Vulnerable groups and defining "vulnerability *CONSULTATION*

[MARTIN3030]

This thread is now open for discussion

Edited March 11, 2012 by citizenB

[tomtubby]

Chapter 3 of the Consultation (Non-Regulatory Option) is seeking views from the public as to whether any further changes should be made to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents (NSEA) and Question 28of the Consulatation is asking the pubic whether there is a need to define "vulnerability" in the actual regulations.

 

My personal opinion, is that it is vitally important to define vulnerability in the regulations.

The NSEA has been unchanged for 10 years and provides that the following may potentially be vulnerable:

 

• 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.
  

It is vitally important that “vulnerability” is properly defined and furthermore; that they are adopted by HM Courts and Tribunals Services, local authorities and other public bodies that use bailiffs.

 

 

At present this is NOT the case !!!!!

For example, the HMCS Contracts for magistrates court fine enforcement do NOT have the same category of "vulnerability" as the National Standards for Enforcement Agents !!!

 

Instead, Paragraph 6.40 of Schedule 4 of the HMCS Contracts with Marston Group, Philips, Swift and Excel provide the following as "vulnerable":

 

 

· Is in hospital or nursing home

· Appears to suffer from severe physical or any mental disability

· Is an elderly person who has difficulty dealing with his/her affairs

· Is suffering long term sickness, serious illness or frailty, which has resulted in a recent period of hospitalization or defaulter housebound and can provide evidence of sickness for the period of default

· Has suffered a recent bereavement of close / immediate family

· Is heavily pregnant

· Has a genuine communication problem

· Produces evidence to show account has been paid

· Claims to have made stat dec setting aside conviction, or

· In circumstances where doubts as to identity

· Any circumstances where prudent to contact court

 

 

 

As can be seen, HMCS do not appear to consider that unemployed people or single parent families are potentially vulnerable !!!

Edited March 11, 2012 by tomtubby

[tomtubby]

If any viewers have a strong opinion on the matter of "vulnerability" it is very important that they post their views here. The importance of this can be seen from the following notes in the Consultation:

 

 

"The regulations are able to include a definition of vulnerable. However, it is important that this should be restricted to avoid the opportunity for debtors to feign vulnerability to avoid meeting their financial obligations"

 

"Regulations therefore do not currently deal with vulnerability as we are seeking views on possible workable definitions"

 

 

"A list of the potentially vulnerable circumstances is not considered sufficient. One person with an illness, for example, may be affected greatly and incapable of dealing with any of their affairs whilst another with the same illness may be fully capable and willing to deal with the enforcement agent to organise repayment of the debt. Furthermore, there are many inter related triggers that cause vulnerability, some of which are only temporary".

 

[tomtubby]

The Consultation Paper on the proposed reform of the bailiff industry consists of 203 pages !!!! In the following Newsletter that I have written for Consumer Action Group I have provided an outline of the important parts of the Consultation:

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?857-Newsletter-March-2012-Special-Focus-Edition-MOJ

[terriersaregreat]

On the issue of vulnerability and having had past experience of bailiffs, holding back comments here, the majority of people do not even know that they are within a vulnerable group and there doesn't appear any way of informing vulnerable people. What about an easily understood leaflet outlining the debtor's rights being made available. Why can't a bailiff also inform a debtor of their rights before wading in and using every tactic they can to recover the debt.

 

I don't think bailiffs have a place in today's world in their present form and a system should be put into place to recover via weekly payments. Those on benefits should only pay the debt off as they qualify for Legal Aid and free court costs. The present system just means the debt carries on and is no different than the loan shark system.

 

I think that any house where there are children under 16 that bailiffs should not be allowed to enter as the trauma is horrendous for those children.

 

Surely negotiation is so much better tha confrontation.

[alan5044]

From what I see on the television and various post on here the bailiffs system is an outdated and completely unfair system that increases debt on people and in a modern society should not be countenanced, however authority's do not care about people and their misery as inflicted by the financial mess that some people are having to deal with. The haves are intent on keeping their share of the cake and in fact wish to increase there percentage and increasing the debt on people that are unable to pay already cannot make sense to any sane person.

Its alright for banks and businesses to go bankrupt they do not have to bear the losses there customers and taxpayers are usually the losers but that's alright.

As for outdated systems watch-out the WORKHOUSE will be the next reinvented solution for the benefit's system ( who would have thought pawn shops would be operating on our high streets again).

Sorry about the rant and if this post is in the wrong place or not acceptable please remove

[terriersaregreat]

Further to my earlier post. if we have to keep this archaic system I think the public should be notified by a leaflet which lists the vulnerable groups prior to any visit by a bailiff. That way maybe the vulnerable will know they are vulnerable!

 

Are bailiffs trained in dealing with the public or do they simply enjoy throwing their weight around? Again if we have to put up with this archaic system more training in understanding human rights before a licence is issued. The whole concept of bailiffs seems to fly in the face of the Human Rights Act. Peaceful enjoyment and all that!

 

P.S. THE WORD POTENTIAL MUST BE REMOVED. It's a bit like the use of "reasonable".

[brassnecked]

A major issue is the disparity between the National Guidelines, and the Service Level Agreements that are set on an ad-hoc basis. I feel that the National Guidelines should be accepted and codified, as they include unemployed and people on health related benefits.

[terriersaregreat]

A major issue is the disparity between the National Guidelines, and the Service Level Agreements that are set on an ad-hoc basis. I feel that the National Guidelines should be accepted and codified, as they include unemployed and people on health related benefits.

I'd go with that, but do the vulnerable know they are on the vulnerable list? Still believe that the effect on children needs to be addressed.

 

Does anyone have any figures for bailiffs attendance on employed compared with unemployed? Not that a bailiff should be attending the latter! What happens with repossessions if the home owner is in the vulnerable group?

[fossn]

Definition of a Vulnerable Adult

 

A Vulnerable Adult is a person aged 18 or over, "who is or may be in need of community care services by reason of mental or other disability, age or illness

 

 

and

 

 

who is, or maybe unable to take care of him or herself or unable to protect him or herself against significant harm or exploitation "

 

 

" Law Commission Report, 1997 "

Just thought this might be helpful in defining vulnerability. Copied it from Harrow council adult services webpage. Bailiffs are a remnant of a bygone age and should be abolished. Everyone has income, whether from the state or not and the IT systems of today should be able to deduct payments at source from that income. This would be much more efficient IMO, although I don't agree with the system of fining people who live on benefit which the law says is the minimum necessary to live on but thats another issue I guess.

[tomtubby]

Fossn,

 

Very interesting post indeed. Thank you...

[brassnecked]

Yes fossn, if someone or a family are subsisting on benefits, which is codified as the "Applicable Amount", which is the amount the law says they need to live on, the bailiff wants basically double the weekly benefit amount as a payment, where is the fairness, yes debts need to be paid, but State imposed debts like council tax are and utility bills are unaffordable to many on low incomes, to the extent that they go days without electric and gas, whilst on pre pay meters, paying off a debt.

the other repugnant action of bailiffs HCEO's and other enforcers, is the insistence of filling in an I & E form, which only a judge can demand, once submitted they ignore the fact that being on benefits, and the implication of the legally defined Applicable Amount, means that officially there is NO remaining disposable income from benefits, but still they insist, and after all the evidence is presented they go on to demand their original payment.

 

It is imperative that people on benefits and it could also arguably be people on minimum wage with Tax credit should automatically be vulnerable

[ploddertom]

Are bailiffs trained in dealing with the public or do they simply enjoy throwing their weight around? Again if we have to put up with this archaic system more training in understanding human rights before a licence is issued.

 

 

The simple answer is no they don't have any formal training and find it easier to intimidate a lone female single parent whereby they can forget their status as the ££ signs glitter brightly.

 

PT

[brassnecked]

The simple answer is no they don't have any formal training and find it easier to intimidate a lone female single parent whereby they can forget their status as the ££ signs glitter brightly.

 

PT

Yes like a nightclub bouncer, nearly anyone can become a bailiff. there appears to be no minimum requirements or qualifications.

Edited March 13, 2012 by brassnecked

[Webranger]

There are two issues here: how should "vulnerable" be defined? What should the court/bailiff do about the debt of someone classified as vulnerable? The second issue does not seem to be addressed either by the MOJ or Caggers.

 

It might be best to define "vulnerable" by asking a series of questions, mainly about health. Positive answers should be backed by a doctor's certificate, for which the debtor must be given sufficient time. The overarching question, I would suggest, is would the bailiff's action make the debtor's or other resident's health situation worse.

 

We cannot give single parents carte blanche to run up unrecoverable debts (for example) but we should not allow bailiffs to create deprivation for the children.

 

As others have said, the proper reform would be to scrap the present system all together and create something in proper keeping with the times.(But how can we expect a Government determined to push the nation down to do something uplifting?)

Edited March 16, 2012 by Webranger
typo

[tomtubby]

My 2nd Newsletter dedicated to the subject of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents was released today:

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert. com/showthread.php?t=3846425& highlight=bailiff

[Notyetavet]

I have it on good authority, from a senior solicitor in the very magistrates court that ruled on the Andy Miller case, that "Vulnerability " does not exist in the eyes of the courts. Three years of banging head against obdurate police denials of fact, judiciary indifference including the MoJ, this talking shop will achieve absolutely nothing.

 

http://fylde-bootnecks.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/passing-buck-again.html

 

Parliament passed a law where death occurs which takes away from the police and the Coroner the rights to hoodwink victims and their families; the Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which puts the onus on a jury to come to a decision of such magnitude; but then they place the responsibility with the DPP or whatever local authority that stands in its place. How can this be just or correct when the senior conduit in Lancashire has abandoned her position to take up a lucrative position with the Nemesis, Rossendales? This while talking and worse, listening to a group of vocal victims of highly illegal practices? All in the name of bringing forward reform and change. Not until someone at Marstons, namely the bailiff who dragged a sick man out of his sick bed on a freezing cold winters day to pay a fine that the DWP would not endorse. is placed before a court.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Notyetavet
missed off the last few words

[Notyetavet]

Definition of a Vulnerable Adult

 

A Vulnerable Adult is a person aged 18 or over, "who is or may be in need of community care services by reason of mental or other disability, age or illness

and

who is, or maybe unable to take care of him or herself or unable to protect him or herself against significant harm or exploitation "

" Law Commission Report, 1997 "

Just thought this might be helpful in defining vulnerability. Copied it from Harrow council adult services webpage. Bailiffs are a remnant of a bygone age and should be abolished. Everyone has income, whether from the state or not and the IT systems of today should be able to deduct payments at source from that income. This would be much more efficient IMO, although I don't agree with the system of fining people who live on benefit which the law says is the minimum necessary to live on but thats another issue I guess.

This contribution hits a poignant and legally sensitive issue. In the case of Andy Miller, in the report commissioned by Jack Straw and commented on by him in summation, the fact that the DWP would not put Order on Mr Miller's pension destroys Jack Straw's biased and ill considered message. This point is conveniently overlooked at every stage of addressing the facts of this case. It is though, a fact apparently that all the Agencies are relying upon this strange report, as with all other great "miscarriages of justice" presently being pursued, to thwart the intention of Parliament in passing of Law, and victims families in their search for corrected decisions. It goes to prove that although an authority has written something down does not make it legitimate. Has everyone forgotten the last Governments attempt to cover up the Dodgy Dossier?

Same Government, same misleading debate, same catastrophic result for victims.

[fossn]

Politicians appear to be intensively trained to mislead the public with their crocodile tears and false sympathy for the plight of victims of thier incompetence and failure to address the majority concerns. They only represent big business and very rich individuals who can afford lobbyists and contributions to party funds. The rest of us are an inconvenience to their masterplan. Responding to calls like this for interaction and debate, are, IMO utterly futile without root and branch reform of our political system.

[tomtubby]

We can only hope that MoJ do listen to responses.

[Notyetavet]

Yet we, and I talk collectively, allow the parties to dictate the who, why and where with our representatives. As a true conservative I was aghast at the level of near corruption played out in local politics within the party; but not so surprised when I scanned the actions of Lieber. That is a reflection in me, I am not worldly naive. The fact that I tell it as it is to MPs and my obvious vehement objections to their posturing and down right lies from our representative is why me and others have to resort to the internet to get constructive reaction from people who only want to feather their own nests.

All the Lancashire MP's are in full knowledge of the deliberate attempts of the authorities to thwart my attempts to get just actions. Gordon Marsden, my MP (Blackpool South) does not acknowledge any correspondence short of an electronic answer. Graham Jones MP Accrington actually said to me that he could not comment on the wealth of evidence produced because he "was not a lawyer". But you scrutinise legislation I replied.

None of this helps victims least of all the cowardly way with which politicians avoid their responsibilities - hence the 22 year wait and effort for the Hillsborough Families to get nearer to the answers that have been hidden from them all these years.

[wonkeydonkey]

Our present economic climate has brought people who have never been in debt in their lives to the position they are now in serious financial difficulties, a lot of these people struggle to come to terms with their new found situation and often is the case they just simply bury their heads in the sand and offer prayer the next job to replace the one they have lost is just around the corner or a change to their circumstances will see a miracle and they will be able to "catch up".

 

We lived in a society that created complacency and we were all encouraged to borrow heavily to achieve a comfortable lifestyle. That society crashed with the onset of the recession and as a consequence to it, we have the ordinary family who have never had need to worry about upkeep to their commitments to sustaining their comfortable lifestyle being faced with the sudden realisation there comfort blankets shrunk in the wash. As a result of this they become "vulnerable' to their creditors and the ways in which those creditors seek restitution.

 

If we look at the other side of the coin and take a look at those families and individuals who have always been accustomed to making every penny count, be that from failing to get work, having to take a low income job, iill health, caring for another and relying on benefits, loss of business etc. who have never been in the position to take up the borrowing thrust at them, we will see they have equally suffered from the recession by way of increased fuel costs, utility costs, rent and Council Tax increases, food costs and all enhanced by benefit cuts. This group are no different to those first mentioned, they have found themselves faced with making a decision to feeding, clothing and meeting their own basic needs and those of their families or paying the bills. As a result of this they become "vulnerable" to their creditors and the ways in which those creditors seek restitution.

 

We on cag, having already hit the bottom of the tank, have of course recognised the reality of the situation but there are millions of others who have not yet found cag or indeed have access to modern technology to do so. They will have received that nice printed leaflet giving advice on who to contact for help if they find themselves unable to meet their obligations. Many will try and fail to get that help because of the government making cuts to support the very agencies they suggest you seek help from. As a result of this people become "vulnerable" to their creditors and the ways in which those creditors seek restitution.

 

Anyone forced to deal with bailiffs or HCEO for a any debt is in my opinion a "vulnerable person" and if we look at

 

people who are honest and often assume that everyone else is honest

people too willing to give a manipulator the benefit of the doubt

people who think they deserve to be harrassed and threatened, out of a sense of guilt

people who develop a lack of self-respect by the fact they have created a need to a bailiff or HCEO having to attend

people who unconsciously let bailiffs & HCEO take advantage of them.

people who's judgement is impaired by the realisation they are in an alien place and believe the exaggerated claims by the predator bailiff/HCEO

people like the elderly who become fatigued and less capable to understanding

 

We will very quickly see the consultation on the subject of vulnerability is nothing more than a way to keep big business in control over the weak and helpless and no amount of consultation will identify those, who across the board can be seen to be vulnerable and attempting to do is merely an exercise to damage limitations when the end result will be the sacrificial lamb syndrome.

 

WD

Edited March 29, 2012 by wonkeydonkey

[LEONABLUE]

I have found that Bailiffs seem to thrive when they find out you are in the "Vulnerable" group, it seems to spur them on, personally I have had to deal with Bailiffs who wont give up and get very rude ! they are chasing a debt for some-one who has never lived at my address and have emigrated, the telephone calls never stopped until a family member rang them and told them that they were harrassing a family that was dealing with someone who was terminally ill, and She would sending them a demand for payment for harrassment ! they stopped !

I agree with an earlier post in that in this day and age do we really need Bailiffs , anyone on benefit can have stopped at source , as happens for the utility companies, this should be done obviously with agreement from the debtor, but withdraws the Bailiffs from actually getting their claws into some peoples backs, and actually makes the "debt" worse, when you are at your most vulnerable,

Bailiffs like dealing with this group, as they are more likely to throw their weight around and use threatening behaviour, in the hope that you will give in, and dont know what your rights are,

Maybe if the Vulnerable Group where taken OUT of the clutches of the Bailiffs,this may help,.

[tomtubby]

If the proposals as outlined are made legal, there will be a LEGAL requirement for the enforcement company to issue an "initial letter" which will be charged for as an admin charge of £75)

 

It is hoped that "vulnerable" debtors ( and all others) will respond to these letters and ensure in doing so, that they make the enforcement provider aware that they are in a "vulnerable" category. If the debtor fails to "engage" with the bailiff provider at this stage then sadly, it will be the case that a personal visit will be made.

 

It is also very important that "vulnerable" debtors ensure that the local authority are aware of their circumstances.

[brassnecked]

If the proposals as outlined are made legal, there will be a LEGAL requirement for the enforcement company to issue an "initial letter" which will be charged for as an admin charge of £75)

 

It is hoped that "vulnerable" debtors ( and all others) will respond to these letters and ensure in doing so, that they make the enforcement provider aware that they are in a "vulnerable" category. If the debtor fails to "engage" with the bailiff provider at this stage then sadly, it will be the case that a personal visit will be made.

 

It is also very important that "vulnerable" debtors ensure that the local authority are aware of their circumstances.

 

Problem is that faced with a demand for £75 many vulnerable people will not be able to afford it, and be driven deeper into despair, and may even be more likely to bury heads in sand, and not tackle the problem.