Despite insistance elsewhere that the new rules are working, the reality is very different.
Bailiffs who break the rules are driving people to increased stress, anxiety and financial hardship, according to new research published today.
A new report from Citizens Advice and StepChange found one person every minute is forced to deal with a debt collector flouting the law and two in five contacted by bailiffs experienced aggression or intimidation.
According to the charities, a third (850,000) of the 2.2 million people contacted by a bailiff in the last two years saw them pushing the legal limits - such as by forcing entry into a home, removing goods needed for work and refusing to accept a reasonable payment plan.
The charities are demanding a new independent bailiff regulator to protect those suffering at the hands of debt collectors breaking the law.
Former General Manager of a nursing home, trained in music and classical guitar, MBA in contract law, expert legal commentator on bailiff law. enjoys PG tips. No not me, some screwball elsewhere
There was a push for an independent bailiff regulator back in 2009, but the government threw it out because the government and councils stand to lose the most.
The reforms haven't worked as was hoped. Since 2014, complaints have risen by about 25% and CA say they've seen an increase of 74% in cases involving bailiffs. The fee structure has only ensured that bailiffs don't want Government debt enforcement any more and only want the lucrative HC debts where they can front load the fees. Ain't that right Gaz?
It would be interesting to see which debt sector has seen the biggest increase in complaints.
Former General Manager of a nursing home, trained in music and classical guitar, MBA in contract law, expert legal commentator on bailiff law. enjoys PG tips. No not me, some screwball elsewhere
From the front line of bailiff action being redressed in the courts, the regulations have made it easier to recover damages for non-compliant action. The missing element is a regulator leaving bailiff companies to police themselves.
The HC fee detailed assessment procedure is now well-oiled. Solicitors create the court documents from computer software from the information on the writ making it lucrative for them.
The number of complaints is up because the ability to raise a complaint online has made it easier.
There is a decrease in violence against debtors, but an increase in drive-by ANPR clamping. The legal profession has perfected the claims procedure, including damages for dealing with an ambush clamper.
Interpleader claims are gritty and all of them must be barrister represented.
The procedure for staying a writ and setting aside a judgment for litigants in person have been perfected to fine art. They recover £1500 to £3000 in costs against claimants under CPR 46.5 for administering an application and preparing the defence while it was outside small claims track jurisdiction.
Many small claims against bailiffs must be appealed because district judges are not being emotionally detached from the case. One deputy District judge became so wrapped up in praising DCBL she lost all judgment over the case in hand. When it was put before a circuit judge, lady-luck went the opposite direction.
DCBL never give a notice of enforcement to debtors, they abuse the court's trust that DCBL is of good honest standing. They financially gain by turning up by surprise and denying the debtor the chance to pay the debt as compliance stage. When the claim comes, with a straight face, DCBL lies to the court. In their defence statement, they merely give a chronicle of the history of the debt, the same copy-paste statement each time. They assert that a copy of the notice of enforcement which gives the time they printed it, is the same as keeping a record of the time they gave it to the debtor. The appeal is time-consuming for claimants and remedied by a higher level judge.
