The Bailiff industry is supposed to be made up of tough and resilient people. Why then are we, apparently, such a soft target?
The core of the sector, the small to medium sized businesses that have been around for decades, is under pressure as never before. Setting aside the contrived and no doubt creatively edited "insider" television programmes of late, we continually struggle to convince the general public that our services are both necessary and properly carried out.
We hope that local authorities, themselves often caught up in negative reporting of debt collection, will join with us in calling for more open and transparent tender processes, more clarity on fees and more pressure on the Government to move matters forward.
We publish this at a time when progress with the Ministry of Justice towards an agreed fee structure seems to be meandering along in a somewhat pedestrian fashion, despite all parties accepting its end point as a desirable outcome.
For the moment fees are a thorny issue and for good reason. Because the public sector is always under scrutiny and currently experiencing intense pressure through budget cuts, we should expect the tender process to be exhaustive and thorough. That is absolutely as it should be.
What it should not do, however, is to pretend that bailiff services can be offered at no cost to anyone. It is vitally important that we publicly acknowledge this.
To begin with it defies belief that such services can be provided free of charge. For those who seek to question the standards and practices of the collection and enforcement sector, this only lends credibility to their case.
"If the local authority isn't paying for the service, then who is?" This is the inevitable response from the cynical and to an extent, who can blame them?
Ultimately this situation leaves the impression that debtors are being asked to cover any hidden costs as well as being required to settle the debt.
We need to be perfectly honest about this. If local authorities are turning a blind eye to unregulated costs being attached to debts then this is a practice which is bound to become apparent and will reflect badly on all sides.
There is a belief among the core bailiff sector that such practices are, if not actively encouraged by some councils, then simply ignored. If the recovery rates are high enough - then methods are not checked.
During the tender process and indeed after decisions have been announced, we are all aware that there is nil or minimal charging on services which cannot be delivered without significant cost.
Some in the sector are now openly saying they expect that the industry will contract with bailiffs going out of business. Needless to say, it is the smaller companies which will be in most danger. If this should happen because of artificial pricing there are some long-term outcomes which may not be entirely palatable.
1) The only companies able to sustain nil-price loss-leaders are the very biggest. No market place is secure when a very few providers are left. A near monopoly by a handful of company would be anti-competitive and significantly reduce choice for local authorities.
2) The loss of the smaller bailiffs will remove a group that offers a degree of local knowledge to both public and private sector customers which can be significant in the effectiveness of the service.
3) Fully employed bailiffs in the smaller businesses have a level of commitment and integrity which is hard to match. Many have years of experience in the sector, would be a great loss to the profession, and it would be a step backwards for standards.
Ends