phillips using dvcv act

[kebryno1]

hello i have an ongoing payment plan with phillips one thing i cannot understand is this
''our bailiffs have the power to enter your premises, by force if necessary,to execute warrents as per sch 4a magistrates court act 1980 as inserted by sch of dvcv act 2004. now call me stupid but my fine is for not handing in my log book in time to the secratery of state it has nothing to do with DOMESTIC VIOLENTS .
so can they legaly do this or are they trying to be scarey any info would be greatfully recieved

[postggj]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

i believe they need a right of entry warrant from the court for this and is very rare to be given

do not quote me though as unsure and only what i have read on other threads

[Celestine]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

Fascinating Freedom of Information Request to the MOJ about powers of bailiffs under the DVCV Act 2004.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...PI7z3D0x6iNQzQ



"The MOJ has stressed that the Guidance document requested by the complainant is not provided to all bailiffs but only to ‘specific people enforcing specific warrants’, namely CEOs and AEAs. Furthermore, the powers of search and entry under the DVCV Act only apply to CEOs and AEAs where there is a warrant for arrest, detention or commitment in proceedings or in connection with any criminal offence. They cannot therefore be used to enforce civil debts."

[labman]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

It is not only to do with Domestic Violence. Sch 4A is as below:

“SCHEDULE 4A
Powers of authorised officers executing warrantsMeaning of “authorised officer” etc
1In this Schedule—“authorised officer”, in relation to a warrant, means a person who is entitled to execute the warrant by virtue of—(a)section 125A of this Act (civilian enforcement officers); or(b)section 125B of this Act (approved enforcement agencies);
“premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—(a)any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft;
(b)any offshore installation within the meaning of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971; and
(c)any tent or movable structure.
Entry to execute warrant of arrest etc
2(1)An authorised officer may enter and search any premises for the purpose of executing a warrant of arrest, commitment or detention issued in proceedings for or in connection with any criminal offence.
(2)The power may be exercised—(a)only to the extent that it is reasonably required for that purpose; and(b)only if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whom he is seeking is on the premises.
(3)In relation to premises consisting of two or more separate dwellings, the power is limited to entering and searching—(a)any parts of the premises which the occupiers of any dwelling comprised in the premises use in common with the occupiers of any other such dwelling; and(b)any such dwelling in which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whom he is seeking may be.
Entry to levy distress
3(1)An authorised officer may enter and search any premises for the purpose of executing a warrant of distress issued under section 76 of this Act for default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction.
(2)The power may be exercised only to the extent that it is reasonably required for that purpose.
Searching arrested persons
4(1)This paragraph applies where a person is arrested in pursuance of a warrant of arrest, commitment or detention issued in proceedings for or in connection with any criminal offence.
(2)An authorised officer may search the arrested person, if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may present a danger to himself or others.
(3)An authorised officer may also search the arrested person for anything which he might use to assist him to escape from lawful custody.
(4)The power conferred by sub-paragraph (3) above may be exercised—(a)only if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may have concealed on him anything of a kind mentioned in that sub-paragraph; and(b)only to the extent that it is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering any such thing.
(5)The powers conferred by this paragraph to search a person are not to be read as authorising the officer to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, a jacket or gloves; but they do authorise the search of a person’s mouth.
(6)An officer searching a person under sub-paragraph (2) above may seize and retain anything he finds, if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person searched might use it to cause physical injury to himself or to any other person.
(7)An officer searching a person under sub-paragraph (3) above may seize and retain anything he finds, if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person might use it to assist him to escape from lawful custody.
Use of force
5An authorised officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of a power conferred on him by this Schedule.”

[postggj]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

what is a ceo and aea

[labman]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

CEO = Civil Enforcement Officers

AEA = Approved Enforcement Agencies

[Guest]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

Hi
yes this was a discracefull episode in the history of our parliament, the section was attached to a bill without any debate on a late sitting wher there were very few present and those that were their were missled to its purpose. We tried to get it overturned at the time and pettitioned parliament but to no avail.
This from Hansard
The Rt. Hon Michael Martin MP 29th July 2006
Speaker of the House of Commons,
The House of Commons,
London SW1A 0AA

An important citizens' right has been abolished by Parliament while it was totally absent from the minds and voices of Members of Parliament and the House of Lords. I am writing to complain that the centuries old right of British Citizens to refuse entry to a bailiff was abolished but never entered the debate on the 6th July 2004 by Standing Committee E considering the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Christopher Leslie MP, when introducing the Government amendment, did not tell Standing Committee E that they were abolishing the right of citizens to refuse entry to bailiffs established in around 1300 and then confirmed in Semayne's case in 1604, and upheld by the courts ever since, (a full chronology of the common law by our Barrister Trustee
Alan Murdie is enclosed). The committee were mistakenly told they were closing a "loophole". The Minister was "astonished to find that (bailiffs) did not have these powers" but was apparently ignorant of the common law, which had established that "an Englishman's home is his castle".

The amendment was introduced by the Minister at the last minute, after accompanying a bailiff in his work, but with no consultation with or notice to the advice sector, who support vulnerable households, which would have ensured that Members of Parliament and the House of Lords knew what they were doing.

The measure was never introduced or debated on the floor of the House of Commons.

The Standing Committee was told that "we do not envisage using the powers in civil enforcement activities such as collecting congestion charges or parking fines". I have been informed by officials at the Department of Constitutional Affairs that "Fixed penalties which are not paid within the required time are registered as fines in the magistrates' courts, and therefore are then subject to enforcement under Schedule 5 of the Courts Act," which activates the bailiffs power to force entry. There was a failure to inform the Committee about

Prter

[charitynjw]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

http://www.creditman.co.uk/uk/member...wsviewID=14624

Nov 1 2011
The Local Authority Debt Enforcement & Recovery (LADER) Report on Local Authority tendering for bailiff services published today raises critical issues about responsibility for the declining public perception of bailiffs and the scope for improvement through legislative change.

With the Government’s declared aim of clamping down on aggressive bailiffs and its long overdue consultation on bailiff regulation now not expected until the economic outlook brightens, what action is necessary to prevent the enforcement regime falling so far into disrepute that it ceases to be credible?

Following the publication of this report these three industry leaders are arranging an important one-day conference at the House of Lords on the 24th November 2011. At this event MP’s and Local Authority Officers will hear the experts discuss the impact of local authority mismanagement on the industry’s credibility. Topics for discussion are:

- What is the impact of profit sharing on debtor vulnerability?
- Do Local Authority staff know enough to be entrusted with overseeing enforcement?
- Should the responsibility be returned to the courts or transferred to a new, centralised national body?

This launch conference will be hosted by Lord Lucas, Chair of both the Enforcement Law Reform Group and the London Motorists Action Group and chaired Philip Evans, industry expert, conference speaker and author of ‘The Bailiff Pocketbook’.*

To request a copy of the white paper please email lader@lader.org.uk

(*Ps - anyone got access to this? - might come in handy! c )

[CleverClogs]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

yes this was a discracefull episode in the history of our parliament, the section was attached to a bill without any debate on a late sitting wher there were very few present and those that were their were missled to its purpose. We tried to get it overturned at the time and pettitioned parliament but to no avail.

Such was the high regard which Blair's kakistocracy had for Parliament.

[CleverClogs]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

This launch conference will be hosted by Lord Lucas, Chair of both the Enforcement Law Reform Group and the London Motorists Action Group and chaired Philip Evans, industry expert, conference speaker and author of ‘The Bailiff Pocketbook’.

By what is no doubt a complete coincidence, Lord Lucas wrote the foreword to ‘The Bailiff Pocketbook’, whilst its author became Group Services Director of JBW Group in April 2011. (source - link)

Essentially, it appears that this conference will be a show put on for the benefit of the JBW Group. (link)

[Guest]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

HI
Yes its true however Lord Lucas and Philip Evens, who is chairing the meeting , were two of the prime movers in fighting the TCE act in 2006 and are totally opposed to increasing the powes of baillifs.
The White paper produced by Lader makes interesting reading and was a bit of an eye opener for me, Mr Evens sent me a copy.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...2&d=1321094760

Peter

[CleverClogs]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

Thank you so much for that, Peter - it explains perfectly why so many local authorities are so eager to use bailiffs to collect debts even when an attachment order would be more appropriate.

[charitynjw]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

From what I have seen, Lord Lucas has been pretty pro-active in questioning bailiffs' potential abuse of powers.

Example
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search...3301&pop=1&o=r

[Guest]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

Thank you so much for that, Peter - it explains perfectly why so many local authorities are so eager to use bailiffs to collect debts even when an attachment order would be more appropriate.

HI
Yes the same thought occurred to me .It also goes a long way to explain why council staff are instructed to avoid taking direct payments from debtors.
Debtors pay the Bailif the bailiff takes his fees out first, paying a percentage in kick back, then the balance is passed on, council gets the full amount owned plus the percentage from the bailiff fee.
Of course if the debtor pays direct then no collection fee no kick back.
Peter

[CleverClogs]

Re: phillips using dvcv act

HI
Yes the same thought occurred to me .It also goes a long way to explain why council staff are instructed to avoid taking direct payments from debtors.
Debtors pay the Bailif the bailiff takes his fees out first, paying a percentage in kick back, then the balance is passed on, council gets the full amount owned plus the percentage from the bailiff fee.
Of course if the debtor pays direct then no collection fee no kick back.

It also means that the council has engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the debtor.