment.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the position with 'vulnerability' for enforcement proceedings if far better than it ever was under the old regulations. Further improvements are needed and will be included in the revised National Standards (when they are introduced).

 

Since April 2014 almost all enforcement companies have dedicated Welfare Departments and in fact, when tendering for local authority contracts such departments are a vital requirement. The problem that is being faced at present is mainly due to misinformation on the internet.

 

As an example, if anyone bothers to waste a day looking at questions on the many 'Beat the Bailiff' facebook pages they would quickly discover that the classic 'advice' given to debtors (even before any questions are asked) is to suggest either of the following:

 

Submit an Out of Time witness statement (if the debt is for an unpaid penalty charge notice,

 

Submit a a Statutory Declaration (if the debt is for a court fine) or:

 

Submit a 'vulnerable household' letter to the council (if the debt is for council tax).

What is a vulnerable household any way ?

What is a vulnerable household any way ?

The term 'vulnerable household' was coined by the callous individual who drafted the template that is downloadable on many of the 'Beat the Bailiff', 'Screw the Bailiff' and other 'debt avoidance' sites. Naturally it has become a common letter on most 'freeman on the land'/sovereign citizen sites. The individual who dreamed up this letter not only lacks any empathy with genuine vulnerable debtors but also lacks experience with legislation.

The template is as follows. Please note the 'freeman on the land' signature at the end of the letter (.....xxxxx of the xxxxxx Family).

If any visitors to this forum are tempted to send the following letter to a bailiff company....DONT !!!

If any visitors to this forum are tempted to send the above letter to a bailiff company....DONT !!!

The term 'vulnerable household' was coined by the callous individual who drafted the template that is downloadable on many of the 'Beat the Bailiff', 'Screw the Bailiff' and other 'debt avoidance' sites. Naturally it has become a common letter on most 'freeman on the land'/sovereign citizen sites. The individual who dreamed up this letter not only lacks any empathy with genuine vulnerable debtors but also lacks experience with legislation.

 

The template is as follows. Please note the 'freeman on the land' signature at the end of the letter (.....xxxxx of the xxxxxx Family).

 

 

Dear xxxxx

 

RE : xxxxx

 

Date xxx

 

I am writing to inform you according to paragraph 77 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014,

I am classed a vulnerable household

, for the following reason

paragraph 77 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014

Some groups who might be vulnerable are listed below. However, this list is not

exhaustive. Care should be taken to assess each situation on a case by case

basis.



the elderly;



people with a disability;



the seriously ill;



the recently bereaved;



single parent families;



pregnant women;



unemployed people; and,



those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading

English.

 

Nothing in there about vulnerable household.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

PLEASE SUPPLY ME A COPY OF YOUR COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

 

Regulation 10(1) of the taking control of Goods Regulations 2013 provides me with statutory protection as a vulnerable household

 

Paragraphs 70 to 78 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 says enforcement agents must withdraw from the property

 

As you have now been notified that I am a vulnerable debtor you should alert the creditor, as paragraph 30 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 and Paragraph 16 says the creditor/council MUST be prepared to take control of the case

30.

Where enforcement agents have identified vulnerable debtors or situations, they

should alert the creditor and ensure they act in accordance with all relevant

legislation.

 

Take note of the "should" and not the "must". Also, nothing about the council/creditor taking the case back.

As the class of vulnerable debtor is prescribed by the Ministry of Justice, neither the bailiff or the council is entitled to question whether or not a person is classed a vulnerable person for the purpose of civil enforcement.

 

Please do not pass me on to your welfare dept as you have now been informed that I am a vulnerable household and should return the debt, passing me on to your welfare dept, is a delay tactic used by yourself to avoid return the debt, as there will be no change in my circumstances in the near future, you will only wasting your own time as no fees will be collected from me

Regu

lations 2013

2

. This issue was specifically consulted upon as part of the

“Transforming Bailiff Action 3” consultation, and 55% of respondents were opposed to such a definition. Respondents considered that attempts to define “vulnerable” (for example by reference to a list) would be overly rigid, catching some cases unnecessarily and failing to capture others. Vulnerability was seen as a potentially fluid state, so that some people might be constantly vulnerable (for example due to a permanent lack of mental capacity) but others temporarily so (for example, suffering mental illness for a short period of time). The chosen solution is therefore to retain flexibility by not seeking to define “vulnerable”, but to ensure that mandatory training for certificated enforcement agents includes specific approved training on identifying and dealing appropriately with vulnerable persons. National Standards for Enforcement Agents will also be re-issued providing minimum standards on matters not the subject of Rules or Regulations.

3.5 This instrument provides vulnerable debtors with the opportunity to seek further advice, in line with responses to the “Transforming Bailiff Action” consultation, before incurring the enforcement fee. Responses suggested that a vulnerable debtor may be incapable of understanding or engaging with the process in the early stages and so should be given the chance to seek advice when the enforcement agent is on their doorstep and has identified them as vulnerable. While the enforcement agent will not be prevented from taking control of goods (thereby fulfilling obligations to the creditor), failure to provide a debtor with this opportunity before they proceed to actually remove the goods will mean they risk their enforcement stage fee. This will provide an incentive for the enforcement agent to ensure a vulnerable debtor is able to get advice

; will allow the debtor to address their debt and protect the creditor’s right to recover what is owed to them. Guidance will be issued on best practice regarding the timing and type of advice a debtor should be allowed

to seek.

 

 

Any further enforcement action will be classed as harassment, as described under section 1 in the Protect from harressment Act 1997 and I will seek remedy under section 3 of the Protect from harressment Act 1997, I have also sent a copy of this letter to the original creditor to inform them and remind them that according to Paragraph 7 of the Taking Control of Goods: National

Standards 2014 they are responsible for any enforcement agents acting on there behalf,

 

40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.

 

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—

(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

©falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(

a

) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

(3)Subsection (1)(

a

) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—

(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

[

F1

(3A)Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice.]

F1

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than £100, and on a second or subsequent conviction to a fine of not more than £400.

 

Take note of the blue paragraph. We cannot be held liable for harassment as we are enforcing legal process..

 

 

ALL PARTIES HAVE BOTH BEEN INFORMED THAT I AM CLASSED AS A VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLD AND SHOULD CEASE ALL ENFORCEMENT ACTION

COMPLAINT RESOLUTION

 

As above, Being vulnerable does not stop enforcement, but it may delay it for a short period.

 

1. Return the case to council administration within seven (7) days of the date of this letter

 

2. Confirm in writing to me at the above address this has been done

 

If you are unable, or unwilling to resolve this complaint in full, please mark your response letter with the words*FINAL RESOLUTION

 

If I do not receive a letter from you marked in this way, then I will begin a new complaint on the grounds of failing to follow prescribed complaints procedures and regulations concerning vulnerable households and I will also file a form 4 complaint over the harressment from your bailiff

Old letter, EAC2 complaint now. And good luck with it i would say. Be ready for the reverse costs order when it fails.

 

Your sincerely

 

 

xxxxx of the xxxxxx Family

A pointless letter as BA quite rightly points out.

The whole idea is a nonsense as is most of the"information" on there, imagine the case where the debtor has a granny who resides with them, would this make the whole household and anyone in it vulnerable, garbage.

As shown by grumpy you only have to look at the legislation quoted to see that it is wildly misinterpreted.

A similar daft idea I have seen says that if a child is "present" at the scene the enforcment cannot continue, this is equally daft. the legislation actually says if the only person at the address is a child etc.

Are people paying for this silly advice ?

Are people paying for this silly advice ?

Some are. The template originates from the failed McKenzie Friend known to this forum. He charges a fee of £15 for the document.

His template was modified by the team behind the Beat the Bailiff Facebook site to include the 'freeman of the land' signature (i.e.: xxxx of the Family xxx) at the foot of the letter.

Imagine the case where the debtor has a granny who resides with them, would this make the whole household and anyone in it vulnerable, garbage.?

Not it would not. However, if a case is presented well there could be SOME instances where consideration would be given to accepting the 'vulnerability' of others in the household. As an example, yesterday I presented a case to Marston Group where the debtor's 7 year old child is recovering from open heart surgery (to repair a hole to his heart). Remarkably, although he only had surgery on Tuesday it is anticipated that he will be able to return to school Monday week. Marston's accepted that the 'vulnerability' is a temporary one and agreed a payment plan. The debt was for a court fine.

Another case this week was with Jacobs and involved four unpaid penalty charge notices for an adult son. He could not pay and had had not responded to the Notices of Enforcement. His car was clamped. Jacobs accepted a payment arrangement and unclamped the car after hearing that his father is currently undergoing chemotheraphy.

Some are. The template originates from the failed McKenzie Friend known to this forum. He charges a fee of £15 for the document.

 

His template was modified by the team behind the Beat the Bailiff Facebook site to include the 'freeman of the land' signature (i.e.: xxxx of the Family xxx) at the foot of the letter.

What a rip off, you would wonder how they sleep at night, interesting that despite the rhetoric there is a strong bond between them and the FMoTL

Not it would not. However, if a case is presented well there could be SOME instances where consideration would be given to accepting the 'vulnerability' of others in the household. As an example, yesterday I presented a case to Marston Group where the debtor's 7 year old child is recovering from open heart surgery (to repair a hole to his heart). Remarkably, although he only had surgery on Tuesday it is anticipated that he will be able to return to school Monday week. Marston's accepted that the 'vulnerability' is a temporary one and agreed a payment plan. The debt was for a court fine.

 

Another case this week was with Jacobs and involved four unpaid penalty charge notices for an adult son. He could not pay and had had not responded to the Notices of Enforcement. His car was clamped. Jacobs accepted a payment arrangement and unclamped the car after hearing that his father is currently undergoing chemotheraphy.

Yes I can see that. The crucial thing here would be that the vulnerability would still be the debtors not the person undergoing therapy etc. it would be the effect of the vulnerability on the debtor .

Lets not forget this either, see here where the words "the debtors household" is mentioned more than once see here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/part/1/crossheading/exempt-goods/made

The reference to the 'debtors household' in the above link is only in connection though with goods that are considered exempt. It is not relevant to 'vulnerability'.

Yes sorry MM

The EA has no duty of care under the TCE towards a third party, in fact towards anyone other than the debtor, unless the third party is the only person on the premisses when he calls and thereby must be considered to represent the debtors interests.

Talk on various FMoTL forums of the act somehow is protecting third parties from the bailiff "throwing his weight around" are incorrect. If this was the case no enforcment would ever happen if there was a 12 year old child on the premises for instance which is absurd.

If there is a family member or relative( no matter where they are) whose illness or circumstance is so severe that it effects the debtors ability to deal with the EA, this may be considered a reason to consider the debtor vulnerable.

We all know how the HCEO's operate and how they define a vulnerability, with this in mind I would ask regular posters to watch one of the latest episodes of

Can't pay we'll take it away. If this doesn't tug at your hearts then nothing will.

Full Episode

• 21:00 18 Nov 2015
  
• Channel 5
  

Episode 8

Stewart and Elmore face a terrible moral dilemma when they find a critically ill toddler.

Available until 21:00 22 Dec 2016

For this please see here series 3 episode 8 http://www.channel5.com/shows/cant-pay-well-take-it-away/episodes

There really is no more to say about vulnerability after watching this episode sad as it is and that's a fact.....

 

There really is no more to say about vulnerability after watching this episode sad as it is and that's a fact.....

As has been written many times, the position regarding bailiff enforcement and vulnerability is a very difficult subject.

This week I was pleased to be invited (for the third year running) to a conference that was attended by many local authorities, (council tax and parking depts), enforcement companies, the Local Government Ombudsman and many other organisations). There were many interesting presentations including the following:

Most importantly, there was an excellent presentation from the Royal College of Psychiatrists about working with vulnerable debtors.

In 2010 the Royal College published an award winning Briefing on Debt Collection and Mental Health. The Briefing has recently been completely rewritten in conjunction with the Money Advice Trust and I am still wading through the excellent 40 odd page recent edition.

Interestingly, the Briefing states that when contacted by debtors, the creditor should ensure that they ask the following three questions:

The Briefing also reiterates the importance of a debtor providing an Income & Expenditure but most importantly, providing relevant and clear evidence about their health problem.

PS: About two weeks ago, I drafted a new page on the subject of vulnerability and I will be making some slight changes to the document in light of the updated Briefing as discussed above and hopefully this can be used as a Sticky on the forum. A copy will also be posted on the discussion part of the forum and comments would be most welcome.

I note on another site there is mention of someone who has had a car removed for non-payment of a PCN. They have said they are vulnerable but are yet to volunteer proof of same. An LGO report on the matter has found no fault with the Council who have seemingly bent over backwards to help. Turns out the same person has had over 160+ PCNs. Seems to me they knew exactly what they were doing and just park anywhere with no intention of paying a penny if caught.