Bailiffs: Enforcement of Debt inquiry

Transcription

1 28 January 2018 Robert Neill MP Chair, Justice Committee House of Commons London SW1A 0AA The Civil Enforcement Association PO Box 745 Wakefield WF1 9RJ Tel: Fax: Website: Bailiffs: Enforcement of Debt inquiry Dear Mr Neill, Thank you for the opportunity to present evidence to the Justice Committee. As requested, I offer the following additional information that I hope is helpful in your inquiry. For ease, I have responded to the questions as listed in the Hansard transcript. Statistics on stages at which fees and debts are collected (Q 58, 90). In November last year CIVEA surveyed its members. This followed a pilot exercise to test the methodology in July. The data collection exercise was a simple request to complete a template with clear definitions to ensure consistency. Members were asked to provide data against clearly defined fields between 1 April 2014 and 31 March All CIVEA members were invited to complete the survey and 100% of firms responded. Six firms were unable to complete the template because they only collect business debt and therefore it did not apply. The remainder provided a full set of data. This confirmed that members had enforced around 9 million local authority cases between April 2014 and March 2018, which is approximately 2.2M cases per annum. There were an additional 550,000 cases enforced on behalf of HM Courts and Tribunals Service, bringing the total to approximately 2.8 million per annum. Therefore, since the new regulations came in to force in April 2014, CIVEA members have dealt with around 10 million Local Authority cases and around 2.6 million HM Courts and Tribunals cases. Annex A gives a detailed breakdown of the figures by enforcement stage as requested.

2 The tables show that around 40% of Council Tax debt is collected at the Compliance Stage. This is a competitive feature of the market and some firms will exceed this rate. The demographic of the local authority makes enforcement more difficult and this will affect a firm s collection rate. Table 1 shows that 2.5% of fees and debt from Council Tax cases that are paid in full are collected at the Sale Stage. Less than 1% of those cases result in goods being taken into control and sold at auction. This is predominantly vehicles, which are the most common high value possessions. Table 2 demonstrates that a higher number of outstanding parking fines are paid in full at the Compliance Stage (53.5%). This is due to a wider demographic of people who incur parking fine debts and the fact that most parking fines are collected in less than 60 days from the date it is passed to the enforcement agent. How many agents have lost their certification or fines have been levied (Q78/79) CIVEA does not have the power to withdraw an agent s certificate. This is a matter for the County Court. However, in our decision letters we do advise complainants that they are entitled to pursue an EAC2 complaint with the court. Where appropriate, we also signpost complainants to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if they wish to pursue a complaint with the local authority. In our oral evidence session we gave details of complaints received by CIVEA (Q66,Q67). We provided a more detailed breakdown of the figures in our written submission. Additionally, in response to Q78, Annex B shows the outcome for complaints received between April 2014 and March The table shows that of 1,063 complaints received, 409 were investigated by CIVEA. Of those 133 were upheld, including 111 that received a monetary reward. This was mostly for breaching company policy, for example, on the use of body-worn video cameras. As we have previously submitted, between 1 st January 2018 and 31 st December 2018 CIVEA investigated 130 complaints cases. Annex C is a table of complaints showing that we can identify 18 of the 130 complaints investigated that can be attributed to agent behaviour. Of those, we know that agents were disciplined on 4 occasions. On 9 occasions we can say that the company was informed of the agents actions, which we assume will lead to internal action. How many are large firms (with names) and how many are smaller/independents (Q37- to the previous panel) CIVEA represents almost the entire market that employs certificated enforcement agents. There are seven large firm, each with an annual turnover of approximately 10 million or more. They are in alphabetical order: Bristow & Sutor, Equita Ltd, Jacobs Ltd, JBW Group Ltd, Marston Holdings Group, Newlyn plc, Rundles.

3 Marston is almost twice the size of its nearest competitor. There are 21 firms with a turnover less than 3.75m, some of which are very small. In total CIVEA membership incorporates approximately 99% of the civil enforcement market. There are additional services offered by high court enforcement officers and county bailiffs, which are not represented by CIVEA. The following is an alphabetical list of all firms in CIVEA membership. You will note that there is some consolidation. Andrew James Andrew Wilson B&S Bristow & Sutor Chandlers Collect Collectica (part of Marston Holdings Group) Confero Constant County Dukes Equita (part of Equita Ltd) Excel (part of Excel Group) GLBC Goodwillie&Corcoran Grencar HCEG (part of Excel Group) Howes Jacobs JBW (part of JBW Group) JP Dawkins Marston (part of Marston Holdings Group) Newlyn Penham Phoenix (part of JBW Group) Reventus Rivington Ross & Roberts (part of Equita Ltd) Rossendales (part of Marston Holdings Group) Rundles Stanford & Green Swift (part of Marston Holdings Group) Task (part of Marston Holdings Group) Whyte & Co

4 Q79 CIVEA complaints process The Committee may wish to note the stages that are followed to investigate a complaint escalated to CIVEA. Where a complainant remains unsatisfied with the final decision of a CIVEA member, having completed all the stages of the firm s internal complaints process, it can be referred to CIVEA for review. The CIVEA Chief Executive Officer will acknowledge all complaints within 7 days of receipt. Where he believes there is potential for a speedy resolution he will explore this option before proceeding to the next stage. The complaint investigation will involve CIVEA requesting all relevant documentation from the company concerned. This includes: A copy of the computerised report showing the activity on the account(s) The name(s) of the enforcement agent(s) involved together with a copy of their report Details of any fees and charges, payments and/or refunds made Copies of any evidence applicable to the case which may include a copy of the Body Worn Video evidence and telephone call recordings. If a complainant is unhappy with the Chief Executive Officer review of the case, it can be considered by the CIVEA Executive Council. The Council members will have no connection with the company involved in your complaint. If they feel that the company s decision/action was wrong, they will suggest a possible remedy e.g. the return or remission of fees and invite the company to reconsider its original decision. If the Executive Council upholds a complaint it can recommend that the company concerned: remits, refunds or reduces fees you have been charged; or pays compensation based upon their strict assessment of the actual financial loss you have suffered; Or both; and/or It may make any other recommendations that it feels appropriate. The complainant will be informed in writing about the Council s findings. The decision is final. At all stages, the complainant will be signposted to the court s complaints procedure and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

5 Q26 Review of the fee structure Finally, in light of some of the questions to the debt sector about fees and the responses given, the Committee will wish to be aware of the extensive economic analysis that was undertaken. In November 2009, the Ministry of Justice commissioned Alexander Dehayen of Vemos Consulting to design a fee structure and analyse its impact on the market. His report ran to 200 pages and is a considered to be the most comprehensive economic analysis of the enforcement industry, which led to the current fee structure. Dehayen recommended that the fee structure should be index-linked with an uplift at 1,3 and 5 years intervals. There has been no uplift since its inception. Any change to the fee structure would need to take this into account and be a deep-dive analysis of market forces. Please advise me if you require further clarification on any of these responses. Yours sincerely, Russell Hamblin-Boone Chief Executive

6 ANNEX A TABLE ONE ALL CASES RECEIVED BETWEEN APRIL 2014 and MARCH 2018 A) No of cases received between April 2014 and March 2018 C) Total no of the cases in (A) that are paid in full as at Today E) Total no of cases in (C) that were paid in full without a visit (Compliance Stage) F) Total no of cases in (C) that were paid in full at the Sale Stage Council Tax Parking (PCNs) NNDR 4,650,191 4,010, ,780 1,335, ,703 85, , ,039 24,862 34,469 42,260 1,457 TABLE TWO FIRST PLACEMENT/CURRENT CASES ONLY RECEIVED BETWEEN APRIL 2014 and MARCH 2018 * Local authorities often require enforcement agents to pursue historic debts. For example, where a debt was returned uncollected and is passed to another agency to enforce or where new information is available to trace an individual. These debts may be several years old and, therefore are more difficult to enforce, which means the collection rate is lower. The following table shows that collection at the Compliance Stage is higher on new cases and, therefore the aggregated totals in Table One are skewed. A) No of cases received between April 2014 and March 2018 B) Total no of the cases in (A) that are paid in full as at Today C) Total no of cases in (B) that were paid in full without a visit (Compliance Stage) D) Total no of cases in (B) that were paid in full at the Sale Stage Council Tax Parking (PCNs) NNDR 2,148,796 3,663, , , ,219 57, , ,517 16,697 19,616 35, * Definition of First Placement or Current Cases Only :- Page 1 of 2

7 1) Council Tax/National Non-Domestic Rate (NNDR) Where the Liability Order date is no more than 120 days before the date the case was received. 2) Parking - Where the Transport Enforcement Centre authorized date is no more than 60 days from the date the case was received. Page 2 of 2

8 ANNEX B CIVEA COMPLAINTS NUMBER OF ACTION TAKEN NUMBER OUTCOME COMPLAINTS RECEIVED 01/04/ /10/ Returned to complainant for further documentation but 70 not received Escalated to Executive Council rejected 4 1 Sale Stage refunded upheld Referred to the county court (Form 4/EAC2) 12 Referred back to member company to complete 444 complaint process Other (e.g. no correspondence address, not an 52 enforcement matter) Late Complaints 11 High Court matters (outside CIVEA remit) 38 On-going complaint - CIVEA awaiting reports from member company 10 CIVEA final decision reached 409 Rejected 276 GOG 3 Fee 6 Upheld 133 GOG 35 Full refund 29 Fees removed 47

9 ANNEX C: The table shows the number of upheld complaints identified between 1 st January 2018 and 31 st December 2018, in which enforcement agents were subject to internal and/or disciplinary processes. 1 EA pursued action while case was on hold company raised with agent 2 EA failed to record payment arrangement company raised with agent 3 EA made inappropriate comments company apologises 4 EA posted correspondence through the wrong letterbox 5 EA could have explained enforcement process more clearly and avoided upset caused. Some comments made by the EA were inappropriate raised with company 6 EA speaks to children in the house, take photographs of passports and does not inform householder of the reason for the visit raised with company 7 EA misrepresented powers and made inappropriate comments company raise with agent 8 EA provided inaccurate information, evidence of poor practice company raise with agent 9 EA not acted correctly, evidence of poor practice. EA no longer employed by company (EA was later found to be dismissed in a 2019 case - not switching on BWV from outset in accordance with company policy) 10 EA left documentation which was not clear, no contact information etc. Unprofessional behaviour 11 EA failed to explain reason for visit, provided misleading information, suggested householder would be blacklisted. Comments used a leverage to get third party payment company addresses with agent 12 EA did not record the visit correctly (BWV) EA no longer employed by company when CIVEA investigates the complaint. (Not clear if agent was dismissed) 13 EA should have been more sensitive to vulnerability claim and made inappropriate comments. Unprofessional behaviour. 14 EA should have been more understanding during visit, vulnerable household company address with agent 15 EA posted offensive social media message. Agent disciplined 16 EA pressurised third party to make payment by threatening to remove goods when debtor did not live at the address. 17 EA reacted angrily to third party claiming debtor did not reside at the address. EA disciplined internally by company 18 EA failed to act professionally behaviour exacerbated by heated exchange with complainant