Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

can you please answer under public interest using yes or no answers or a detailed description if you wish ...

the answers should be contained within your code of ethics and your contracts or
simply in any code of conduct.this is not a complaint against your council
but research into how bailiffs can be a law unto themselves if not watched

1. Does your enforcement agent contract allow your enforcement agents to
issue an indemnity against prosecution for themselves without the prior
agreement of the council in cases where they have wrongfully seized when
the customer is identifiably vulnerable?

2. Have you ever allowed bailiffs to make their own settlement agreements
where goods have to be returned after 3 months?

3. Would you allow enforcement agents to breach the equalities act by
achieving a gain whilst someone is under mental health treatment if it
meant your business rates were collected,even if they didnt inform you?

4. How would you react if they did this without you knowing?

5. Would you class a secret indemnity kept from the council which achieves
a gain at the cost to the vulnerable victim a material breach of contract
.?

6. Must enforcement agents always report failed levies and a full report
when dealing with vulnerable customers 7.would you employ enforcement
agents that have fraudulently concealed information that could cause
litigation to the council or serious damage to a protected party in the
past ?

thank you for your public concern in answering these questions asap.

8.before a seizure of a persons assets do you make sure under human rights act that the bailiff has done a fair and balanced test with regards to whether the seizure is in the favour of the public interest

Yours faithfully,

Yours faithfully,

claire moore

Yours faithfully,

claire moore

1 Atodiad

Official

[1]cid:image001.jpg@01D500CE.92FE73F0

Request for Information - LBR2019/0976 - Bailiff Indemnities

 

Thank you for your request for information received on 23/12/2019.

 

This will be processed in accordance with the appropriate access to
information regime.

 

Yours faithfully

 

FOI and DPA Officer

[email address]

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links

1 Atodiad

Official

 

[1]cid:image001.jpg@01D44392.7F831410

 

Request for Information - LBR2019/0976 - Bailiff Indemnities

 

I refer to your request for information received on 23/12/2019.  Please
see the information below in response to your request: -

 

1.    Does your enforcement agent contract allow your enforcement agents
to issue an indemnity against prosecution for themselves without the prior
agreement of the council in cases where they have wrongfully seized when
the customer is identifiably vulnerable?

Parking: We do not have a contract, we have a service level agreement and
there is no indemnity clause

Environment services: Bailiff companies have not been employed by the
Council regarding unpaid waste notices.

Council Tax: The Council have a contract with our Enforcement Agents (EA /
bailiffs). The EA’s have their own Indemnities for insurance.

     

2.    Have you ever allowed bailiffs to make their own settlement
agreements where goods have to be returned after 3 months?

Parking: Enforcement Agents are allowed to make payment arrangements that
satisfy the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2014.

Council Tax: Our EA’s are required to gain the Council’s permission before
any removal of goods is carried out. If permission is granted and goods
are held, any arrangement for their return is between the EA and the
debtor.

 

3.    Would you allow enforcement agents to breach the equalities act by
achieving a gain whilst someone is under mental health treatment if it
meant your business rates were collected, even if they didn’t inform you?

Parking: Business rates are not collected by parking enforcement agents

Business Rates: We would not.

Council Tax: We would not.

 

4.    How would you react if they did this without you knowing?

Business Rates: We would investigate and act appropriately.

Council Tax: We would investigate and act appropriately.

 

5.    Would you class a secret indemnity kept from the council which
achieves a gain at the cost to the vulnerable victim a material breach of
contract?

Parking: Anything over and above what is stated in the SLA would be a
breach.

Council Tax: Any `secret` indemnity would be investigated. However, as
stated in Q.1, the Council is aware that EA’s have their own Indemnities
for insurance.

 

6.    Must enforcement agents always report failed levies and a full
report when dealing with vulnerable customers

Parking: When a case is returned due to vulnerability, this must always be
stated.

Council Tax: Council Tax get full reports and information on Vulnerable
cases, either by discussing over the phone or in writing.

 

7.    would you employ enforcement agents that have fraudulently concealed
information that could cause litigation to the council or serious damage
to a protected party in the past ?

Parking: Not knowingly.

Council Tax: Not knowingly and once employed, we monitor all our EA’s and
expect them to work within rights and protections of the law.

 

8.    before a seizure of a persons assets do you make sure under human
rights act that the bailiff has done a fair and balanced test with regards
to whether the seizure is in the favour of the public interest

Parking: The Council is not made aware if an Enforcement Agent seizes
goods; however, we would expect that all enforcement action is within the
strict guidelines of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2014.

Council Tax: We expect our EA’s to only remove goods within the strict
guidelines of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2014.

 

 

We trust this response satisfies your request.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the information provided in relation to your
request, you may make representations to the FOI and Complaints Manager.
Any such request for an internal review should be made within 40 working
days from today's date. Correspondence should be addressed to: 

 

FOI and Complaints Team, Ground Floor, Civic Centre, 44 York Street,
Twickenham, TW1 3BZ. Email: [email address]

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision.  The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: 

 

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF. www.ico.org.uk

 

 

Please note, all material provided by Richmond Council in response to your
request for information is for your personal, non-commercial use. Richmond
Council reserves all rights in the copyright of the information provided.
Any unauthorised copying or adaptation of the information without express
written confirmation from Richmond Council may constitute an infringement
of copyright. Any intention to re-use this information commercially may
require consent. Please forward any requests for re-use of information to
the FOI officer.

 

Regards

FOI and DPA Officer

[email address]

IMPORTANT:
This email and any of its attachments are intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
this message in error you must not print, copy, use or disclose the
contents to anyone. Please also delete it from your system and inform the
sender of the error immediately. Emails sent and received by Richmond and
Wandsworth Councils are monitored and may be subsequently disclosed to
authorised third parties, in accordance with relevant legislation.

References

Visible links

Dear FOI LBR,

thank you for your prompt attention and answers

can i explain the secret indemnity so you could perhaps revisit the questions

it has been brought to our attention that at least one major bailiff has been getting people under mental health care to sign a indemnity against prosecution before they will return goods they should not have taken
this obviousley breaches equality law

they have concealed this from the council knowing the council probabey or should not allow such behaviour

would you allow your agents to conceal information like this from you and thus opening up the council for a negligence claim which is now happening up north

hope that explains the indemnity .the indemnity asked to be signed did not include the council hence why it was concealed

Yours sincerely,

claire moore

Dear FOI LBR,
thank you

sorry the questions coud have been clarified a bit better to help with the context

in the public interest and contained within your code of ethics i hope you can answer

if a bailiff seizes goods worth 400 x the debt
the debtor says they arent owned by them
the debtor provides invoices to show they are not owned

the ea then holds the goods 3 months claiming ownership hasbt been proven but from the day of the excessive seizure the debtor has been in mental hospital due to the trauma

the ea then says to debtor the goods can all be returned if he signs under mental health care a indemnity to say he wont sue the ea

debtor signs because its been 3 months and hes under threat of losing
his home

goods returned debtor loses home due to decrease in asset value and funders removal of faciities

debtor spends 9 years in mental health issue

ea hasnt in all this time informed the council
ea hasnt apologised for busting 2 companies costing 7 jobs and nearly killing debtor

hope this helps you answer the questions.hypothetical but this has been done by a major bailiff and theirs a chance it could happen to your public

can you try reanswer in the public interest using your code of ethics and contract

Yours sincerely,

claire moore

1 Atodiad

Official

 

[1]cid:image001.jpg@01D500CE.92FE73F0

Dear Claire Moore,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

We have taken another look at your request based on your follow up email
and have decided that our initial response is still valid.

 

We do not wish to amend it.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind Regards

FOI and DPA Officer

[2][email address]

 

 

 

 

 

From: claire moore <[FOI #630132 email]>
Sent: 17 January 2020 18:17
To: FOI LBR <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Request for Information - LBR2019/0976 - Bailiff Indemnities

 

Dear FOI LBR,
thank you

sorry the questions coud have been clarified a bit better to help with the
context

in the public interest and contained within your code of ethics i hope you
can answer

if a bailiff seizes goods worth 400 x the debt
the debtor says they arent owned by them
the debtor provides invoices to show they are not owned

the ea then holds the goods 3 months claiming ownership hasbt been proven
but from the day of the excessive seizure the debtor has been in mental
hospital due to the trauma

the ea then says to debtor the goods can all be returned if he signs under
mental health care a indemnity to say he wont sue the ea

debtor signs because its been 3 months and hes under threat of losing
his home

goods returned debtor loses home due to decrease in asset value and
funders removal of faciities

debtor spends 9 years in mental health issue

ea hasnt in all this time informed the council
ea hasnt apologised for busting 2 companies costing 7 jobs and nearly
killing debtor

hope this helps you answer the questions.hypothetical but this has been
done by a major bailiff and theirs a chance it could happen to your public

can you try reanswer in the public interest using your code of ethics and
contract

Yours sincerely,

claire moore

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir