Regulation of the Bailiff Sector

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the regulation of the bailiff sector.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I extend my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for attending this important debate.

I will begin with a story. A vulnerable disabled person answered a knock at the door. He placed the chain on before opening it slightly, only for a bailiff to force their way through. The bailiff treated him, in his words,

“like a waste of life, a loser, scum”.

Worse still, the bailiff went on to wrongfully seize equipment supplied by the local authority to help with his disability.

That is not an isolated case. Today, I will share similar stories that expose the impact of a partially regulated sector, and make the case for urgent reform. My aim is simple: I would like the Government to legislate to introduce an independent regulator for the enforcement sector.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing a debate on this critical issue. There has been a rise in television programming showing people at their lowest being evicted or having their possessions repossessed. Often, we see the despair of ordinary people, and the bailiffs sometimes show a lack of compassion that should not be the standard. Does he agree that kindness and a basic level of respect have to be the foundation? To back that up—he is right—we need the legislation.

[Mr Charters]

I thank the hon. Member for his eloquent words about what is often the most challenging moment in people’s lives. That knock on the door is a cacophony of everything that they are facing, and we have to bear that in mind.

The Enforcement Conduct Board voluntarily regulates approximately 95% of the bailiff sector. However, the 5% who refuse to sign up are responsible, in my view, for the vast majority of the worst abuses. Even within the voluntarily regulated sector, problems persist. With hundreds of thousands of visits, millions of cases and billions collected annually, bailiff enforcement is a massive operation, but according to Citizens Advice, one in three people who have had contact with a bailiff have experienced behaviour that breaks Ministry of Justice rules. Even among regulated bailiffs, 1% of visits were deemed aggressive by the ECB in recent research.

We need a fair, proportionate and efficient collection system, which is why I am calling on my hon. Friend the Minister to set out a timetable to consult on legislation to introduce statutory regulation of the sector. I call on her to put the ECB on a statutory footing—something that charities and the ECB alike support. The fact that the sector is partially unregulated drives rogue bailiffs. I hope I can convince colleagues from across the House of the need for this change. There were some reforms under the May Government, but this is our chance, as a Labour Government, to stop rogue bailiffs for good.

I turn to the link between debt and mental health. Debt does not exist in a vacuum; many people facing bailiff action are also dealing with illness, relationship breakdown or mental health struggles. One person shared their experience of over five years of pressure from bailiffs over council tax debt that they never understood and could not afford. That ultimately led to suicide attempts.

I struggled with whether to mention suicide today, but we cannot ignore these cases. Take the case of Jerome Rogers, a young man whose debt spiralled after bailiffs clamped the motorcycle he needed to work. Shortly afterwards, he took his own life. The coroner identified the debt collection agency’s actions as a contributing factor to his death.

A woman recounted how a bailiff laughed and mocked her when she mentioned her mental health struggles. And Molly, whose name I have changed, was falsely threatened with prison if she did not grant entry to a bailiff—not a permissible threat, by the way. The stress triggered flashbacks of domestic abuse that she had suffered. I know my hon. Friend the Minister does terrific work on that.

Another victim, Poppy—also not her real name—suffered such severe anxiety over bailiff debt collection practices that she had a late-term abortion due to the stress of the situation. These are real stories, and there are so many more. For too long, rogue bailiffs have not met standards when it comes to vulnerability. That is why I dedicate my campaign for bailiff reform to the victims.

The effects of aggressive bailiff practices extend to children. One parent described how bailiffs had knocked so many times that they were left with nothing to take except their young daughter’s cot. It is simply unacceptable for children to live in fear due to a lack of regulation in the bailiff sector.

As a former regulator at the Financial Conduct Authority, I understand the importance of setting clear standards. The last significant changes to bailiff regulations were introduced over a decade ago. It is time for an overhaul.

The Enforcement Conduct Board was established in 2021. It provides guidance but lacks statutory authority. Many firms voluntarily comply, but the absence of legal enforcement means that rogue bailiffs continue to operate with relative impunity. We must introduce statutory regulation to protect vulnerable customers, reduce the burden on the judicial system, improve transparency and provide a level playing field for the genuinely good bailiffs out there. Better standards would level the playing field and support good professional bailiffs to do their work.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. He makes a powerful point about statutory underpinning and giving legal powers to the ECB. We simply cannot have rogue bailiffs marking their own homework and the ECB being reliant on funding from bailiff organisations to clamp down on their actions. Am I right that part of the reason for seeking new powers is to ensure that, instead of just revoking memberships, we can take legal action against rogue bailiffs?

[Mr Charters]

Absolutely. With that statutory underpinning, the ECB would have much greater avenues for enforcement. It has already done quite innovative work on the use of body-worn cameras and so on. Statutory underpinning would support its work even further.

This is not about punishing bailiffs who do their job correctly; it is about removing rogue operators and raising standards across the board. It is important to acknowledge the good work of the Enforcement Conduct Board, but I stress again that it is a voluntary regime, which can create problems as the ECB looks to toughen up standards. On this matter, there are points I would rather discuss privately with Ministers; there are always risks in the long-term survivability of any voluntary regime.

Let me touch on a few specific recommendations. I think we should introduce a vulnerable customers charter. Bailiff action is a distressing event for anyone, but for people with mental health problems it can be catastrophic. Aggressive debt collection leads many to take out high-interest loans, worsening their situation. A vulnerable customers charter would set out minimum standards of care. A bailiff registration service and a centralised register would help the public to verify all bailiffs’ credentials, reducing fraud and ensuring accountability.

On delegating licensing powers to a regulator, currently, bailiffs must renew their licences in court every two years. A regulator such as the ECB could take that on and streamline the process, reducing pressure on our overstretched judicial system. Rather than resorting to aggressive collection, councils should work with debt advice charities to support people before they reach crisis point. I have heard of cases of aggressive bailiff action for debts as low as £10. We should look at introducing a bailiff services compensation scheme, inspired by similar schemes, to provide clear pathways for redress in cases of clear and historical misconduct by rogue bailiffs.

I will close with one final story. Michael, a StepChange client, said of his experience:

“The bailiffs are unregulated. It’s like the Wild West. It’s absolutely unruly.”

I absolutely agree. We cannot allow this to continue. We have the opportunity to bring order to the sector and ensure fairness for debtors and bailiffs alike. Putting bailiff regulation on a statutory footing could save the taxpayer millions of pounds a year by easing the burden on the judiciary. It would immediately raise standards and protect our constituents in the most vulnerable moments of their lives, saving money and lives. I simply urge my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm today that the Government will consult on bailiff reform.

I thank the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, the ECB, the Money Advice Trust and countless others for their thoughts ahead of the debate. I say a special thank you to StepChange: Vikki Brownridge, Richard Lane, Sophie Morris and hundreds of other StepChange staff do inspirational work to provide vital debt advice at some of the most difficult moments.

My hon. Friend the Minister has been a champion for victims of domestic abuse. Today we have learned of yet another grave injustice, which has remained in the shadows for far too long: the scandal of rogue bailiffs, who prey on some of the most vulnerable in our society. I hope that she and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who I also deeply admire and respect, will stand with me in ensuring that justice is done in this area.

I came to this debate with one simple aim: for the Government to legislate to introduce an independent regulator for the enforcement sector. I hope that after hearing the points I have made today, the Minister will set out that they are considering doing exactly that.

11:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Diolch, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for securing this debate on a very important subject. The Government share his concern to ensure that the public are protected against inappropriate enforcement action, and the harrowing stories we have heard today demonstrate why that is so critical.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he powerfully and respectfully told the individual stories of first-hand experiences that had been entrusted to him, so that we heard them directly. They are so important to us as parliamentarians and legislators, and what we have heard about the scale of the issue should rightly shock us all. I also thank the organisations he mentioned, including StepChange, for the immeasurable and vital work they do to highlight the impact of debt enforcement on the most vulnerable in our society.

As my hon. Friend said, figures from the enforcement sector indicate that it is sent about 4 million court orders each year for enforcement using the taking control of goods procedure. Those debts and fines are owed to a wide range of parties, from private individuals and small businesses making individual court claims to local authorities, central Government and companies issuing large numbers of claims. The enforcement sector therefore plays an important role in supporting economic growth, funding public services and underpinning the rule of law.

However, the enforcement sector also has a significant impact on people’s lives, as we have heard. As the Minister with responsibility for victims and for reducing violence against women and girls, I can only imagine how intimidating it would be for a vulnerable woman who might be home alone or with her children, to hear that knock, or a pounding on the door, from a bailiff. That woman, and everyone else in society, has the right to expect that laws and safeguards are in place to ensure their safety.

While the vast majority of enforcement agents comply with the law, sadly some do not, as we have heard in this debate, and we share the concern to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. For many years, successive Governments have sought to balance the need to ensure that vulnerable people are treated fairly with the need to ensure that creditors are able to enforce debts and fines, and this Government want to ensure that the right balance is found between those two competing objectives.

Back in 2007, the then Labour Government recognised that measures were needed to protect vulnerable people from aggressive enforcement action, and they created an ambitious new framework with the regulation of bailiffs in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Those reforms, known as the taking control of goods reforms, were finally implemented in 2014. The 2014 reforms aimed to set out clearly and transparently the procedures that must be followed by enforcement agents when enforcing debts using the taking control of goods procedure.

Those reforms set out several safeguards to protect the public, and vulnerable people in particular. They aimed to disincentivise aggressive or unnecessary enforcement action, including introducing a compliance stage to give people an opportunity to pay without that visit being necessary, and to provide protection against inappropriate and threatening enforcement agent action. The reforms introduced a new court-based certification scheme for individual agents and, importantly, mandatory training to ensure that enforcement agents have the skills needed to carry out their job effectively. The Ministry of Justice review found that the reforms had brought some positive changes, including full transparency and consistency, but also that some enforcement agents were still perceived to be acting aggressively and, more importantly, that they were not complying with the new rules.

As a result of complaints being made about enforcement agents, the Justice Committee held an inquiry in 2019. In its final report, the Committee expressed surprise that enforcement agents appeared to be

“under-regulated compared with other sectors.”

It recommended having a regulator with the ability to stop unfit enforcement agents and companies practising. The Committee also found the complaints system for bailiffs to be

“fragmented and hard to navigate, especially for vulnerable people”,

and recommended that an independent complaints body be set up, to which all complaints and enforcement agents could be escalated.

In response to those findings, the enforcement sector worked with the debt advice sector and the Centre for Social Justice to create the Enforcement Conduct Board. Its mission is to ensure that all those facing enforcement action in England and Wales are treated fairly. As we have heard, the ECB is a voluntary independent oversight body. The enforcement sector has on the whole accepted its oversight, and the ECB demonstrated that it has a valuable role to play.

The ECB has established an accreditation scheme for firms, which 96% of the industry has signed up to voluntarily; it has published professional standards for agents and the companies that employ them and it is about to begin considering complaints made against enforcement companies. It is establishing an independent dataset about enforcement, for example, and recently commissioned a study of body-worn camera footage, which found that enforcement agents broke the rules in 6% of cases—but, as we have heard, that 6% is too many.

The ECB believes that legislation is needed to fulfil fully its mission as an independent body. My hon. Friend set out some of the arguments in favour of the Government legislating to set up a statutory independent regulator. The Government recognise that legislation could ensure a level playing field, guaranteeing that everyone facing enforcement action would be dealing with an enforcement agent and firm subject to the same standard, overseen by that independent body. It would also mean that everyone facing enforcement action would be able to complain to an independent body using that same procedure.

My hon. Friend has suggested a number of responsibilities and powers that a regulator could be given. We also welcome the debate on how Government can build on the excellent work that the ECB has already done with the sector on that voluntary basis to protect boards facing enforcement action.

I reassure the House that we are considering all the issues that have been raised today. We are also considering how best to engage with stakeholders to inform decisions about whether further legislation is necessary and, if so, what such legislation should in fact do. It is important that we consider all those issues carefully. On the one hand we know that when regulation is done well, it can protect the public and support economic growth and innovation; on the other hand, poorly designed regulation can fail to keep the public safe, stifle economic growth and prevent regulated bodies from adapting to emerging technologies and new challenges.

The Government are also considering our response to a consultation held by the previous Government on the reforms to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which aimed to increase the proportion of cases that settle at the earliest and cheapest stages by, for example, giving people more time to access debt advice. We are also considering the findings of a report by the previous Government that recommended uplifting the fees that enforcement agents can recover under the 2013 regulations by 5%. We are still reviewing both those issues and will set out the way forward shortly.

The Government want to ensure that the enforcement sector operates fairly and effectively and, more importantly, is regulated properly. The experiences we have heard about today illustrate why it is so important that we absolutely get this right. As we move forward, we will continue to engage with Parliament and all relevant stakeholders to ensure that our approach is balanced and just, and that it takes into account the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. I extend that invitation to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members across the House to ensure that we hear a wide range of views and get everyone’s input, which is important if we are to get this right—and we are determined to get this right.

Question put and agreed to.

11:21

Sitting suspended.