CCR-PUBLICSECTOR CCR-PS


BAILIFF REFORM AFTER 12 MONTHS: LGO PERSPECTIVE


The Local Government Ombudsman is still receiving complaints about the actions of enforcement agents, but have they changed since the arrival of TCOG regulations? By Andrew Hobley


This does raise the question of how


long bailiffs should keep such footage. I would assume if bailiffs received a complaint they would hold on to that data until the complainant had completed the council’s complaint process. But a complainant has 12 months from when they were aware of something to complain to the ombudsman. Should a bailiff hold onto data for


that long on the off-chance of a complaint to the ombudsman? Each firm will have its own policies, but I suggest that they may wish to tell the complainant they will hold onto the footage for, say, three months after the council has sent its final response, to give the complainant an opportunity to come to us and for us to ask the bailiff firm for the data. One issue that does cause concern is


taking control of vehicles. Sometimes it seems the bailiff does not use common sense once they have clamped a car. One case (pre-TCOG) concerned a father and son, who I shall call Senior and Junior. The bailiffs seized a car for Junior’s parking debt. Senior called them and said it was his car. The bailiffs told Senior they also held a warrant for a Council Tax debt owed by him. The bailiffs contacted the council who


said if the car was Junior’s the bailiffs should return the warrant for Senior and the council would make an attachment of earnings for his debt. Senior then settled Junior’s parking debt. The bailiffs released the car, but then re-seized the same car for Senior’s Council Tax debt. Ten weeks later the car was released to Senior. Now, either the car belonged to Junior


so it was fault for the bailiffs to hold it to enforce Senior’s Council Tax debt, or the car belonged to Senior and the council had instructed the bailiffs to


June 2015


return his case so it could seek an attachment of earnings. In either situation the bailiffs were at fault when they re-clamped the car. Senior and Junior had suffered the injustice of not having the use of the car and having to pay additional travel costs. The council agreed to pay £490 split between Senior and Junior, Senior’s portion being credited to his Council Tax account. We do have a case, at present in


investigation, where bailiffs sent a compliance notice to Mr X for a parking


the council have explained why they thought the transfer to Mr A had not been made “in good faith, for valuable consideration, and without notice” as the law says, and so was an invalid transfer. Enquiries on this case are progressing,


but at this stage it does not look as if the bailiffs or the council ever stepped back from the minutiae of the evidence to look at the overall picture. Mr A could have taken legal action, and in some cases of disputed ownership that would


One issue is taking control of vehicles. Sometimes it seems the bailiff does not use common sense once they have clamped a car


debt. Two months later Mr X advertised the car on the internet and Mr A bought it. Mr X and Mr A both lived in London, about 15 miles apart, and Mr A asked Mr X to leave the car at Mr A’s brother’s house, who lived halfway. Mr X drove the car there and left it outside in the street. The sale price was more than £1,500. The next day the car was clamped


and removed for Mr X’s parking debt. The DVLA confirmed in writing that Mr A was the registered keeper at the date of sale. Mr X and Mr A made statutory declarations about the sale and purchase of the vehicle. The bailiffs suggested Mr A went to


court. The bailiffs then sold the car at auction. Since the sale Mr X has made a late witness statement, the warrant has been cancelled, and the council intend refunding Mr X the money that the bailiffs received for selling Mr A’s car. The bailiff said, rightly, that Mr X’s


goods were bound once they had received the warrant, and so Mr X still owed the car. But neither the bailiffs nor


www.CCR-PublicSector.com


be an appropriate remedy. But we have discretion to investigate, even if a complainant could go to court. In this case we have decided to investigate as it seems as if the council and its agents were acting unreasonably. Once we have come to a decision I shall report back on this complaint. To sum up – the reforms have led to


much greater clarity over costs; body mounted cameras mean we have evidence of allegations of bad behaviour; and there may be some issues around taking control of vehicles. But as long as people owe local


authorities debt and bailiffs are used to collect the debt, people are likely to come to us to review complaints. CCR-PS


Andrew Hobley is assessment team leader at the Local Government Ombudsman


23


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32