Forum

<!–noadsense–>

	You must be logged in to post	Login Register

Home Forum Baillifs issuse and Liability orders Exposure documentary hoped to reveal extent of corruption of bailiffs collecting for councils

Exposure documentary hoped to reveal extent of corruption of bailiffs collecting for councils

Print this Post

Page: 1

No Tags

User

Post

6:27 pm
November 4, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

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.

8:06 pm
November 15, 2011

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 8:18 pm – November 15, 2011 by Polystyrene anchor

ITV's Exposure: Bailiffs – No mention of current legislation

Laws governing bailiffs are in place though they are never implemented

Exposure: Bailiff legislation

Rossendale’s chairman states:

There are only currently guidelines for bailiffs to operate within, and while we have been calling for regulation and legislation for some years, we need action now.

His actions certainly do not reflect Rossendales values and principles. Since our formation in 1972, we have had continual positive feedback from clients.

You would hope the head of a firm that enforces collection of Council Tax debt for around 150 local authorities would know there are in fact regulations and legislation in place to protect the public from bailiff malpractice.

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations which are relied upon by councils for instructing bailiffs, can be found within them, regulations which govern how bailiffs should operate. The two most notable of these are found in part vi (Enforcement), under R(45) Distress and R(46) Appeals in connection with distress. Fees bailiff can charge are listed in Schedule 5 of the same regulations “Charges connected with distress”.

The distress for Rent Rules 1988 contains similar legislation and provides a means of redress “form 4” for those aggrieved by bailiffs to submit a complaint to the County court which issued the bailiff’s certificate. Unfortunately though, Judges dealing with these complaints tend to side with the bailiff and any justification to the complainant for their decision, seems not to be a requirement.

Sections 2 to 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 provides more than adequate legislation needed to protect the public from much of the malpractice you are likely to encounter with bailiffs. Unfortunately though it seems not to be policy of the Police to recognise these sections of the Act in instances where bailiffs have defrauded or attempted to defraud alleged debtors. Either this or their hands are tied.

Similarly the Data Protection Act 1998 is in place to protect the public against breaches of confidentiality. The Information Commissioners Office should step in where bailiffs have breached this with alleged debtors, but it seems they let it go and are not interested in formally dealing with them.

So, the problem is not so much a lack of regulations and legislation, rather the authorities would prefer to turn a blind eye and pretend it doesn't exist.

This negligence also extends to so called independent organisations – those you would think have been put in place to protect the public – these include the Local Government Ombudsman and Citizens Advice Bureau. It is, however, unlikely that either of these groups would investigate a case originating from a bailiff acting for a council.

An enforcement firm will inevitably attract the more enthusiastic applicant when payment is proportionate to the number of contacts made with their “customers”, as Rossendales refer to them. It therefore can be expected that bailiffs will want to exceed targets by visiting, or at least on paper, the highest number of "customers" in the shortest possible time to maximise their fees.

Greed is an inherent part of human nature which councils will have no doubt considered a key factor when making decisions to outsource their enforcement operations to private bailiff firms.

Offering bailiffs incentives for unlimited earnings is clearly a means of exploiting this greed. Expecting results this way is one thing, but councils would not have anticipated commission, offered as an incentive, would only secure bailiff’s fees, and was no guarantee that outstanding council tax debt would follow as a result.

The “Consumer Action Group” – a customer rights campaign website with a dedicated bailiff forum featured on the programme. Many contributors aired views about the documentary and generally expressed that those having no previous knowledge or experience of bailiffs collecting for councils could have easily been misled by the programme.

The consensus of the group was that viewers with no insight into bailiffs collecting for councils would no doubt be appalled, but would assume this guy was a bad apple.

What could easily have been put down to a “staged production”, was how the undercover reporter was teamed up with the ideal candidate for portraying the corruption within the bailiff industry.

An ex-bailiff’s comments posted on the website’s forum could well dismiss suspicions that the production was contrived:

It was unfortunate last night on Exposure for the bailiff concerned as it could so easily of been any bailiff and yes rossendales will be fully aware of his methods to collect debts as this is encouraged unless you have too many complaints the council wants some action taken or you are exposed on TV where upon they had no option but to let him go.

They are of course, playing the system and the rhyming up of fees, to the bailiff firm, has more importance than securing debt owed to councils.

Local authorities must have cottoned on to this and I wonder if they're impressed that not only are "customers" getting stitched-up by these private enforcement firms but also councils themselves?

No Tags

Page: 1