Het incasseren van ongenoegen: deurwaarders en schuldenaren

Abstract

Introduction The relation between the bailiff and the debtor is conflictive due to the conflict of interest of both actors. The main interest for the debtors is focused on his or her daily life, while the bailiffs’ interests lie within the judicial system. Also the current laws and disciplinary regulations are not always a guarantee for lawful and proper behavior of the bailiff during the face-to-face interactions with debtors. This could generate conflicts, like vigilantism. Moreover, several current societal developments lead to an increase of the friction between bailiffs and debtors, in particular: the intensification of the debt problems and new and profound powers of creditors, the increased individualization of citizens and their more outspoken behavior, and the dominance of the free market process for bailiffs. This thesis focuses on the conflictual interactions between bailiffs and debtors. The main research questions are: “What is the reason escalating conflicts occur between bailiffs and debtors and why does the incidence increase?” Methods A practical empirical approach is used. A total of 43 cases of face-to-face interactions between bailiffs and debtors are described. The backgrounds of the conflictive interactions are analyzed using qualitative and quantitative research methods. These methods include a participant observation study of bailiffs and debtors, interviewing bailiffs and debtors, and conducting surveys among bailiffs. The main point of view is bottom-up, in which a special focus is addressed to the perceptions and behaviors of the bailiff and debtor. Finally, the perspective of third parties is described, such as debt counselors. Results There are four distinct types of face-to-face interactions between the bailiff and debtor observed: 1) volatile interactions, 2) confronting interactions, 3) strategic interactions, and 4) strong/firm interactions. Each of the four interaction types has its own conflictive character and describes the behavior at the door. The two actors act and react during the face-to-face interactions, influencing the dynamics of the conflict. The tension created by third parties before the actual face-to-face interactions take place is of no lesser importance. In case of escalation, often a ‘spiral of conflict’ can be appreciated, in which the tension increases over time and ends in aggression and violence. Escalation is more the result of a cumulative process in which several factors interact. Conclusions The bailiff’s role as dominant interaction partner is decisive for the course of the interaction process (action is reaction). Digitalization, automation, maximizing of scale and increased market forces have led to a more anonymous and impersonal role of the bailiff and to increased friction between the bailiff and the debtor. The current bailiff’s behavior can lead to (escalating) conflicts instead of resolve conflicts between debtors and creditors; the bailiff’s traditional pacifying function is hereby omitted. The empirical part of this thesis shows that the bailiffs’ social role is of great essence for debtors and that friction can be avoided by improving this role.