Complaining To CIVEA Or The HCEOA?

Don't!

Avoid engaging with the bailiff company’s internal complaints process. Bailiff companies typically investigate complaints themselves, often dismissing them before forwarding the matter to a trade association like CIVEA or HCEOA.

These organisations act as professional defenders of the bailiff industry, designed to discourage complainants from pursuing their grievances further.

Trade associations, being commercially funded by bailiff companies, lack impartiality and generally support their members.

They often justify bailiff companies' non-compliance with legal obligations and work to frustrate legitimate complaints. These associations also lobby Parliament to amend enforcement regulations in favour of their member companies, with little regard for the interests of debtors.

You are under no legal or contractual obligation to adhere to a bailiff company’s complaints policy, especially when dealing with a limited company that lacks statutory authority.

Instead, you should seek a remedy for any enforcement breaches by exercising your statutory rights, such as filing a claim or making an application to court.

Bailiff companies may use official-sounding terms like ‘Stage 1 Formal Complaint,’ which are prescribed to government departments and local authorities. However, limited companies are not entitled to use these procedures.

The bailiff industry is not governed by a statutory regulator. This situation persists because over 90% of enforcement actions are carried out on behalf of the government and local councils.

Establishing a regulator would put these entities at a financial disadvantage, which is why one has yet to be created.

The trade associations:

A clear example of CIVEA undermining the rights of debtors occurred in April 2011 when its chairman took a calculated step by lobbying Parliament with a memorandum aimed at amending the then Protection of Freedoms Bill, which later became the significant Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Section 54 of the 2012 Act established the criminal offence of clamping vehicles on private land without lawful authority, which at that time only covered traffic management.

CIVEA's petition to Parliament sought to amend the law to provide bailiffs with indemnity from criminal liability in cases where they might assault a debtor or become involved in a physical altercation with a debtor. They proposed changes to the law to protect bailiffs from facing criminal charges in such situations.

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 decided not to adopt the proposed amendment. This decision was influenced by the existing provision in paragraph 13(1)(a) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which already permits the clamping of debtors' vehicles on land, albeit under specific circumstances.

In 2013, Parliament responded to a request from Jason Bennison of 'National Bailiff Advice', an organisation dedicated to supporting debtors, by amending Paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This amendment was made to prevent any violence by bailiffs when executing Writs or Warrants and to establish a statutory remedy for victims of such violence.

The amendment explicitly states:

(2)A power to use force does not include power to use force against persons

In 2015, the chairman of the HCEOA responded to a formal complaint from a debtor in a condescending manner:

The HCEOA has successfully lobbied Parliament on two occasions to benefit its members by lowering the threshold for transferring a judgment to the High Court for enforcement.

This change allows enforcement agents to recover significantly higher fees from debtors for what is essentially the same debt.