These smash-and-grab bailiffs who make a mockery of justice when they come knocking at the door

The centuries-old common law preventing forced entry by bailiffs enforcing fines was abolished on in July 2004 by Standing Committee E considering a Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) amendment to the Home Office Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. There was no mention of the common law being abolished throughout the passage of this Bill through parliament; it was ironic — it is often vulnerable women and children who are at home when the intimidating bailiff forces entry. The right to refuse entry in to a home was an important protection for them. Even with that right 76 per cent of fines were collected; a substantial part of the balance is due to disproportionate fines that cannot be paid in full, others that should be reduced due to a change of circumstances and others that have been misdirected to the wrong person or address and cannot be collected.

The Committee was told that the reason for allowing forced entry was ‘because we are talking about the enforcement of criminal penalties and it is important to focus on that’. Neither House was told that the fines for many of the ‘criminal’ offences involved are petty shop lifting, truancy, TV licenses, fare dodging, no tax disc for a car — often fueled by poverty.

I have met these ‘criminals’. The trust I chair, Zacchaeus 2000, had a contract for nine years with Wycombe Magistrates Court to help people fill in their means statements at the enforcement court on Wednesday mornings. I used to be able to provide assistance to vulnerable defaulters and, with the permission of the bench, get their facts before the court so the fines could be proportionate; or reduced if circumstances have changed, like unemployment or illness, during enforcement.

The Lord Chancellor wrote to Zacchaeus in 2002, ‘for fines to be effective they must be proportionate to income. Setting the correct level of fine is, in my view, the key to successful enforcement. To enable this, it is vital that magistrates have accurate and up-to-date information about an offender’s means at the time of sentencing, and indeed throughout the enforcement process.’

Now with the arrival of the fines officers in the Courts Act 2003, who have taken over enforcement, our intervention is all but shut out. The procedures have become merciless. If the fine is not paid it is over to the bailiffs’ smash and grab. Officials at the Department of Constitutional Affairs say that forced entry will only be used as a last resort, but they will not tell us who decides and under what circumstances they consider that time has been reached.

The bailiffs seized the TV, DVD player and 60 CDs of a lone mother, sold them for £72 — £30 going to the auctioneer — to pay off a disproportionate fine of £1,072. An unemployed young man had a fixed penalty for fare dodging. He is homeless and uses his girlfriend’s address; the bailiff called and threatened to seize her property to cover his fine and the bailiff’s costs. I complained but have had no reply.

A bailiff of the same company threatened to seize the property of a pensioner because her grandson used her address. Government gets a free service from the bailiffs — it is the fine defaulter who pays their fees; no wonder forced entry falls very short of a last resort.

Page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents is an attempt to protect vulnerable households. It has no legal force. It suggests that ‘enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about how such situations should be dealt with.’.

The problem that might yet have to be resolved by judicial review is, ‘who in the case of a fine is the creditor and who should agree the procedures’. Is it the magistrates, HM Court Service, or DCA? The law should be amended to bring the magistrates back into the supervision of the bailiffs who enforce the orders they make.

Parliament has carelessly removed them from that task in the Courts Act 2003 and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. By allowing forced entry by bailiffs has diminished the administration of justice by the British courts; an Englishman’s home is no longer his castle. Restoring that would do more for people’s sense of security than all the measures in the Queen’s Speech.

The Rev Paul Nicolson is Chairman of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust. www.z2k.org.