Liability Orders and CCJ's

[Coughdrop]

I am horrified to read this article:

 

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/18022/online-news/government-calls-for-views-to-improve-council-tax-debt-recovery-

 

In it, Barrie Minney, senior enforcement manager at Brighton & Hove City Council and chairman of the Local Authority Civil Enforcement Forum (LACEF) states the following:

 

 

My personal favourite; liability orders should be registered as a County Court Judgment (CCJ). It’s the biggest question we get – ‘will this affect my credit rating?

 

Given his position, this is a crassly idiotic statement. Every liability order issued should be registered as a CCJ. Is this man for real?

 

Let's think through this. Last year, the generally accepted figure for the number of LO's issued for Council Tax is 3.5 million (3500000). The population of England and Wales is approximately 56 million. So you are talking about 6.25% of the population receiving a CCJ, making them uncreditworthy in just one year. Extrapolate that over say five years and the country will be in a position where about 3% of the population will have multiple CCJ's against them, about 15% will have a single CCJ against them - that's 18% of the population, round it up to 20%.

 

If 20% of the population are unable to get normal credit, mortgages, to let a house (often involves a credit check nowadays), to access many forms of employment, there will be chaos.

 

Barrie Minney, who holds a senior position at Brighton and Hove City Council, and Chairs LACEF thinks it's a good idea to bring the country to its knees. Why? Because he appears to want to see debtors suffer. He wants to see them really pay for hitting on hard times, being vulnerable, having mental health problems, losing their job, leaving university and learning the reality of living in 'the real world' - plenty of these will be students; the list is almost endless.

 

This man appears to have lost his mind. Certainly if I were in charge of Brighton and Hove Council, I would be looking closely at this very public statement and asking whether this man was really the right one to be doing the job he does.

 

Should he be chairing LACEF and trying to convince other local authorities this is a good idea? In my opinion he should not.

 

We haven't even considered LO's issued for non-domestic rates here. Add those into the equation and the situation becomes even more crazy. Businesses unable to get credit, on which most of course rely, is not a good idea. In fact, in my opinion it ranks amongst the most bizarre statements I've read about regarding enforcement issues.

 

This is madness beyond belief. Trade in the UK will die as even subprime credit struggles to keep up with demand from the majority of the population and the vast number of businesses who now have CCJ's, so cannot access normal lines of credit. Prices will rocket. Inflation will go sky high.

 

Come on Barrie - you need to admit to a mistake here. Not only are you reinforcing the picture of a stereotypical bailiff who really gets pleasure in seeing anyone they can suffer, but you are single handedly trying to bring the country to its knees.

 

Even more scary, given your position, is the fact your word counts for a lot. There is a possibility you might achieve this unless enough people speak up against what you are proposing.

[bazm]

Where does it say EVERY liability order? Is it right that someone refuses to pay their share of council tax and yet is able to get a loan and increase their indebtedness? How about borrowing money to go on holiday yet has several court orders against them. A person can have commital proceedings against them yet still be able to borrow. Guess who picks up the tab - you do, we all do. No one is suggesting that vulnerable people get a ccj. If a threat of a ccj stops further irresponsible borrowing don't you think thats a sensible idea?

 

I think you're giving the idea too much credit "This is madness beyond belief. Trade in the UK will die as even subprime credit struggles to keep up with demand from the majority of the population and the vast number of businesses who now have CCJ's, so cannot access normal lines of credit. Prices will rocket. Inflation will go sky high."

[Coughdrop]

Where does it say EVERY liability order?

 

Hi Barrie I thought you might appear.

 

Where do you state there are any exceptions to the liability orders? You don't, so mine was a reasonable assumption to make given your words. "liability orders should be registered as a County Court Judgment (CCJ)"

 

You make no exceptions for vulnerable debtors, or indeed any type of debtor. You state simply, "liability orders." I took that to mean liability orders funnily enough.

 

As for this:

 

I think you're giving the idea too much credit "This is madness beyond belief. Trade in the UK will die as even subprime credit struggles to keep up with demand from the majority of the population and the vast number of businesses who now have CCJ's, so cannot access normal lines of credit. Prices will rocket. Inflation will go sky high."

You think I'm giving the idea too much credit? Are you saying you do not want the idea to have credit then?

 

"My personal favourite; liability orders should be registered as a County Court Judgment (CCJ)."

 

Sorry, but that looks very much like you want the idea to have credit - your personal favourite (holding a senior position on Brighton and Hove Council, and chairing LACEF), so someone whose word carries substantial weight; someone very highly regarded in the industry.

 

If it was a mistake and you didn't mean it like that, say so. We all make mistakes.

 

You know better than I do that many people get LO's who are perfectly credit worthy, and deserve to remain so. It can happen for a myriad of reasons. Do you really want to reinforce that stereotype of bailiffs being seen to want to punish debtors, ruin the next 6 years of their life, possibly longer, because something unfortunate had happened. We can cite examples of people who have LO's who do or do not deserve to get further credit all night, but it won't alter what you said; nor will it alter the long term effects of what you said.

 

It is not for me to put words into the mouth of a Head of Enforcement and Chair of LACEF, but if I were that person, I'd be holding my hands up and withdrawing the statement. If you really want a way to back down without losing face, the statement could be qualified by something along the lines of, "lest people misunderstand my intent." You could back down gracefully then.

 

Giving it too much credit though? Nah! You should be over the moon if it really is your personal favourite. The question is, is it, or would you like to amend your words?

[brassnecked]

Agreed CD there could well be chaos, ands a whole raft of adversely affected people. One issue is that the LO is issued in the Magistrates Court, and a CCJ must be obtained in the County Court, so there would have to be a significant rewriting of legislation notwithstanding the Human Rights issue of a Liasbility Order for £1 or £5 (FOI NELC)£1 screwing someones creditworthiness.

 

These people like Barrie Minnie live in a very elitist cloistered world, where anyone but a council official is little people, cash cows to be milked.

 

On the face of it it is a want not a given, so BM may well have to go swivel for his wish.

[outlawla]

There's only one place for people like the senior enforcement manager at Brighton & Hove City Council and chairman of LACEF, and that's on the dole. This would unfortunately mean us taxpayers having to keep him but that's a small price for keeping him from inflicting the misery on unfortunates he seems to enjoy currently.

[Peterbard]

As I said before. What is the mechanism where a LO can be registered as a county court judgment anyway, Because it isnt.

[Coughdrop]

As I said before. What is the mechanism where a LO can be registered as a county court judgment anyway, Because it isnt.

 

No, you're absolutely correct DB. Barrie Minney talked about this in the article and the tweaking it would need to legislation for it to be possible. If those tweaks were made, there would then be a mechanism.

 

Let's hope anyone who reads it sees it for what it is - a very bizarre comment which appears to demonstrate the true feelings of at least one senior enforcement officer. Feelings which, in my opinion, reflect poorly on him.

[ploddertom]

Can you imagine.

 

Acme Council takes 1500 defaulters to Court on one of their regular rubber stamping exercises and gain 1200 Liability Orders. In turn 1000 of these ignore what has happened and Acme Council turns them into CCJs. Each debtor then applies for a Variation Order - each will have to be heard individually - this then ties the local County Court up for the next 4 weeks while they are heard. Acme Council have to send an officer to each hearing - the result being that 500 get a new payment proposal of £1 per month & the rest are between £5 & £25 per month.

 

Is this a good result & sensible solution for the Council - I think not unless of course Justice is then removed for the debtors doing this which then begs the question of how other matters proceed. Has more pitfalls than gains.

[Coughdrop]

:-D:-D

 

I'm not sure it has any gains. It is utter madness, and particularly worrying given it was a 'personal favourite' of a senior council enforcement officer, who is also Chair of LACEF.

 

Thank God he said personal favourite! At least anyone associated with him can now distance themselves. I believe Cuckoo Land is pleasant at this time of year.