Schedule 12
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [Lords]
11:30 am
Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Constitutional Affairs; North West Norfolk, Conservative)
Amendments Nos. 85, 87, 89, 95 and 108 were tabled in my name and the names of other Opposition Members. Amendment No. 85 would introduce a code of conduct to ensure that the poor, vulnerable and socially excluded are protected from disproportionate enforcement. No. 87 would insist that HM Courts Service prepare an information sheet to inform debtors of the rights and remedies available to them. Amendment No. 89 is consequential. No. 95 would issue protection for single women and any persons under 16, and No. 108 is consequential on No. 85.
Opposition Members feel that a code of conduct is needed to protect the vulnerable in society. Amendments Nos. 85 and 87 need to be discussed as part of a package. We take the view that the poor and vulnerable in society need to know where they stand. After all, the Bill will give bailiffs substantial extra powers. Surely, it is incumbent on us as legislators to provide extra protection to those people who are likely to be caught up in difficult situations.
We all know that the vast majority of bailiffs in this country are exemplary, professional and do a very good job, but there are too many examples of abuse, bully-boy tactics and downright intimidation. It gives me no pleasure to point out that there are cases in which bailiffs go over the top and use disproportionate, bullying tactics, certainly in respect of goods being seized.
CABs and other organisations have given us a number of examples, and I shall refer to one or two to back up the case for a code of conduct as well as an information sheet. The information sheet would be supplied by the bailiffs on their first visit. It would include the rights of a debtor, the powers available to bailiffs and the details about what bailiffs can and cannot do. I hope that it is in order to consider some examples of abuse. We have all been briefed by our local CABs, and most of us on the Committee probably received briefings from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, or Citizens Advice as it is now called.
A case was brought to my attention by the Rev. Paul Nicolson of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust that involves a lone parent on full benefits with a child aged four. The lone parent owed £1,072, mainly as a result of four or five fines for motoring offences. The fines were not paid, the court costs accumulated and the sum in question got bigger and bigger. The bailiffs arrived and decided to seize a variety of goods. They were not essential goods; there were items of china, one or two ornaments, a television, a radio and some kitchen goods.
Those goods probably filled the back of a van. They were handed over to an auctioneer. Although they were prized goods that meant a great deal to the family and had substantial sentimental value, they raised £70 at auction, of which £30 was given to the auctioneer. We are talking about a debt of £1,072, yet the amount raised was £40. The lone parent went back to court, and the magistrates settled for payments of £5 a week, deducted from benefits. Why the procedure before the magistrates court and the deduction decision did not occur before the bailiffs’ visit I do not know, but the parent had no idea what her rights were. We take the view that a code of conduct would have protected that individual.
I shall consider another case that involves a person who was pursued for council tax arrears. The arrears were paid off in due course, but the person—a constituent of one of my colleagues—wrote in an e-mail:
“As I write this, I am sitting in my house with all the windows and doors closed...because we are waiting for a visit from a bailiff—for something we do not owe. The bailiffs insist that we owe them £258 for council tax arrears. The council have confirmed that we have no arrears either for council tax or business rates—but the council nevertheless insists that we do owe the bailiffs the money for visiting us.”
The upshot was that they owed £500 for one visit from the bailiff. They owed that sum to the bailiff, despite the fact that their debt was paid. Obviously, the bailiff company was completely out of order in that case, but it does not remove the fact that that happened. It was brought to our attention, and it causes me great concern.
One need only look at some of the evidence presented by Citizens Advice. CABs throughout the country performed a survey between October 2006 and this January. Citizens Advice received 500 submissions from 131 bureaux. From that evidence, 40 per cent. of reports indicated that bailiffs misrepresented their powers of entry. Some 25 per cent. reported that bailiffs were threatening clients with imprisonment; 43 per cent. reported that they were overcharging clients for their fees—as illustrated in the case that I mentioned a moment ago—and 64 per cent. reported that bailiffs were harassing or intimidating clients.
We are obviously talking about a small minority of cases, but there is no question but that they build up. Each case that has been brought to my attention indicates a worrying trend. Some bailiffs out there are just using unnecessary bully-boy tactics. One such occasion was brought to the attention of Sean Poulter, the consumer affairs correspondent for the Daily Mail. In that case, the bailiffs threatened a woman that her mobility car would be taken away. That is completely wrong and out of order, and quite despicable. Again, a small minority of bailiffs are behaving in an unconscionable and totally unacceptable way.