Ea's and mental health

[Coughdrop]

MM,

 

Thanks for providing the link. I realise on reading it that the MAT emailed this to me on publication.

 

I think this thread needs to decide what it is talking about. Are we talking about mental health and EA issues, or vulnerability and EA issues? While all people with MH are potentially vulnerable, not all who are potentially vulnerable have MH. Some with MH could deal perfectly well with EA's. As ever, nothing is clear cut.

 

My own experiences with bailiffs predates the new regs, though the National Standards were still there. I have to say, at no stage was any MH issue taken into consideration at all. Andrew James, Swansea went out of their way to mislead for their own monetary gain. They followed no National Standards, nor really any legislation. They were, and may still be, an absolutely appalling enforcement company, employing bailiffs who appeared to act more as thieves. Even actions which led to me being sectioned did nothing to stop them trying to enforce for money we simply did not have.

 

I take on board DB's statement they have a job to do and are not social workers. However, we do not want them going around like Iain Duncan Smith taking actions which lead to suicides and self harm either. There has to be a certain amount of leaway, but as far as I remember, without re-reading the regs again, this is built into them already. If vulnerability is suspected, the person should be given time to do a range of things, one of which is to seek help and advice from a third party (CAB etc....) Certainly with MH issues, it would be far better, much of the time, for a third party mandate to be set up so the EA can deal with the third party directly, relieving the debtor from much of the stress.

 

I don't know what happens nowadays tbh. One hears odd bits, but one swallow does not make a Summer as the saying goes. It would need a more specific study of MH and enforcement for the initial document to be more useful, as an EA is a slightly different kettle of fish to a DCA, who may only have an equitable assignment of a debt and actually be pretty impotent to do anything significant in their own right.

 

It's good this should get an airing, as it is a subject very close to my heart. MH and debt would also be good on the debt threads.

Edited October 25, 2015 by honeybee13
Removing accusation.

[brassnecked]

There needs to be specific training in vulnerabilities such as Mental Health that may not be immeidiately apparent as Coughdrops experience will probably be the norm; it certainly correlates well with the Report linked to by MM. As to Andrew James. I am of the opinion they would do just as my previous post 25 suggested a rogue EA would do.

[Peterbard]

BN with respect i do not think that the EA can be held responsible for enforcing against someone with an undiagnosed complaint.

As for stepping over the twitching body, this sounds like the actions of a psychopath. I doubt any training or regulation would alter the actions of such a person.

CD

The only regulation, I am aware of is the one I mentioned earlier. This is section 12 of the taking control of goods fees regs. This is of limited value, in that it only removes the bailiffs entitlement to charge his fees on secured goods removal, it does not stop him from taking the goods into control.

I hesitate to say it but this could be a route for challenging fees, if it can be shown the debtor is vulnerable and goods are taken for sale to quickly after they are taken under control, for instance if goods were taken under control on a friday and removed for sale on the monday, when no advice agencies are open over the week end.

On the subject in vulnerability in general, I have an issue about the debtor not being able to provide proof. I have several health problems which would I suppose render me as a vulnerable person. Incidentally none of these affect my ability to pay, so I question the direct correlation anyway. The point is that I have a filing cabinet full of letters from the hospital my consultants my GP the social work department etc. any of which would confirm my claims, why is this not available to any other claimant to present to the LA or the EA if required.

[mikeymack2002]

I dont post on twitter ?

 

I have no idea where that come from so it could be something that CAG has in their dictionary that then adds a links, I did not put it there it just turned up. I don't use twitter either.

 

 

As for the title may be Admin could adjust it to cover other debt as well, this thread is of use to most types of debt. There are enough good points regarding the EA and MH to go on with, maybe concentrating on the fact that the LA would already have this information due to data sharing with the DWP. Those in receipt of DLA/PiP would already be known as vulnerable. But, there is always a but, what about the normal argument that if a person that has a MH issue, whom would have the final say the EA/LA here's the but, neither of them are correctly trained in these fields and may not have the qualifications and letters behind their name that shows they are qualified in this field.

 

 

Now putting everything in the wringer, not everyone has a visible indication they have an issue. There are no common factors in this world that puts a label on a person that states "I have a MH problem" take how on the net that some get bullied and others do not, why? What about those that have a hidden disability? How would the EA/LA even know unless the debtor has made them aware. Then there is the issue of someone taking advantage of that person simply because they can!!

 

 

Medical disclosure, is another sore subject to those that have MH issues and that my friends is called trust, whom do you trust that will protect you from those willing and able to take advantage. Again where do you draw the line? Ultimately that lies with the creditor. They alone have the final say. Being a vulnerable adult is no laughing matter, we must take this seriously at all times and at every stage of enforcement.

 

 

Finally where does the LA/EA draw the line? This really is a good question, to add to the discussion those readers that get DLA/PiP at the higher levels have been deemed by the DWP as in need of help in one form or another. Many readers know that these letters are of use to the debtor, but even these cannot always help with an EA, why? because the EA is NOT QUALIFIED in this field.

 

 

Other regular posters know about the CONC rules and these help. I think something like this could be created for the EA when involved in a case the of enforcement? Then there is the MCA as well, so with all of this around surely the MoJ could and should create a set of rules that must be complied with by all forms of "debt collection/enforcement" regardless if it is a DCA to a EA or even a HCEO. I am open to all suggestions here!

 

 

Further reading is available here on how HMRC deal with this see here http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/dmbmanual/DMBM585185.htm here is a quote from this link

 

 

"DMBM585185 - Pre-enforcement: consider the defaulter: customers with mental health issues

 

The Equality Act 2010 requires creditor organisations to make reasonable adjustments to any of its provisions/criteria if a customer is known to be suffering from a disability. Customers with mental health issues can be considered to have a disability if their impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

The act defines the long-term effect of an impairment as either one:

 

• which has lasted for 12 months
  
• where the total period for which it lasts is likely to be 12 months
  
• which is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected."
   
   
  Finally there is a section in the above link called very vulnerable customers this is at the end in the above link...
  

[Peterbard]

I think you could say that I was familiar with conc

 

You see the problem I have with this is, what exactly do you expect the EA to do if confronted with a debtor who pleads vulnerability, but has supplied no proof and refuse to provide any to the EA because of some Data protection idea.

 

You are correct the EA is not qualified in all the forms of medical, neurological and mental disorders which a person could be subject to. I cannot think of anyone who is, not even within the medical profession.

 

Sometimes it is, a matter of trust and taking peoples word at face value, unfortunately as it stands now, the advice given and heeded by a large number of debtors is to avoid the debt at all costs and say anything towards that end truth or not.

 

As I said before I find it hard to believe that someone with a long term medical history or mental disorder would not have some documentation from the medical fraternity stating the fact. Also i find it difficult to see why such a person would not contact the LA disclosing this. If this is disregarded or ignored there would be cause for complaint.

 

I am of course familiar with Conc, CPUTR, OFT/FCA guidance and the rest. Notice all of the guidance given to creditors and DCA on these issues starts with the words,"where the creditor is aware of", pretty obvious, but worth mentioning in the context here.

Unfortunately no one seems to take people at their word these days.

[mikeymack2002]

I agree DB..

 

 

It is not until 5 years ago I needed to do a SAR for my medical records, I now have the full volume. But, the information contained is highly explicit, as such the contents are very in depth. I had to ask many different agencies and including the NHS what it all meant. Some of the information was easy to read, but again this was because I asked my DR. Not everyone has their full medical records available, normally this is done by someone with serious and very complex health issues.

 

 

I know this is hard to explain to a normal reader but it is those of us that do have serious medical issues and sometimes not being in control of oneself. I for one have found that if you ask or tell someone that there is an issue they will and often do make time to help you solve the problem. Sometimes dealing with financial affairs on the doorstep is the wrong time and place.

 

 

If you take this further and the LA still refuse to take in to consideration the ability to CLEARLY understand what is happening to you at your doorstep then they could consider this as you being able to deal with the issue at hand like "normal people" do. But again I hate this word at times, a condition can and does change in the moment. Then how would the EA or others be able to assist the debtor.

 

 

To give you an idea, the debtor has had a TBI/ABI Traumatic Brain Injury/Acquired Brain Injury this type of ill health has its very own problems, let alone dealing with an Agent that does not nor could not understand the sudden change. We both know that a complicated issue can and does get exacerbated if the situation that the person is in comes out of the blue and then confounds the issue at hand. The debtor that has a TBI/ABI has less control than most others, this is not visible to the EA, so the debtor could be seen as being normal, i.e. not vulnerable..

 

 

At the end of the day DB this will always be a very touchy subject and with it come creative debate and better understanding of how to deal with a vulnerable adult.

 

 

Not all of us can be cognitive every moment of every day our issues as they come and go like the wind and on the other hand we could quite easily be able to deal with the EA rationally for a given period of time or until our situation changes, this could be right in front of the EA there and then what could the EA do? I still think the best course of action is to inform the LA regardless of enforcement, this I think would show in advance that there is/could be issues in the first place. But how far can a person go before it all becomes too much for them to handle.

 

 

Then there is the issue of the EA miss-reading the situation altogether and calling the Police to deal with the debtor or a breach of the peace, either way that decision would/could be wrong or misinterpreted by the EA/Police...

[mikeymack2002]

A thought on the trust issue is that the LA cannot release the medical info to the EA so they need to be aware that enforcement could cause more issues in this situation, very tricky subject is this but very worthwhile. Given that some advice is to claim vulnerability is rife it could be wrong, this will have a detrimental affect on the genuine vulnerable persons in the long run... Either way I think this is bad news all-around...

[Peterbard]

Yes i agree, my solicitor got mine last month, and sent me a copy on two cds, very comprehensive. The problem I see with this argument is that the person was obviously cognisant enough to claim vulnerability, but somehow not enough to collect the relavant evidence ?

 

As said, what is the EA to do when presented with a claim and no evidence to be seen or previously reported. If he was just to believe everyone who claimed vulnerability they could never collect anything.

[mikeymack2002]

To answer that question is very simple. The person concerned could be a very proud person and has kept their condition a secret. Why would they do that that too is easy to answer it would mean they had to face their biggest fear of being a vulnerable person in the first place. They may have struggled a long time in keeping it secret because those people don't know where to go for help and worryingly unable to ask for help..

 

You also need to consider the guilt they may face by asking for help so being in a catch 22 situation is untenable to them..

 

A proud person is a person that thinks they can manage on their own but too proud to ask for any help, thus too is a vulnerability..

 

Yes the EA hears this in a daily basis, but they have to get it right 100% of the time, if they don't then the one time they get it wrong then all types of things could happen that can't be undone..

[Bailiff Advice]

In the vast majority of cases, a 'vulnerable' person will normally have arrears of council tax. In rare cases we may come across a vulnerable person incurring a parking ticket for parking without displaying a blue badge etc. Even in such cases, as long as their vehicle is displaying a blue badge their car would be exempt wtc.

 

With council tax it is vitally important that any vulnerability is brought to the councils attention at an early stage and if this is done, most councils would not be forwarding a liability order to bailiffs and instead, will deal with the account in-house. The importance of engaging with the council (or even the bailiff company) at an early stage cannot is of vital important.

[Peterbard]

To answer that question is very simple. The person concerned could be a very proud person and has kept their condition a secret. Why would they do that that too is easy to answer it would mean they had to face their biggest fear of being a vulnerable person in the first place. They may have struggled a long time in keeping it secret because those people don't know where to go for help and worryingly unable to ask for help..

 

You also need to consider the guilt they may face by asking for help so being in a catch 22 situation is untenable to them..

 

A proud person is a person that thinks they can manage on their own but too proud to ask for any help, thus too is a vulnerability..

 

Yes the EA hears this in a daily basis, but they have to get it right 100% of the time, if they don't then the one time they get it wrong then all types of things could happen that can't be undone..

 

Hi MM

Sorry MM but this does not answer the question , nor is it simple. The question was , what is the ea to do when presented with a claim of vulnerability when no visible evidence is present and no previous reports to the creditor.

 

I would also say that there is a fine line between the argument you present and just putting your head in the sand. i would say that being to proud to ask for help in genuine cases is accompanied by being to proud to not pay (or arrange to pay} what is owed and is not the sole preserve of the vulnerable.

 

Vulnerability is not a reason why people should not pay it merely restricts the enforcment method used, in that a less confrontational and stressful approach must be adopted, at the end of the day the debt still needs to be addressed.

 

If there are legislative measures to reduce the debtor's liability then this is the reserve of the authority and should be brought up at the time the debt becomes due. There is also the point ,that just because the debtor is vulnerable, it does not mean that there is not someone else in the household who can represent them, the legislation permits this, without the need for a written authority. There is no such thing s a "vulnerable household" of course this is yet another piece of ridiculous misinformation popular elsewhere.

[mikeymack2002]

In the vast majority of cases, a 'vulnerable' person will normally have arrears of council tax. In rare cases we may come across a vulnerable person incurring a parking ticket for parking without displaying a blue badge etc. Even in such cases, as long as their vehicle is displaying a blue badge their car would be exempt wtc.

 

With council tax it is vitally important that any vulnerability is brought to the councils attention at an early stage and if this is done, most councils would not be forwarding a liability order to bailiffs and instead, will deal with the account in-house. The importance of engaging with the council (or even the bailiff company) at an early stage cannot is of vital important.

 

 

I found this statement strange, why? Because I know of several people that are vulnerable and in need of assistance, due to the fact they need help with care and mobility. Help with their finances and looking after their medication. Both are retired any living in part 2 accommodation, both on pensions and HB, 1 in receipt of DLA and the other in receipt of CA. 2 LO's in force at a rate that leaves them in poverty.

 

 

The LA are very aware of this and yet they still have the EA attend and take a significant amount of money off of both of them. The LA were advised that they should take £3.65 for arrears from the Pension and DLA but the LA refuses and so as a result they will still be in arrears during the next financial year and falling into the same trap, that is not having enough money to keep up with the current year. The claimant has been advised to apply for the SMI payment yet this LA still will not offer the best help. This could be the practice of this LA but then again how often do you read about LA's doing this?

 

 

The EA was permitted access to the complex and therefore allowed to knock on the defaulters door. Since the complex is normally closed the residents still often do not lock their doors so peacefully entry was gained. yet another grey area of being given access to an enclosed space rears its ugly head... Current arrears arose before the pensions started.

 

 

The only option in this type of case would be possibly ask the Courts to write off the debt as the LA is unlikely to write it off so what would you suggest in this scenario? A side note that neither of them has any savings or access to funds...

 

 

I did send them/their families links to the SMI reduction and disabled reduction pages, as well as a link to to how to get their claims backdated, as shown in an earlier post....

[caledfwlch]

A problem of some MH conditions is a tendency to "bury things" hence, stuff that looks like bills and so on just gets shoved in a drawer, or filed in the bin unopened, which is why so many people genuinely vulnerable wont have gotten in contact with the LA before EA action.

 

If an LA has any sort of responsibility to deal with the genuinely vulnerable slightly differently and to try and identify those vulnerable, surely that responsibility is more than "oh they should have contacted us"

 

As I said, they tend to use multiple systems but it wont take long to check names and NINO's against the SS register for example.

[mikeymack2002]

To give you another idea how the EA will still trample over a vulnerable person you may want to read this story here http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/Burton-couple-thrown-hotel-room-bailiffs-close/story-28020666-detail/story.html

 

 

It just goes to prove that if someone is or has a disability/other they can still be dealt with accordingly even if they are not the debtor. The story above will show this at its most basic level... So really how safe are these groups of people really? Not very by the looks it!

 

 

I also did a search using these words disabled penalised by the bailiff it came up with some quite shocking threads...

[Peterbard]

Now we seem to be discussing evictions, because they came up on an internet search ?

 

I will leave you to it.

[mikeymack2002]

I don't see how you came to that, the story was about a disabled person being evicted yes, but even though they are they still had to leave the point in subject.

 

 

The fact an EA WAS involved was the point you clearly missed!

 

 

If you have nothing decent to add except having digs please refrain from doing so as it makes you as bad as others on the net. Its not nice and it is unwarranted.

 

 

Lets ask the question are your posts 100% accurate? if not why not ?

 

 

Quote

"HOTEL guests told how they had been left without a room for the night after they were ordered on to the street by bailiffs."

 

 

As it turns out a guest was DISABLED. That was my point.... The story further stated

 

 

"The pair, who are disabled and on benefits, say they could not afford to rent a house yet but were looking into it."

 

 

So this is on topic and of interest if you wish to argue that then do so on your own.... If you cannot see the connection then that's your fault..

[brassnecked]

I don't see how you came to that, the story was about a disabled person being evicted yes, but even though they are they still had to leave the point in subject.

 

 

The fact an EA WAS involved was the point you clearly missed!

 

 

If you have nothing decent to add except having digs please refrain from doing so as it makes you as bad as others on the net. Its not nice and it is unwarranted.

 

 

Lets ask the question are your posts 100% accurate? if not why not ?

 

 

Quote

"HOTEL guests told how they had been left without a room for the night after they were ordered on to the street by bailiffs."

 

 

As it turns out a guest was DISABLED. That was my point.... The story further stated

 

 

"The pair, who are disabled and on benefits, say they could not afford to rent a house yet but were looking into it."

 

 

So this is on topic and of interest if you wish to argue that then do so on your own.... If you cannot see the connection then that's your fault..

The fact is MM that in that case the homeless team should have been assisting, in the other case you mentioned where the council and EA's are going in hard rather than attaching to benefit, perhaps that one is ready for Local Member and MP investigation, if not LGO.

[Peterbard]

I see nothing about vulnerability, in the piece or in your post.

 

You are talking about the end of a process that may have been going on for months, we do not know the circumstances of the debt, the fact that the couple may be disabled does not necessarily mean that they are vulnerable, in fact the piece mentions nothing about the subject. You are making your own story and using a faulty premise of the report to support it.

Perhaps we should talk about the creditor and the fact he had the people evicted or the fact that the authorities have yet again failed to provide safety net for people who have lost their homes, this would be more appropriate.

 

I have said this to you before, it would be helpful to all if you could check that the link actually relate to the subject under discussion.

 

I will watch out for the door.

[mikeymack2002]

I see nothing about vulnerability, in the piece or in your post.

 

I have said this to you before, it would be helpful to all if you could check that the link actually relate to the subject under discussion.

 

 

 

 

Where have I heard that before umm let me guess lets try a Google search the phrase I can think about here is when in glass houses....

[brassnecked]

MM and DB, less tit for tat and more discussion please, this issue is extremely important. Yes DB EA's have a job to do and are not Social Workers, butways must be explored to prevent people with MH issues, from falling into their clutches in the first pace. The system of itself with CT being extremely automated with short tight computer processed actions mitigates against the vulnerable and people with MH issues that often cloud judgment leading to severe Ostrich Syndrome. They have a LO before they know it and the bailiff at the door.

[Peterbard]

Where have I heard that before umm let me guess lets try a Google search the phrase I can think about here is when in glass houses....

 

What have i said about getting off google. Absolutely no idea what you are on about.

[Peterbard]

MM and DB, less tit for tat and more discussion please, this issue is extremely important. Yes DB EA's have a job to do and are not Social Workers, butways must be explored to prevent people with MH issues, from falling into their clutches in the first pace. The system of itself with CT being extremely automated with short tight computer processed actions mitigates against the vulnerable and people with MH issues that often cloud judgment leading to severe Ostrich Syndrome. They have a LO before they know it and the bailiff at the door.

 

I think I would just be repeating what I have already said BN.

[citizenB]

To assist DB in his post @9

 

 

 

 

 

Also what does this refer to, was it a typo?

 

I dont post on twitter ?

 

If MM can give me some idea of what he intended to post then I can find out why the twitter link appeared. I suspect it is because the "@" symbol was used.

 

Perhaps to indicate the post number the following should have been used #9

[Peterbard]

Yes I thought that too cb, but post 9 isn't one of mine either, it will have to remain one of life's mysteries I suppose

[fletch70]

Evening Dodge

Long time and all that, hope you are well