By AUSTIN KALUBA –

THIS week, the Telegraph carried a story entitled Councils criticised for overzealous debt collection calling on local authorities in Britain to force bailiffs to be more “considerate” about their debt collection methods.
The concern was raised after many people were subjected to poor bailiff practices, some for debts as little as a £50 parking penalty charges.
The bailiffs were advised to follow good practices to make sure repayments are affordable and setting down a clear procedure for people to report any complaints about the way they have been dealt with.
This is not the first time complaints have been raised against bailiffs in Britain since recently, the local government authorities accused bailiffs of using sharp practices to rack-up excessive fines.
It was learnt that Bailiffs usually charge to visits someone’s home and may take someone else’s belongings if the homeowner was unable to prove the property belongs to another person.
Citizens Advice recorded a 38 per cent rise in complaints about debt collectors in recent years, with a third of these complaints relating to collection of council tax by bailiffs.
In Zambia, the situation is not much different with several complaints raised against some bailiffs and their conduct when executing their duties.
According to law, judgments for the recovery of money may be enforced by a writ of fieri facias (“Writ of Fifa”) which is directed to the sheriff and his bailiffs and is executed by the seizure of the defendant’s movable assets, except the wearing apparel and bedding of himself or his family and the tools and implements of his trade, if any.
If the Judgment debt has not been satisfied following execution of the Writ of fifa and the judgment creditor has information that the defendant has immovable property, an application for a writ of eligit may be made.
The writ of eligit will enable the Judgment creditor to take possession of the property through the office of the Sheriff.
However, the writ of eligit does not give the Judgment creditor the power to sell the property. The only right is to obtain proceeds from the rentals which would be applied for the purpose of satisfying the debt.
Where the defendant has only immovable property, the judgment creditor may apply for a charging order instead of issuing a writ of eligit.
The Charging order would create an interest in the defendant’s property and the defendant cannot dispose off his property without discharging the judgment creditor interest.
While we are not disputing these legal powers our good friends have, we would like some overzealous bailiffs to be considerate in their execution of duties.
Together with the courts that issue the writ of fifa, we would like them to give a significant period for the party that owes to look for money.
In most cases, our good friends rush into action immediately an order is made. This has crippled many companies irreparably or made them take even longer to settle the debts.
We would also like bailiffs to think twice when grabbing tools of production that would enable a company to raise the money it owes.
If we grab the tools of production, what do you expect the owing party to use to raise the money. One can liken this action to grabbing fishing nets from a fisherman and expect him to raise the money he owes you?
Take another practical example of a newspaper office. Is it fair for bailiffs to grab computers and furniture due to some debts owed by the company and expect the company to raise money?
The disposal of property that is grabbed also leaves much to be desired. What happens in most cases is selling of expensive goods at a give away prices.
There have also been reports of some bailiffs buying these goods cheaply and selling them to auctioneers at an inflated price. Isn’t this daylight robbery that should be discouraged.
If the bone of contention is to make a company pay, why can’t consideration to price a company’s goods be done to ensure they sell the property and raise the money owed?
Coming to the courts, issuance of a writ of fifa should be arrived at as the last option when the owing party fails to negotiate to settle a payment.
There is also need to revisit these orders whose history spans back to Victorian England to ensure they are modified to give them a human face.
The historically, the use of bailiffs has been found to be effective, it is the most controversial methods of debt collection available in English law.
Apart from the monetary value sought, embarrassment and public relations considerations, there is need to panel beat the profession to ensure people owing money are treated in a humane way.
Last year, England and Wales debated changing the laws concerning bailiff’s changes with calls to do away with them.
Among resolutions debated was to ensure if bailiffs survived then their operations were to be radically made softer.
Other changes to the law and process surrounding ‘enforcement agents’ will include the following:
•No more surprise visits. You’ll now get at least a week’s notice before the first visit from an enforcement agent
•When they do visit a property, they have to leave a letter explaining clearly what they’ve done
•They can still use force to enter when they’re collecting criminal fines or tax debts, but they’ll need to ask a judge for permission first
•If an enforcement agent has been into your house and made a list of goods, they can use force to enter again if you don’t pay them
•They won’t be allowed to climb in through your window to enter your property
•The law also stops them coming in if only children or vulnerable adults are in the house
They still can’t force their way into your house. It’s still illegal for them to break anything, put their foot in the door or push past you to get in.
We feel these are civilised adjustments to the operation of bailiffs which should be emulated in all enlightened societies.
Quoting Mark 2:27 we uphold what Jesus Christ said, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath.