To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take about courts awarding substantial damages against people who have used the official “form 4” obtainable from the HM Courts Service website to complain about a bailiff.

My Lords, the award of costs in form 4 complaints under rule 8 of the Distress for Rent Rules 1988 is a judicial decision in which Her Majesty’s Government would not interfere. However, I have asked my officials urgently to obtain comprehensive advice on the legal position. I have further asked my officials to consider whether any additional information might be included in the current guidance.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that rather unsatisfactory Answer. Is he aware that form 4 is the only way for the citizen to make a complaint about a bailiff; that it is available on the Government’s website without caution; that costs never used to be awarded—it appears that they are being awarded now merely because of a change in the way that the courts are administered, whereby judges are not taking a sufficiently early decision on whether the case has merit; and that the result is that people making a perfectly ordinary complaint against a government official are quite unexpectedly landed with thousands of pounds in costs? Do the Government intend to extend this principle elsewhere within government?

I am disappointed that the noble Lord is disappointed. I thought that my Answer would be helpful to him. I thank him for raising this important matter because there is a difficult legal issue around it which, as I have said, I have asked my officials urgently to look into. The noble Lord is quite right to refer to the guidance document. It is important that that document should set out the position perhaps better than it does at the moment.

My Lords, is it not the case that form 4 is not the only redress for a person who has lost something because of an error on the part of a bailiff? I think I am right in saying—I checked this in the Library half-an-hour ago so I should be fairly accurate—that Section 124 of the County Courts Act 1984 obliges a judge to hear any claim by a person who has lost anything on account of the connivance, omission or negligence of a bailiff. Therefore, once such an award is made, the issue of costs would normally follow and, in any event, would be a matter of judicial discretion.

I know the noble Lord is nearly always right in the legal advice he gives the House, and today is no exception. However—and here I rush to the defence of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—it is true that, as far as certificated bailiffs are concerned, a form 4 complaint is one of the important remedies against wrongful action.

My Lords, as well as the steps which the Minister indicated he has asked officials to take, I am sure he will wish to confirm that in March 2008 the Ministry of Justice said it would establish a powerful independent regulator to tackle unscrupulous bailiffs; that in March 2009 a further announcement said that the Government would produce a consultation paper setting out their intended proposals for regulation; and on 1 February this year the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, answering a Question in the other place, said that the Government remained committed to commence a consultation exercise. Why the delay?

Because we want to get it right. It still remains our intention for all enforcement agents who are not Crown employees to be overseen by an independent regulatory body. We do not resile from our preferred option for regulation by the Security Industry Authority. The noble Lord is right. We consulted on regulation of enforcement agents and put forward three options: first, no change; secondly, the creation of a new regulator; and, thirdly, regulation by the Security Industry Authority. The majority of responses supported the third option. As he said, we announced in March that we would produce a consultation paper which would set out our intentions for a package of measures. We intend to commence this consultation paper this year with a view to implementing the changes—wait for it—in April 2012.

My Lords, have the qualifications for being a bailiff become more rigorous since the Minister last wrote to me on the subject?

No, I do not think they have since I last wrote to the noble Lord on the subject. It would help if I could remember—or if the noble Lord had reminded me—on what date that was. However, it is our intention to implement the changes in the bailiff law reform part of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act in April 2012. That will be important legislation when it comes into force. It will put all bailiff law into one place; have one complete set of regulations; and, importantly, regulate when and how enforcement authority can be obtained to enter property. Those changes will certainly take place.

As I read the Question, it implies that these costs and damages are being paid by people simply because they have used the form. Is there a difference between those people whose claims are justified as opposed to those whose are not?

Certainly, the costs are awarded only against those complainants whom the county court judge has found against. If the complainant succeeds there will be no order of costs against him or her.