Remove Red Tape

Legal Services – Transforming Bailiff Action

These rules set out the requirements an individual must meet to become a certificated bailiff or High Court Enforcement Officer. The rules ensure that an individual is a fit and proper person to enforce specific debts.

We are already looking at ways to improve the law and published a consultation paper “Transforming Bailiff Action” earlier this year setting out our proposals to replace the existing system. We are keen to use the Red Tape Challenge as an additional process for seeking views on how regulations covering debt enforcers can be improved.

You can find all regulations that relate to transforming bailiff action below to the left. Please note that this theme will close for comment on 5 July 2012.

Go back to the Legal Sevices theme landing page by clicking here.

Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:

• Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
• Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
• Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
• Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
• Should they be left as they are?

6 comments on “Legal Services – Transforming Bailiff Action”

1. Daniel Bellows on July 2, 2012 at 12:56 pm said:

   Without the implementation of an independent statutory body to regulate the bailiff industry it is difficult to see how a change to the aggressive and excessive methods deployed by Civil Enforcement Agents will occur, as the current opt-in regulation fails to provide a credible deterrent to bad practices.

   Monitoring should include individual enforcement agents as well as the firms they represent and be more pro-active rather than simply responding to the complaints as they are received.

   Part of this monitoring should also make the provision for a more transparent and effective complaints process. There needs to be the realistic prospect of a remedy for the complainant and for individual redress where appropriate if bad practice can be established.

   It would also be extremely useful for a summary of the complaints received by firms and individuals to be publicised. Issues can arise where a ‘rogue’ agent continuously changes employer but any complaints about his/her bad practice stay with the firm, rather than them as an individual, allowing that bailiff to continue his work untroubled by regulators. An improved complaints procedure would also help to counteract those firms/individuals who continuously seek to misrepresent their powers once on a debtor’s doorstep.

   Some sort of framework also needs to be implemented to ensure that bailiffs agree affordable repayment terms with the debtor. The feedback our organisation has received is that bailiffs will deliberately set up unsustainable repayment plans as it will allow them to charge a greater level of fees once the debtor is no longer able to keep up with the repayments.Comment Tags: Bailiff Reform
2. John Trotter on July 2, 2012 at 10:08 am said:

   I have seen a number of examples of bailiffs overcharging in recovery of Council Tax for Sefton MBC. Charges have been excessive and not in accordance with Appendix 1. Bailiffs who charge excessively shjould have their Certificate removed
3. Julie Simpson on June 28, 2012 at 8:27 am said:

   Legislation that encourages more transparent fee structure,simpler complaint procedures and tougher sanctions for bailiffs who do not reply with regulations.
4. Miss Dencher-Rasmussen on June 26, 2012 at 4:48 pm said:

   Currently, if a bailiff makes an agreement with a debtor to pay off a certain amount each month and the debtor’s circumstances change and they are able to pay off more than was agreed, thus bringing themselves ahead of the monthly installments, or indeed paying off the whole debt, then the bailiff is entitled to charge the debtor for this. I would like to see this practise made illegal. Whilst I understand that bailiffs have to make a profit like any business and they usually do this by charging debtors making a payment (a credit/debit card fee, for example), I do not think that it is reasonable to charge someone in the instance described above. This practise keeps a debtor in debt for longer than necessary purely to create further profit for the bailiff. In times of economic uncertainty, recession and rising unemployment, I think it is counter productive to allow a practise such as this to continue. The government has a duty to protect the vulnerable in society. The introduction of legislation making this charge illegal is something simple and cheap that the government can do to support people to help themselves. If someone is trying to get themselves out of debt and pay off what they owe, a charge such as this is simply nauseating. If a debtor is able to pay an amount greater than the set installment, or able to pay off a debt early, there should be no extra charge from the bailiff company.Comment Tags: Bailiff charge, early payment
5. Georg von Graevenitz on June 25, 2012 at 12:20 pm said:

   The Bailiff system is out of control. It is very difficult to find out about the fees that bailiffs set – they hide them. It is even more difficult to find out about the fees they are allowed to set as these are actually not published in some cases (e.g. magistrates courts).

   At present the fees that the magistrates courts seem to have agreed with the bailiffs I was dealing with ([text deleted] £75 fee for a £45 fine) are not in line with the kinds of fees that Bailiffs are allowed to levy for similar amounts from other areas e.g. distress from parking fines or rent.

   This is grossly unfair.

   All agents I have so far talked to at the Bailiffs have been extremely aggressive and rude. They have tried to withhold information and have forced me to contact courts, police and a collection agency to uncover important facts.
   • Zachary Bredemear on June 25, 2012 at 12:55 pm said:

     That is a good point Georg. I once had a client at a law centre whose vehicle had been seized for a parking violation. He had to pay the bailiff’s charge to release the vehicle. It was very difficult to find out what charge should have been imposed or how to challenge it.