Law Excerpts Relevant to Bailiffs and Evictions

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Law Excerpts Relevant to Bailiffs and Evictions

THE CASE LAW QUOTED HAS BEEN SO TWISTED BEYOND ALL RECOGNITION

R. v Leroy Roberts [2003] EWCA

That is just one example, that case law is relevant to the Criminal Justice Act 1988

NOT CIVIL BAILIFF LAW

Since when have bailiffs been accountable to the Criminal Justice Act which is a criminal matter, not Civil in which bailiffs operate under

AN EXAMPLE WILL BE AN EVICTION
RIGHTS OF ENTRY WARRANT (UTILITY COMPANIES) ETC

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Law Excerpts Relevant to Bailiffs and Evictions

I realy do not wish to drag this old thread up again but, our freeman friends kept on saying to remove them right of access to your property and will be trespassing.

THIS WILL END THAT ARGUMENT

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...lation/45/made

(7) A distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order, and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser on that account; and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser from the beginning on account of any subsequent irregularity in making the distress, but a person sustaining special damage by reason of the subsequent irregularity may recover full satisfaction for the special damage (and no more) by proceedings in trespass or otherwise.

[bluebottle]

Re: Law Excerpts Relevant to Bailiffs and Evictions

I realy do not wish to drag this old thread up again but, our freeman friends kept on saying to remove them right of access to your property and will be trespassing.

THIS WILL END THAT ARGUMENT

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...lation/45/made

(7) A distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order, and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser on that account; and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser from the beginning on account of any subsequent irregularity in making the distress, but a person sustaining special damage by reason of the subsequent irregularity may recover full satisfaction for the special damage (and no more) by proceedings in trespass or otherwise.

Rai and Rai -v- Birmingham City Council [1993] and, more recently, R -v- Tucker [2012] knocked that on the head. In R -v- Tucker, the judgement of HHJ Brown confirmed that a householder has a right to use as much reasonable force as it necessary to remove a bailiff who has illegally forced entry and has failed and/or refused to leave when requested to do so. That right exists in cases of trespass.

The legal protection referred to in the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended) will only apply so long as the bailiff stays on the right side of the law. However, bailiffs being what they are, compliance with the law that is something that doesn't seem to occur to them. Must be the fact they share a single brain cell between them.

[FORCEOFONE]

Re: Law Excerpts Relevant to Bailiffs and Evictions

I believe the confusion exists where people remove the right of implied access and try and justify that dogma

The relevant statutory provision . Council tax enforcement regulations allow a bailiff onto a property to attempt a levy

I believe the cases quoted are for unlawful activities such as "foot in the door"

You cannot deny a bailiff from knocking on your door to attempt levy by one of these notices, any citizen can protect themselves if the perpetrator is acting unlawfully

If the bailiff refuses to leave when requested, then yes his activities will be classed as unlawful

Thats how i see it and i make no statement of fact until confirmed

[bluebottle]

Re: Law Excerpts Relevant to Bailiffs and Evictions

I believe the confusion exists where people remove the right of implied access and try and justify that dogma

The relevant statutory provision . Council tax enforcement regulations allow a bailiff onto a property to attempt a levy

I believe the cases quoted are for unlawful activities such as "foot in the door"

You cannot deny a bailiff from knocking on your door to attempt levy by one of these notices, any citizen can protect themselves if the perpetrator is acting unlawfully

If the bailiff refuses to leave when requested, then yes his activities will be classed as unlawful

Thats how i see it and i make no statement of fact until confirmed

If a certificated bailiff enforcing a CT Liability Order stays within the law, the protection conferred by legislation applies. The reality is that, in many cases, a Regulation 46 appeal to the Magistrates Court would, invariably, succeed due to non-compliance on the part of the bailiff.

[gravytrain]

Re: Law Excerpts Relevant to Bailiffs and Evictions

Rai and Rai -v- Birmingham City Council [1993] and, more recently, R -v- Tucker [2012] knocked that on the head. In R -v- Tucker, the judgement of HHJ Brown confirmed that a householder has a right to use as much reasonable force as it necessary to remove a bailiff who has illegally forced entry and has failed and/or refused to leave when requested to do so. That right exists in cases of trespass.

The legal protection referred to in the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (as amended) will only apply so long as the bailiff stays on the right side of the law. However, bailiffs being what they are, compliance with the law that is something that doesn't seem to occur to them. Must be the fact they share a single brain cell between them.

Do you have a link to these cases BB, The actual cases, not a precis .

Of course these cases do not go against the legislation, the bailiff should have left anyway when asked, nothing to do with defects in an order.