What independent regulation of bailiffs should look like
Because bailiffs can’t regulate themselves
Last week, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) announced it’ll work with stakeholders to consider how bailiffs could be regulated. While its announcement to require all bailiffs to use body-worn video cameras will do little to protect people from bad behaviour by bailiffs, the commitment to look into how to improve regulation is a welcome step.
Together with 11 other charities as part of the Taking Control campaign, at Citizens Advice we’ve long been clear that only an independent regulator will clean up the systemic mispractice in the bailiff industry. It’s vital that the MOJ creates a body with the necessary powers to be effective. It must avoid partial interventions that won’t be enough to clean up the bailiff industry.
An independent regulator needs 3 powers
1. The power to authorise and issue licences to bailiffs
Individual bailiffs are currently authorised by the courts while bailiff firms aren’t regulated at all. A regulator must have the power to license individual bailiffs to ensure they are properly qualified. And to authorise firms to check the business models of bailiff firms are appropriate.
2. The power to set rules for the bailiff industry
A regulator must have the power to set standards across the industry. This would include setting rules governing the use of body-worn cameras to ensure they’re used in a consistent manner, with penalties for loss of footage or incorrect use.
Working with a newly established independent complaints body, the regulator must be able to create new rules when issues emerge. A regulator could also look into emerging issues, such as fee levels, defining vulnerability, and give guidance on how to use body-worn videos.
3. The power to sanction bailiffs and bailiff firms when rules are broken
One of the biggest problems with the current system of self-regulation is that its very difficult for bailiffs to be held to account when they break the rules.
A new regulator must have the power to suspend and revoke a bailiff’s licence when they’re found to be mistreating people.
3 types of regulation that won’t work
As the government looks at the different ways bailiffs could be regulated, it should avoid tinkering with the existing model of self-regulation which has failed to improve bailiff behaviour.
1. Another voluntary code of practice
We’ve seen a 43% increase in bailiff issues since voluntary National Standards were adopted by the industry in 2014. These have failed because there’s no independent oversight to check they’re being followed.
Creating more rules without oversight won’t change the way bailiffs behave.
2. A new licencing body
Giving an organisation the ability to licence bailiffs won’t improve behaviour. Without a body setting standards, supervising the behaviour of bailiffs and firms, and sanctioning bailiffs who break the rules the bad practice our advisers see every day — like bailiffs misrepresenting their powers or rejecting reasonable repayment offers — would continue.
3. A complaints body without a regulator
The current bailiff complaints process is confusing and ineffective. A single independent complaints body with the ability to make decisions about the behaviour of individual bailiffs is essential in any future regulated system.
However, a complaints body on its own wouldn’t be effective. Relying on individual complaints alone doesn’t do anything to protect people before they’ve been mistreated and means vulnerable people are solely responsible for enforcing their own rights.
A regulator would be able to use insight from complaints to investigate behaviour, react to common problems by setting standards, and so prevent problems before they happen.
We look forward to engaging with the MOJ and the bailiff industry on options for regulation.
A comprehensive independent regulator with the powers set out above would benefit everyone. Creditors could be confident their collection practices weren’t causing harm, the bailiff industry would see its reputation greatly improved, and vulnerable people would be protected from mistreatment.
