Councils acting “illegally” on bailiff fees

[seanamarts]

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/14089/online-news/councils-acting-illegally-on-bailiff-fees-

 

Local authorities desperate to drive down costs may be acting illegally when it comes to debt collection.

 

Colin Naylor, executive committee member of the Civil Enforcement Agency (CIVEA) and managing director of Dukes Bailiffs says council’s policy of “fees last” should be outlawed from local authority tenders.

 

The practice involves bailiffs tendering for local council work appearing to be providing free of charge services to the authority with the fees then loaded onto the debtors after the debt has been paid.

 

 

Naylor said: “We can all understand the pressure on local authorities to reduce costs but there is no doubt in my mind this type of arrangement falls outside the regulations.”

 

Naylor went on to explain the “worrying trend” has four unwelcome consequences.

 

Firstly, it opens local authorities up to legal challenges on contract awards.

 

Secondly, it loads disproportionate costs onto debtors.

 

Thirdly, it mitigates against bailiffs who are tendering for work on the correct basis.

 

Fourthly, it encourages bailiffs to adopt a more aggressive stance towards debtors, which is strictly against government policy.

[unclebulgaria67]

It would surprise me if government ministers were not aware of what was going on. They must receive letters about this, either in their official capacity as ministers or as constituency MP's. I suspect that if you search Hansard, you will find that this issue has been raised.

[brassnecked]

The issue of aggressive bailiffs was raised by Austin Mitchell in connection with an incident where JBW wanted over £700 to avoid the car being towed for a council PCN, but this problem also includes council tax, see here regarding JBW:

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-03-27d.1471.0

 

Of course they are aware but the only knee jerk ids for MOJ through a kangaroo consultation propose to massively raise the fees, therefore making things worse.

[outlawla]

The issue of aggressive bailiffs was raised by Austin Mitchell in connection with an incident where JBW wanted over £700 to avoid the car being towed for a council PCN, but this problem also includes council tax, see here regarding JBW:

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-03-27d.1471.0

 

Of course they are aware but the only knee jerk ids for MOJ through a kangaroo consultation propose to massively raise the fees, therefore making things worse.

 

The MoJ confirmed receipt of this, so they do know.

 

 

Item 3,

 

Bailiff malpractice

Transforming bailiff action - consultation response.pdf

Edited June 17, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

The MoJ confirmed receipt of this, so they do know.

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]36108[/ATTACH]

 

Item 3,

 

Bailiff malpractice

Anyway the name Capita is referred to, Crapita, should be allowable on any forum without upsetting mods, as Austin Mitchell referred to them as such in his report "I shall give some examples. Equita, which is a subsidiary of Crapita—I am sorry, I mean Capita—is the biggest firm in the business"

 

Yes an excellent reasoned response outlawla, but as muppetry seems to be the MO, will they take any notice?

[outlawla]

Anyway the name Capita is referred to, Crapita, should be allowable on any forum without upsetting mods, as Austin Mitchell referred to them as such in his report "I shall give some examples. Equita, which is a subsidiary of Crapita—I am sorry, I mean Capita—is the biggest firm in the business" .....

 

As he says in his blog

 

My speech is described by the Grimsby Telegraph as “a foul mouthed rant” though I`d expected comparisons with Demosthenese or Cicero. It`s an attack on enforcement bailiffs who charge hundreds of pounds for distraining on cars and hits a nerve, producing a flood of letters from aggrieved citizens who`ve been charged hundreds of pounds for clamping because councils collude with the clampers instead of controlling them. In Grimsby charges of £250 produced mutiny but a spokesman for Southwark says £700 is “not unreasonable”.

 

 

You would expect nothing other than this from the Grimsby Telegraph.

 

Despite almost 2,000 (the majority damning) comments on an article dealing with the council's use of the Magistrates court and Rossendales, the GT still considered its loyalties lay with the council and failed to run any article which would likely risk the £thousands of taxpayer's money the council paid it for advertising each year.

Edited June 17, 2012 by outlawla

[brassnecked]

As he says in his blog

 

 

 

You would expect nothing other than this from the Grimsby Telegraph.

 

Despite almost 2,000 (the majority damning) comments on an article dealing with the council's use of the Magistrates court and Rossendales, the GT still considered its loyalties lay with the council and failed to run any article which would likely risk the £thousands of taxpayer's money the council paid it for advertising each year.

 

Such is also true of the local rags around here, The daily post, the North Wales weekly news, the Pieinyourear (Pioneer), as responsible impartial news organs they are as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

[caledfwlch]

Never understood the claims that we have a free press, and we musn't legislate against it because of the naughty stuff it does, as it wouldnt then be "free"

 

It is not remotely, it does what its advertisers wants, that is not a "free press"

 

It's another reason that Levenson is making it pretty clear that News International should be barred from operating in the UK, or owning, even partly any UK companies - Elections should not hinge on what the Daily **** tells its readers to support. It is pretty clear that Murdoch has misused that power to threaten non compliant PM's such as Major too.

 

The citizens of Grimsby should boycott the rag for a few weeks. Wonder how influential the Council is then, when there is no revenue stream via sales, so advertisers start to pull out.

 

I suspect a Council withdrawing advertising because the paper actually challenged its decisions could be a quick way to losing an expensive court case too, democracy relies on the press and us challenging the powers that be.

[tomtubby]

The article in Credit Today was written by Colin Naylor who is not only MD of a bailiff company but is the executive committee member of the Civil Enforcement Agency (CIVEA).

 

I saw the article last week and had to read it twice as I was so annoyed to read that he is blaming LOCAL AUTHORITIES for trying to have "fees last" included in contracts. This provision (in contracts) is wrong because the statutory fee scale clearly provides that bailiff fees must be deducted first.

 

What he should be doing is BLAMING THE BAILIFF COMPANIES who are all members of CIVEA who agree these contracts. If the bailiff firms all got together and REFUSED to agree such poorly drafted contracts then the problem would be resolved.

 

YET AGAIN.....the bailiff industry is attempting to BLAME OTHERS !!!!

[seanamarts]

YET AGAIN.....the bailiff industry is attempting to BLAME OTHERS !!!!

 

my thoughts exactly

[Old Cogger]

And mine after I read it, not put on here what I said to myself after reading it in Credit to-day.

[unclebulgaria67]

Is it possible that some form of direction must have been given by someone centrally, for council in different parts of the country to act in the way that they are ?

This may not be the bailiff companies, but perhaps from the DCLG. If DCLG have given guidance to local authorities about this, which are not lawful, then this may be difficult to get changed. It may have come about because central government realised that with budgets cut and council tax frozen, that local authorities needed more forceful ways of collecting unpaid amounts. They just haven't passed either new legislation or an SI to make it lawful.

 

Perhaps a FOI should be raised about the issue.

[brassnecked]

Is it possible that some form of direction must have been given by someone centrally, for council in different parts of the country to act in the way that they are ?

This may not be the bailiff companies, but perhaps from the DCLG. If DCLG have given guidance to local authorities about this, which are not lawful, then this may be difficult to get changed. It may have come about because central government realised that with budgets cut and council tax frozen, that local authorities needed more forceful ways of collecting unpaid amounts. They just haven't passed either new legislation or an SI to make it lawful.

 

Perhaps a FOI should be raised about the issue.

 

It would appear that they have developed a "Custom And Practice" outside the legislation that they are hoping to legitimise via the back door, either that or stonewall and hope no one notices or mounts a meaningful challenge.

Edited June 18, 2012 by brassnecked

[josephbloggs]

In the article its the third bulletpoint

it mitigates against bailiffs who are tendering for work on the correct basis,

i think this is a sly dig towards the other companies in itself