The Taking Control of Goods: National Standards (2014) was introduced as a guide to govern the conduct of enforcement agents (commonly known as bailiffs) in England and Wales. These standards were intended to promote fair, ethical, and professional behaviour in the enforcement of debts, particularly with regard to protecting vulnerable individuals. Now, a decade on, it is worth reflecting on the effectiveness of these standards and assessing whether they have achieved their intended outcomes in today’s enforcement environment.
 

Overview of the 2014 National Standards
 

The National Standards were a significant step towards codifying the expected behaviour of enforcement agents and improving transparency in debt recovery practices. They aimed to provide a clear framework that balances the rights of debtors with the legal duties of creditors and enforcement agents. Key areas of focus in the document include:
 

1. Ethical and Professional Behaviour: Enforcement agents are required to conduct themselves in a professional manner, avoiding intimidation, threats, and aggression. The standards emphasise transparency, requiring agents to clearly explain the enforcement process and fees.
    

2. Vulnerability Protections: A key part of the National Standards is ensuring that vulnerable individuals are identified and treated with care. Agents must recognise signs of vulnerability and adjust their enforcement approach accordingly, often suspending action or referring cases back to the creditor.
    

3. Fee Transparency and Compliance: The standards mandate clear communication of fees and ensure that enforcement agents comply with relevant legislation, such as the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013.
    

4. Complaints and Accountability: The National Standards stress the importance of a robust complaints system, ensuring that debtors have access to a transparent process for addressing grievances.
    

Progress and Achievements Over the Decade
 

In the ten years since their introduction, the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards have had a significant impact on the enforcement industry. They have helped professionalise the sector, fostered better behaviour among enforcement agents, and heightened awareness of the need to treat vulnerable individuals with care. Key areas of progress include:
 

• Professionalism and Conduct: The enforcement industry has seen noticeable improvements in the professionalism of its agents, largely due to the guidelines laid out in the National Standards. Training programmes and certification processes have become more rigorous, and enforcement agents are now generally more mindful of their responsibilities under the law.
   

• Vulnerability Awareness: One of the most significant achievements has been the focus on vulnerability. The National Standards have encouraged a shift in culture, with enforcement agents being more attentive to the signs of vulnerability. This is an area where there has been significant progress, as agents are now trained to identify and manage cases involving vulnerable debtors, ensuring they receive fair treatment.
   

• Improved Transparency: There has been a general improvement in the transparency of enforcement actions, with clearer communication around fees and the steps involved in debt recovery. This has helped reduce instances of confusion and mistrust between debtors and enforcement agents, and has made it easier for debtors to understand their rights and obligations.
   

• Complaints Mechanisms: Another positive outcome has been the establishment of more robust complaints processes. The standards have made it easier for debtors to lodge complaints about improper behaviour by enforcement agents, resulting in a greater sense of accountability across the sector.
   

Areas Where the Standards Have Fallen Short
 

While the National Standards have achieved many of their goals, there are several areas where they have struggled to keep pace with the challenges of the modern enforcement environment. As the regulatory landscape has evolved, so too have the demands placed on enforcement agents and the expectations of debtors and creditors. Some of the key shortcomings include:
 

1. Inconsistent Application: A recurring issue with the National Standards is the lack of statutory force behind them. While they provide important guidance, they are not legally binding. As a result, enforcement agents can choose to follow or ignore them without immediate legal consequence, leading to inconsistent application across the industry. Some enforcement firms fully embrace the standards, while others may only partially adhere to them, creating a mixed experience for debtors.
    

2. Vulnerability Identification Challenges: Although the National Standards have increased awareness around vulnerability, identifying vulnerable individuals remains a challenge. Vulnerability is often hidden, and debtors may be reluctant to disclose their circumstances due to shame or fear. Enforcement agents are not trained social workers, and the National Standards do not provide enough detailed guidance on how to effectively assess vulnerability, particularly in cases where it is not immediately obvious.
    

3. Lack of Enforcement on Unfair Practices: While the standards have improved professionalism, there are still cases of improper behaviour by enforcement agents. Some reports suggest that instances of intimidation, aggressive tactics, and excessive fee charging still occur. The lack of statutory enforcement mechanisms for the National Standards means that there are no immediate penalties for non-compliance, and in some cases, the complaints process can be slow and inaccessible to debtors who are already under pressure.
    

4. Inadequate Fee Transparency: Although the standards call for transparency around fees, many debtors still feel confused by the costs associated with enforcement actions. The complaints process is often triggered by disputes over fees, suggesting that there is still a lack of clarity in this area. The complexity of fee structures, particularly for vulnerable individuals who may not fully understand the legal process, has resulted in ongoing tensions between debtors and enforcement agents.
    

Changes in the Enforcement Landscape Over the Decade
 

In the ten years since the National Standards were introduced, the enforcement landscape has evolved significantly. Changes in societal attitudes towards debt, growing awareness of the challenges faced by vulnerable individuals, and the rise of new technologies have all impacted the enforcement industry in ways that the 2014 standards may not have fully anticipated.
 

• Increasing Focus on Vulnerability: Over the past decade, there has been a growing recognition of the need to protect vulnerable individuals in all aspects of society, and enforcement is no exception. Organisations like the Money Advice Trust and Citizens Advice have advocated for stronger protections for vulnerable debtors, and this has placed pressure on enforcement agents to do more to safeguard these individuals. While the National Standards include provisions for dealing with vulnerability, there is an argument to be made that these guidelines are now outdated, and that more comprehensive, legally enforceable protections are required. More on this here. 
   

• Technological Advancements: The rise of digital communication and new technologies has changed how enforcement agents interact with debtors. The National Standards do not address how technology can be used to improve transparency, provide better information to debtors, or streamline the enforcement process. There is now a need to update the standards to reflect the reality of a digital-first approach, ensuring that debtors can engage with enforcement agents in ways that are more accessible and transparent. More on this here. 
   

• Post-Pandemic Challenges: The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the focus on debt recovery and vulnerability. As more people have experienced financial hardship, there has been an increase in the number of vulnerable debtors coming into contact with enforcement agents. The standards, which were written long before the pandemic, do not adequately address the unique challenges of enforcing debts in a post-pandemic world, where economic instability has become more widespread. More on this here.
   

Recommendations for Future Reform
 

Looking forward, it is clear that while the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards (2014) laid a strong foundation for ethical and professional enforcement practices, there is now a pressing need for reform. The following recommendations would help ensure that the standards continue to meet the demands of the modern enforcement environment:
 

1. Make the Standards Legally Binding: One of the most significant shortcomings of the National Standards is their lack of statutory force. Making these standards legally binding would ensure that all enforcement agents are held to the same high standards, and that those who fail to comply face meaningful consequences.
    

2. Strengthen Vulnerability Protections: While the National Standards have increased awareness around vulnerability, there is still more work to be done. Clearer guidelines on identifying vulnerability, as well as additional training for enforcement agents, would help ensure that vulnerable debtors are better protected.
    

3. Improve Fee Transparency: More needs to be done to simplify and clarify the fee structure associated with enforcement actions. Debt recovery is a complex process, and vulnerable individuals often find it difficult to navigate. A standardised, plain-English approach to fee communication could help alleviate confusion and reduce complaints.
    

4. Integrate Technology: The enforcement industry has moved forward in terms of technology, but the standards have not kept up. Future revisions should address how digital tools can be used to improve communication, streamline enforcement actions, and enhance transparency for debtors.
    

5. Respond to Post-Pandemic Realities: The economic consequences of the pandemic are still being felt, and debt recovery practices must be updated to reflect this. Stronger protections for those who have been impacted by the pandemic, as well as a more compassionate approach to enforcement, will be essential as society rebuilds.
    

Conclusion
 

A decade on from the introduction of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards (2014), it is clear that they have made important strides in improving the conduct of enforcement agents. However, in the authors humble opinion the changing landscape of debt recovery, combined with increasing demands for stronger protections for vulnerable individuals, means that these standards are now due for review and reform. By addressing their shortcomings and adapting to the realities of modern enforcement, we can ensure that debt recovery practices continue to evolve in a fair, transparent, and ethical direction.

 

Link: The 2014, Taking Control of Goods: National Standards.