Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Stating the obvious'

The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 contained provisions for the regulation of bailiffs and followed a White Paper published in 2003. Since then, I have been to numerous meetings to discuss the issue and the Ministry of Justice has been repeatedly promising a consultation on detailed proposals for a new regulatory regime. When Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly announced this week the release of updated 'National Standards for Enforcement Agents', he also promised that the Standards are 'the first step towards tackling this issue (unscrupulous bailiffs), which will be followed shortly by proposals for a new regulatory regime.' I'm heartened that at last something seems to be happening but, although I understand the consultation is expected in Spring, I'm always nervous when I see the use of words like 'shortly'. I remember the importance of SMART objectives being used in business and I sometimes wish the public sector would apply the principles by putting a specific and measurable date on actions rather than using vague descriptors like 'soon' and 'shortly'.

Anyway, back to the updated Standards. They can be found here but don't expect to be overwhelmed by their content. Creditors' responsibilities include, among other things, that they should be aware of their own responsibilities, must not seek payment in order to secure a contract, must notify the enforcement agent if the debtor pays or contacts them, and must forewarn the debtor of impending enforcement action. The section 'Professionalism and conduct of the enforcement agent' says they must act within the law at all times, must not be deceitful by misrepresentation, must not act in a threatening manner, should always produce relevant identification, must not discriminate, and a few other similar instructions.

In short, there is little in the Standards that any credit professional or enforcement agent couldn't have written on the back of an envelope if asked to suggest what they should be. As the document says, they are not legally binding, but offered as a 'helpful tool for the industry and for creditors.' As Colin Naylor, Co-Chairman of CIVEA (the Civil Enforcement Association) points out: "these are the Industry's own standards......all the signatories are already committed to the practices and standards contained in the document........and most CIVEA members already publish similar creeds of professional behaviour."

So will they have any effect on 'unscrupulous' bailiffs? I think not, and I wish the time and effort in producing them had been spent on drafting the long-promised proposals for a new regulatory regime so that the consultation can get under way and we can see some real progress.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Men behaving badly'

The ITV 'Exposure' programme aired on Monday night used covert recording of a bailiff behaving very badly indeed. Shocking revelations that - in many respects - beggared belief. What was even more surprising was the assertion that no complaints had been received by his employers during the three years he had worked for them. Was this because the people he called upon didn't know their rights or what standards of behaviour they could expect? Or was it because they felt that any complaints they did raise would simply fall on deaf ears?

If the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement 2007 had been fully implemented, the bailiff concerned would have been subject to an enhanced certification process that would have included aspects such as diversity awareness and conflict management; both would clearly have been useful, and complaints would have been dealt with by the Courts. As events have unfolded, the Act was only partially implemented and a parallel consultation proposing regulation instead by an independent body was never taken forward either, even though the enforcement industry would have welcomed such an additional regulation (my thanks to Chris Bell of Shergroup for his validation of the facts here).

I've been involved in meetings with various bodies and the Government for several years discussing the proposals and alternatives interminably but - as has frequently been highlighted in the credit press - no progress has been made and the issues remain. I don't believe the problems are endemic, but it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole barrel and damage the reputation of the entire industry. The reality is that bailiffs are only acting to recover money that is the subject of a warrant issued by the court and is rightfully due, yet that fact gets lost in the noise of behaviour and attitudes that can't be condoned. They also get confused with the world of 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrel's' that is as far away from professional enforcement as it is possible to be, but make for a good photo-caption!

Self-regulation is not a viable option unless and until it is carried out in a much more rigorous way. I've been encouraged by recent initiatives like the 'video recording badges' being piloted by some Marston High Court Enforcement Officers. I don't know how feasible such measures would be on a widespread scale but technology like this would allow for closer monitoring of activity and would help rebuild confidence. The last thing we need is a belief that enforcement of warrants is unfair.

Weekly Blog by Philip King, CEO of the ICM - 'Celebrations & sledgehammers'

What a brilliant event the icm11 Awards Dinner was http://www.icm.org.uk/ - a magnificent venue, superb food and remarkable achievements by the Awards' nominees and winners, and the successful Graduates and Prizewinners. It was a real demonstration of the credit community at its best - a community at the heart of which the ICM proudly sits. Gyles Brandreth, the superb host for the evening, privately observed just how friendly the event was and how obviously proud credit professionals are of the community to which they belong.

Gyles had a way of engaging with all of the audience, from our retiring President to the newly qualified student. He also highlighted current themes, one of which is the considerable debate that is ongoing around the Lord Chancellor's statement that he intends to make squatting a criminal offence in England and Wales.

Some parts of the enforcement community, and particularly Claire Sandbrook of Shergroup, are arguing that this is the wrong approach. She believes that the existing powers should be enforced more rigorously, that the court application process needs to be simplified, and that the time taken to grant an order to evict should be accelerated. The public, she argues, would be better served by having a process that enables necessary orders to be obtained and passed to High Court Enforcement Officers within days rather than the weeks it takes currently.

She could well be right; sometimes changing something already in place is preferable to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, particularly when the sledgehammer might increase the prison population and put even more pressure on the criminal justice system. It will be interesting to see if others rally to the mast.