In Focus Collections
Taking control of goods – the one-year review from the MoJ
The reforms of the governance of enforcement action have been successful, but there may still be areas that would benefit from further review
Alan Smith Director – corporate governance, High Court Enforcement Group
alan.smith@
hcegroup.co.uk
On 2 April 2018, the Ministry of Justice published the report on the findings of the one-year review of the new enforcement regulations. As one of the key stakeholders, we took
part in the research phase in 2015. The reforms came into effect on 6 April
2014, with the enactment of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, part 3 and Schedule 12, which were supported by new Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. Part of the reform covered the mandatory training and certification of enforcement agents (as bailiffs had been renamed), as well as the introduction of new National Standards.
Reform needed Enforcement fees prior to 2014 were set in regulations that were several years out of date and reform was definitely required. There had also been concerns, most often
raised by the debt-advisory sector, about aggressive behaviour by a minority of bailiffs, as they were then called. The reforms strongly intended to tackle this by addressing: l Enforcement against vulnerable debtors and where children were the only people present. l Rights of entry, especially to residential premises, to ensure that access was only via a normal means of entry to premises. l Clarifying which goods could be seized. l Preventing premature and unnecessary enforcement. l Protecting debtors against inappropriate enforcement-agent behaviour, as well as protecting third parties and co-owners.
32 At the same time, the reforms intended to
maintain, if not improve, the effectiveness of enforcement and give enforcement agents a fair and adequate reward for their work. The report states that the standard letters
and forms, which give debtors information about the enforcement process, their rights, how to complain, and how to obtain debt advice, have increased transparency and consistency. In terms of vulnerable debtors, the report
comments on how most of the larger HCEOs have set up training and welfare teams. The report comments: “Best practice examples include tailored training courses, which include modules on vulnerability developed in consultation with the advice sector.”
qualifications on taking control of goods and vulnerability, as well as a quality mark vulnerability workshop. We believe strongly that training plays an
essential part in providing a better service to both debtors and creditors, as well as improving recovery rates and eradicating the behaviours that continue to blight the reputation of the enforcement industry. Sadly, this blight still remains, as the
government, whilst acknowledging in this report that the majority of enforcement agents do act professionally and within the rules, still believes that there is a minority acting aggressively and inappropriately. As a result, they will shortly be launching a call for evidence. The report comments on the proliferation
The report concludes that, although there was still more bedding in of the reforms and training to happen after the first year, the impact of the reforms has largely been positive and that there is no evidence of unintended major consequences that need addressing
Regulated qualifications framework This certainly applies to ourselves, as we have developed level 2 and level 3 RQF (regulated qualifications framework)
www.CCRMagazine.com
of online sites giving ‘advice’ to debtors. Much of this is misleading, incorrect, inflammatory, and can lead to increased enforcement fees. Unfortunately, the report does nothing
more than comment on this and does not consider it a major unintended consequence of the reforms, which should be addressed, perhaps also by a call for evidence.
Conclusion The report concludes that, although there was still more bedding in of the reforms and training to happen after the first year, the impact of the reforms has largely been positive and that there is no evidence of unintended major consequences that need addressing. We look forward to taking part again in
the three-year review, as we believe there are areas where more clarity on specifics would benefit all in the process. CCR
May 2018
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 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52