Rise in bailiff use

[mmfhater]

http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14176825.___Shocking____rise_in_use_of_bailiffs____unfairly_punishing____working_poor__councillor_claims/ Edited January 5, 2016 by citizenB
restored broken link

[Bailiff Advice]

http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14176825.___Shocking____rise_in_use_of_bailiffs____unfairly_punishing____working_poor__councillor_claims/

 

Hopefully this link works better:

 

 

http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14176825.___Shocking____r ise_in_use_of_bailiffs___ _unfairly_punishing____wo rking_poor__councillor_cl aims/

 

THE use of bailiffs to recoup unpaid council tax in Poole is unfairly “punishing” the working poor, a councillor has claimed.

 

In the financial year so far, Borough of Poole has referred 1,723 cases of unpaid council tax to enforcement agents, as bailiffs are officially titled, compared with 1,590 people in 2014/15, 1,322 people the year before and 1,031 the year before that.

 

In addition, the proportion of those residents served with Council Tax Liability Orders who are then referred to bailiffs has increased year-on-year from 38 per cent in 2012/13 to 80 per cent this year so far.

 

“With cases referred to a bailiff rising from 39 per cent of liability orders to 80 per cent in just two years, senior officers and the councillors in charge must have been involved in setting this policy.”

[brassnecked]

Hopefully this link works better:

 

 

http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14176825.___Shocking____r ise_in_use_of_bailiffs___ _unfairly_punishing____wo rking_poor__councillor_cl aims/

 

THE use of bailiffs to recoup unpaid council tax in Poole is unfairly “punishing” the working poor, a councillor has claimed.

 

In the financial year so far, Borough of Poole has referred 1,723 cases of unpaid council tax to enforcement agents, as bailiffs are officially titled, compared with 1,590 people in 2014/15, 1,322 people the year before and 1,031 the year before that.

 

In addition, the proportion of those residents served with Council Tax Liability Orders who are then referred to bailiffs has increased year-on-year from 38 per cent in 2012/13 to 80 per cent this year so far.

 

“With cases referred to a bailiff rising from 39 per cent of liability orders to 80 per cent in just two years, senior officers and the councillors in charge must have been involved in setting this policy.”

 

 

This story will be repeated many times in the coming year, no doubt about that.

[mmfhater]

Those figures will triple if my local councils get there way as they want to merge bournemouth poole and Christchurch to make a super council

[renegadeimp]

Prob saves them admin costs and they get a kick back too

[mmfhater]

I've had them take me to court before and before I went in they did a deal for the same as I was paying !!! Then they tried to add on the court costs ect but I got them rescinded

[renegadeimp]

When.they try court and make a deal like that, usually they know they're unlikely to get an order against you so try and settle outside. Many dcas do this too

[Bailiff Advice]

Hopefully this link works better:

 

“With cases referred to a bailiff rising from 39 per cent of liability orders to 80 per cent in just two years, senior officers and the councillors in charge must have been involved in setting this policy.”[/indent][/indent][/indent]

 

The above comment is most interesting indeed.

 

Prior to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 coming into effect in 2014, it had been the case that once a Liability Order had been issued that there was a legal obligation on the local authority to send a '14 day' letter to the debtor advising that a LO had been obtained and warning that if payment was not received that the debt would be passed to a bailiff company. The new regulations revoked that clause (Regulation 46) and the position now is that once a LO has been authorised, the debt can be passed straight over to the enforcement agency. I would hazard a guess that this amendment could well be the cause for such a significant rise in the number of cases referred to bailiffs as outlined above.

[brassnecked]

The above comment is most interesting indeed.

 

Prior to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 coming into effect in 2014, it had been the case that once a Liability Order had been issued that there was a legal obligation on the local authority to send a '14 day' letter to the debtor advising that a LO had been obtained and warning that if payment was not received that the debt would be passed to a bailiff company. The new regulations revoked that clause (Regulation 46) and the position now is that once a LO has been authorised, the debt can be passed straight over to the enforcement agency. I would hazard a guess that this amendment could well be the cause for such a significant rise in the number of cases referred to bailiffs as outlined above.

That amendment needs striking out then and the 14 day letter reinstated, allowing the debtor to save the £75 and £235 EA fees if they settle with the LA.

[lookinforinfo]

That amendment needs striking out then and the 14 day letter reinstated, allowing the debtor to save the £75 and £235 EA fees if they settle with the LA.

 

And how would that affect Capita run Councils if that happened? There is absolutely no conflict of interest involved.

[E Munch]

Isn't Poole part of, or working with, the Stour Valley Partnership which use in house Enforcement agents?

http://www.poole.gov.uk/newsroom/2013-news-archive/september-2013/borough-of-poole-and-stour-valley-partnership-to-deliver-joint-services/

 

This extract below from a publicly available document from January 2014 said that the use of in house EAs would start in April 2014.

From that date therefore any case with a liability order that was referred to an in house enforcement agent

would result in a compliance fee that would go directly to the council that made the decision what to do with the liability order :-

 

Stour Valley and Poole

Partnership (SVPP) Joint

Committee

20 January 2014

Provision of a Bailiff and Enforcement Services for the

Partnership

 

1. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Purpose of Report: To seek approval for the establishment of an internal Bailiff /

 

Enforcement Service to be provided by the Partnership as

 

from 1 April 2014

 

Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that:

 

1. the Partnership establish it own Enforcement Service

 

(in house bailiff service) from 1 April 2014 for the

 

enforcement of all debts due to the partner Councils

 

 

 

 

 

[Bailiff Advice]

Very interesting post Munch.

 

If correct, it reinforces my opinion about 'in house bailiff operations' (which is that I do not support them).

[brassnecked]

Very interesting post Munch.

 

If correct, it reinforces my opinion about 'in house bailiff operations' (which is that I do not support them).

Agree BA, In House could be accused of being purely about Revenue Generation above and beyond a Capita/Equita stitch up.

[letsmakeamark]

Maidstone, Tonbridge , Swale and Thanet District Council are going in house by sharing the same bailiffs to collect their debts. Saw their advert a few days ago. Cant remember their new name but it is a partnership of some sort.

[Peterbard]

rw

Isn't Poole part of, or working with, the Stour Valley Partnership which use in house Enforcement agents?

http://www.poole.gov.uk/newsroom/2013-news-archive/september-2013/borough-of-poole-and-stour-valley-partnership-to-deliver-joint-services/

 

This extract below from a publicly available document from January 2014 said that the use of in house EAs would start in April 2014.

From that date therefore any case with a liability order that was referred to an in house enforcement agent

would result in a compliance fee that would go directly to the council that made the decision what to do with the liability order :-

 

Stour Valley and Poole

Partnership (SVPP) Joint

Committee

20 January 2014

Provision of a Bailiff and Enforcement Services for the

Partnership

 

1. PURPOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Purpose of Report: To seek approval for the establishment of an internal Bailiff /

 

Enforcement Service to be provided by the Partnership as

 

from 1 April 2014

 

Recommendations: It is RECOMMENDED that:

 

1. the Partnership establish it own Enforcement Service

 

(in house bailiff service) from 1 April 2014 for the

 

enforcement of all debts due to the partner Councils

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi

Does anyone know how this works in practice ?

 

Are the bailiffs salaried and fees made under the enforcement regulations just going to go into the council coffers for instance ?

 

If so, isn't there a problem with the TCE and the way fees are calculated, that is in order to cover costs and profit to a commercial, stand alone enterprise.

Things such as premises costs etc. will no longer be appropriate, so will the fees not have to be re calculated.

 

The way the fees work . the distribution of the amount outstanding as prescribed in the act would not be applicable.

 

Also if the fees went to the council would there not be an expectation that they were shown to be proportionate as they would not be able to make a profit.

 

The bailiff costs would just form part of the authorities expenses, the fees its income.

[E Munch]

Yes they are employees and the council pay the salaries and other costs out of the fee income. Read the full document here and in particular sections 6 and 7

http://moderngoveddc.christchurchandeastdorset.gov.uk/documents/s1856/Provision%20of%20Bailiff%20and%20Enforcement%20Servcies%20for%20the%20Partnership.pdf

 

 

The fees chargeable are set by the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 and the splitting of partial payments is covered by regulation 13. There is nothing to say that council employed EAs should or could alter the fees. Indeed Regulation 13(5) suggests that the closer linking of enforcement agent and creditor would mean an increased take of fees rather than a reduction. Mind you it is not clear whether 13(5) applies to the council employed EAs or not.

[caledfwlch]

I am a astonished that farming both Council tax Administration and Enforcement to the same company/group of companies is even lawful, given the obvious that could, and indeed strongly appears to be happening, that they wont deal with debtors fairly but automatically hit the Enforcement Agent button thus profiting themselves.

 

It is clear in these situations that the best outcome for both the Council and the Debtor is not being looked after, but instead the well being of the company is the priority.

 

I did wonder, if someone high up realised that had the attempted privatisation of Fines gone ahead, it would be illegal/unlawful, having a private company choosing how to enforce, and just happening to own the enforcement company.

[E Munch]

Perhaps I've not been clear. The Poole situation is the opposite of privatisation. The council are not farming out enforcement at all but doing it themselves, albeit as part of a group of councils working together. The council choose what to do with the cases but have a perverse incentive to perhaps want to go the Schedule 12 route to incur the fee for the council as well as the court costs, before the debt gets paid.

[Peterbard]

Yes they are employees and the council pay the salaries and other costs out of the fee income. Read the full document here and in particular sections 6 and 7

http://moderngoveddc.christchurchandeastdorset.gov.uk/documents/s1856/Provision%20of%20Bailiff%20and%20Enforcement%20Servcies%20for%20the%20Partnership.pdf

 

 

The fees chargeable are set by the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 and the splitting of partial payments is covered by regulation 13. There is nothing to say that council employed EAs should or could alter the fees. Indeed Regulation 13(5) suggests that the closer linking of enforcement agent and creditor would mean an increased take of fees rather than a reduction. Mind you it is not clear whether 13(5) applies to the council employed EAs or not.

 

Thank you for getting back. I will probably have to read this a couple of times before it sinks in, I know that the fees in the regulations are in fact maximum rates and can be adjusted downward without any parliamentary intervention.

 

I will have to tie up the information you have kindly provided with the regulations and act, but I am fairly sure that the phrase payable to the enforcment agent is stated several times,indicating that the amount outstanding is apportioned by the bailiff and then the appropriate amount due to the authority forwarded to them, and wonder how this now applies when the requirement seems to now be," payable to the authority".

Anyway just a thought.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Dodgeball
clarity

[E Munch]

The fees can be amended in any way, up or down by a new Statutory Instrument issued by the Lord Chancellor but until that happens they are not a maximum fee they are a fixed amount. It specifies so in the Schedule to the TCoG (Fees) Regulations 2014. I've underlined the wording in the heading of the extract below.

 

 

The fees are still recoverable by the enforcement agent [TCoG (Fees) Regulation 4(1)] but the enforcement agent is now an employee of the council. The council will have to have a contract with their employee to hand over the fee (or they may keep their salary and the fees!) but it will represent a separate pot from the council tax and court costs due under the liability order. The partial payments will still be split in accordance with TCoG (Fees) Reg 13(1) but my point in the last paragraph of my last post was that it is conceivable to argue that an in house enforcement agent may bring 13(5) into play which would mean that all the fees get paid before any balance gets put against the liability order amount. If 13(5) does not apply when the enforcement agent is an employee of the creditor it presumably means they wrote a special paragraph to cover a situation where the enforcement agent was also personally a landlord enforcing their own commercial rent arrears or an HCEO or County Court bailiff enforcing a judgement they had obtained for a debt owed personally to them, something that must be incredibly rare.

SCHEDULE

 

Fees recoverable under regulation 4

 

This schedule has no associated Explanatory Memorandum

Table 1

 

Enforcement other than under a High Court Writ

 

Fee Stage Fixed Fee

Percentage fee (regulation 7): percentage of sum to be recovered exceeding £1500

Compliance stage£75.000%Enforcement stage£235.007.5%Sale or disposal stage£110.007.5%

[E Munch]

Oh looking at the above the pasted extract from the Schedule to the fee regulations has become jumbled by some sort of auto formatting on this website. See the original at:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/schedule/made

[Bailiff Advice]

Thank you for getting back. I will probably have to read this a couple of times before it sinks in, I know that the fees in the regulations are in fact maximum rates and can be adjusted downward without any parliamentary intervention.

 

The fees can neither be reduced or increased. As made clear in the regulations, the fees are FIXED.

 

PS: I hadn't realised that Munch has already posted the same.

[Peterbard]

Yes BA has just said the same thing about the fees, I am sure I read otherwise somewhere I will see if I can find the reference.

 

Notably though the statute regarding the apportionment are in the TCE rather than the council regulations, which is of course relevant to the enforcement agent EA rather than the authority, unless the same procedure was to be adopted by all the enforcement streams.

 

Regarding to SI although issued by the CG as you say they still require parliamentary approval and scrutiny, although to a lesser level than legislation.

[Peterbard]

Hi

Yes it was here, sorry for the length of the post but it was something I skimmed a little while ago and has to be read in context. With thanks to J Kruse.

 

 

The question has recently been raised- are the fees in the 2014 scale fixed sums that must be charged or are they maxima, enabling agencies to offers reduced or discounted amounts in certain cases? What lends pertinence to this question is a decision of the Scottish Court of Sessions to the effect that the scale applicable to sheriff’ officers only, in fact, prescribed maximum figures. In McEntegart v Fishman [2012], it was decided that the relevant Scottish regulations concerned with sheriff officers’ fees “do not amount to a statement that the amount brought about by strict application of the terms of the Table must be charged by the sheriff officer.” Even though the provision stated that fees “shall be calculated” and “shall be payable”, these phrases should not be regarded as mandatory. Rather “the expression ‘shall be payable’ does not constitute a peremptory requirement, but signifies what must be paid, if charged.” The Court went on to explain that the regulation “prescribes the maximum figure which may be charged and which, if charged should be paid.” There was not, however, an obligation upon the sheriff officer to charge the full figure in the scale.

 

The overall fees context in Scotland is, of course, quite different from that in England and Wales, but the Court of Session’s approach to the use of ‘shall’ is nonetheless instructive. Heading south of the border again, reg.4(1) of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 states that agents “may recover from the debtor the fees indicated in the Schedule…” This appears to offer some flexibility, but as the main fees in question are described as “fixed fees” it may be that the only discretion allowed to the bailiff is to charge the specified amount- or to charge nothing at all. There may not be scope for any midway position. Nevertheless, in light of a court’s preparedness to treat ‘shall’ as giving discretion to the bailiff, the use of ‘may’ could be taken to indicate similar latitude.

[Peterbard]

The fees can neither be reduced or increased. As made clear in the regulations, the fees are FIXED.

 

PS: I hadn't realised that Munch has already posted the same.

 

Yes I hope you two are not ganging up.