A Baliffs Access Rights ( and removal of )

[Lula]

A debtor can remove the right of implied access by displaying a not at the entrance
This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts ( 1981 ) 72 Cr App R 223 - and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a baliff entering the garden or driveway
, Knx v Anderton (1983) crim LR 115 or R v Leroy Roberts ( 2003) EWCA Crim 2753
Vaughan v McKenzie ( 1969) 1 QB 557 If the debtor strikes a baliff over the head with a full milk bottle after making a forced entry , the debtor is not guilty of assuult because the baliff was there illegally , likewise
R v Tucker at hove Trial Centre Crown Court , December 2012 the debtor gives the baliff a good slap .
I have more stated cases if you are interested .

[FlamingParrot]

Re: A Baliffs Access Rights ( and removal of )

Ah the infamous NOROIA!

How about Thornton v Rossendales?

Furthermore, the Judge said that despite what the claimant had written in the notice regarding contractual terms and conditions, it was not a contract as there was no consideration from either party involved. The claimant could not simply rely on Rossendales accepting the terms of the notice purely because they carried on with the lawful act of levying distress.

The Judge felt that the claimant was confusing the law of contract with the tort of trespass – which was a different element of law altogether. It was stated by Judge Pugh that it is a common misconception that trespassers can be automatically prosecuted when in fact they cannot. Instead, an aggrieved individual would have to demonstrate that there had been a loss as a result of damagescaused by the defendant’s alleged trespass.

In his final summary, the Judge made it clear to the claimant that he had been ill-advised in making his claim to the county court to try to prevent the bailiff from carrying out what he was perfectly legally entitled to do.

From the claimants’ response it was clear that he had been influenced by information on the internet when preparing his case.

Not surprisingly, the court claim failed. Judge Pugh dismissed the penalty of £750 and ordered the claimant to pay Rossendale’s legal costs.

:mmph:

[Milo]

Re: A Baliffs Access Rights ( and removal of )

A debtor can remove the right of implied access by displaying a not at the entrance

This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts ( 1981 ) 72 Cr App R 223 - and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a baliff entering the garden or driveway,
Knox v Anderton (1983) crim LR 115 or R v Leroy Roberts ( 2003) EWCA Crim 2753 .

In fact, if you read the judgment for yourself you will find that Lord Justice Donaldson did not even mention the word 'bailiff' in his judgment at all.

The notice that you have copied the above information from is hopelessy inaccurate and is universally ignored for that reason.

Furthermore the new regulations are very specific indeed where they state that a bailiff will NOT be deemed a trespasser.

[Kati]

Re: A Baliffs Access Rights ( and removal of )

I'm afraid I have to agree ... a NOIRIA might work for bbc staff, but for a court appointed bailiff