Complaining to CIVEA or HCEOA
Don't!
Bailiff companies typically handle complaints internally, conducting their own "investigations". If your complaint is dismissed, they may refer you to another entity, such as CIVEA or the HCEOA, who serve as professional apologists and offer rebuttal services. This process is intended to exhaust complainants and discourage them from pursuing their complaints further.
Trade associations, being commercial enterprises, lack impartiality as they receive funding from bailiff companies. Consequently, they tend to align with the interests of their members. They often overlook instances of bailiff companies failing to adhere to the law and impede your complaint process. Furthermore, they actively lobby Parliament in support of their members' interests.
The sole recourse for addressing unlawful actions by bailiffs is to pursu legal proceedings or to lodge a formal complaint.
Bailiff companies complaints procedures
The complaint processes of bailiff companies usually require filing a complaint directly with the company, which restricts your ability to directly contact the creditor or council. They often employ formal government-like terminology such as "Stage 1 complaint".
Repeatedly demonstrated, the act of requesting a company to investigate itself proves ineffective and meaningless.
As there exists no contractual agreement between debtors and bailiffs, any policies implemented are unenforceable.
The absence of a statutory regulatory body for the bailiff sector is notable, and the Government's decision not to establish one is influenced by the fact that both the Government and local councils benefit from more than 90% of enforcement actions presently conducted. Therefore, the creation of such a body would result in substantial losses for them.
The trade associations
High Court Enforcement Officers Association Limited
CIVEA Limited
An instance of actions contrary to the public interest:
In April 2011, CIVEA advocated to Parliament through a memorandum requesting an amendment to what was then known as the Protection of Freedoms Bill, later enacted as the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Section 54 of the 2012 Act introduced the criminal offence of clamping vehicles on private property without lawful authority, with lawful authority at the time being limited to traffic management.
CIVEA sought immunity from criminal liability for its members by proposing an additional subsection to Section 54, which stated:
54 (7) In this section 'lawful authority' includes a warrant or order issued from or authorised by a magistrates’ court, a county court or the High Court for the seizure of goods.Fortunately, Parliament did not enact the amendment because paragraph 13(1)(a) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 was already in effect, permitting the clamping of debtors' vehicles on land, albeit restricted to where the debtor usually resides or conducts business.
The CIVEA memorandum
The chairman of the HCEOA responded to a formal complaint about a bailiff in the following manner:
It is known that the HCEOA has effectively influenced Parliament on two occasions to advantage its members by lowering the threshold for transferring a judgment to the High Court for enforcement. This change results in higher fees that debtors can recover for essentially the same debt.