Forum

Post edited 6:29 pm – November 4, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

ITV’s ‘Exposure’ series goes undercover in the world of the bailiff industry to uncover evidence of deception and threats being made against debtors.

Rossendales exposure 1

Rossendales exposure 2

Complain to any council about their bailiffs enforcing council tax payment and you will likely be met with their “standard issue” script. Apparently it seems this is handed to each local authority for occasions when legal challenge or risk to their reputation is threatened.

Index fingers placed squarely in their ears, staff could well begin by reciting that they will refuse to deal with you, and once the debt has been passed to the bailiff firm, contact must be made with them as any entitlement to deal with the council over the matter has been lost.

These comebacks are the stuff of Oscar winning performances and another reaction would be that of incredulity of any notion that their bailiff’s reputation may be blemished. Indeed, how could it be, when a strict code of conduct is in place and they are governed by the National Association of Enforcement Agents?

This is what they’ll tell you, but try calling them on this when the code is breached, and they’ll quickly inform you they are only guidelines. Talk about having your cake and eating it.

There’s no wonder councils are held in utter contempt when they’re instructed to deal with members of the public so shamefully, but unfortunately this deceit is all in a day’s work for our local authorities.

Rossendales Ltd, a private firm of bailiffs boasting a client base of around 150 councils, enforce payment from alleged council tax defaulters. Supposedly at no cost to councils, bailiffs make their money by adding fees on top of council taxpayer’s outstanding debt.

The fees collected are actually the council’s, which under an agreement can be retained by bailiffs. Charges are set by statute and because debtors provide their wages, this encourages them to devise ways, often unlawful to maximise their income. For example, one of their more common scams involves knowingly choosing a vehicle that is not the debtors purely to add a fraudulent levy fee. Despite authorities – including the Police who turn a blind eye to bailiff crime – the Local Government Ombudsman has, in one or two instances made a token gesture and slapped some wrists. Their action though is minimal and is presumably to justify their existence.

The Police are not interested and fob off reporting of fraud as a civil matter, which is obviously complete nonsense.

Advertisements for bailiff positions with these private enforcement firms are an indication that they’re unsuitable for the job.

Enforcement Bailiff Salary: National Minimum Wage plus bonus OTE £35,000 uncapped.

The role is extremely target driven therefore experience of this kind would be beneficial however it is not compulsory.

Such advertisements suggest that to earn above minimum wage, the incentive to abuse powers is going to be tempting and almost obligatory if applicants stand any chance of making a worthwhile career. Almost certainly, those at the heart of this recklessness will be our councils, screwing these firms over contracts and subsequently encouraging greed at the expense of the vulnerable.

Councils argue that court action and subsequent bailiff involvement is the last resort when it comes to non-payment of council tax. Such statements are a little far-fetched when in fact an Attachment of Earnings Order (AEO) should be given priority as a means of enforcement over handing cases to bailiffs.

Bailiff action is preferred over AEO’s because it is a cheaper and easier option, even though recovery rate is low and not the most effective method of enforcement. In fact councils “must use bailiffs extensively as the volume is too high to look at each case in enough detail and take other, more time consuming or expensive actions”.

A former bailiff of Rossendales was convicted for fraud offences in Hounslow and Leeds and sentenced to a year in jail for scamming £27,000 in debt collections, and then as a landlord stole accommodation deposits from students totalling more than £3,700 in which statements read to the court said they were left homeless.

Another former bailiff of Rossendales avoided jail, and received a suspended sentence for fraudulently pocketing close to £20,000 over a five month period while collecting council tax and business rates debts owed to North Somerset District Council.

In Essex more unlawful behaviour from a former bailiff of Rossendales resulted in a two year jail sentence for stealing nearly £21,000 from a widow in her 80s suffering from senile dementia, who also became involved in the proposed sale of her £400,000 home.

These are examples of more serious cases that get press coverage, but for each of these there are thousands of other unlawful practices routinely carried out which secure bailiff firms maximum income while defrauding the debtor knowing the legal system will turn a blind eye.

These extreme measures are brought about by local authorities’ obsessions with council tax collection rates. It maybe that they achieve an increased 0.1% by way of their reckless behaviour, but how much does this increased performance really cost in time taken up with complaints and disputes?

Phantom visits, invented fees and illegal levying are all crimes that the authorities pretend are not happening.

When the true scale of this fraud is uncovered, which looks increasingly likely, as MP’s, National Press and TV documentary makers are all taking an interest, the authorities and private bailiff firms must be set to lose millions in compensation for the wide spread fraud and corruption that has been allowed to go on by our councils, Magistrates’ courts and Police.