Walking Possession Order

[labman]

Re: Walking Possession Order

I agree, I think it would have to be considered abandoned. However, as I put in my first answer, I think it would be essential to seek professional legal advice if one was going to pursue this route.

[ploddertom]

Re: Walking Possession Order

Although a Bailiff may have gained peaceful entry and made an inventory of goods whether or not a WPA was signed. If he then reattends either for collection of payments or to check the goods are still present & correct, there is no compulsion on the Debtor to allow him re-entry. With most if he then threatens forced entry invariably he will need:
1 - the agreement of the original creditor, and if they agree
2 - an Order from the Court, and if they agree
3 - he must write giving a date & time when he intends to return, and if that happens
4 - on his return the Debtor must again deny him entry
5 - only then may he attempt forced entry.

Even though he may be collecting a Magistrates Court fine which allows forced entry he still needs the permission of the Court to do so, this will only be allowed for the more "persistent" who treat not paying as an occupation. The ordinary Joe Public is more intimidated by this threat as it very rarely happens.

[wales01man]

Re: Walking Possession Order

i think ploddertons post is to me the clearest stating the rules and what the debtor can do

[Guest]

Re: Walking Possession Order

Although a Bailiff may have gained peaceful entry and made an inventory of goods whether or not a WPA was signed. If he then reattends either for collection of payments or to check the goods are still present & correct, there is no compulsion on the Debtor to allow him re-entry. .

I thought that there was a section on the WPO that enabled him to force re-entry, without consent.

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
HI
Is this incorrect?

A Bailiff may force re-entry without warning & at any time if a clause exists in the walking possession agreement provided to the debtor (Lovell v O`Leary [1933]),

Peter

[Guest]

Re: Walking Possession Order

Im posting this out of interest after having read so many posts on here about the behavoiur and abuse of their powers by some or maybe all bailiffs.the one thing i have not read is what happens or has happened to anyone who has goods placed on the WPO by a bailiff and when the bailiff returned to take the goods they have been removed from the property my feeling would be without photographic evidence and if the debtor has refused to sign the order what could the bailiff do im sure not everone signs these orders and after reading of abuses of powers by bailiffs im sure this has happened .Any experience anyone

If the debtor has not signed a WPO the bailif has no rights over the goods whatsoever and no right to force re-entry

I think that is pretty clear.

Peter

[ploddertom]

Re: Walking Possession Order

I thought that there was a section on the WPO that enabled him to force re-entry, without consent.

Peter
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
HI
Is this incorrect?

A Bailiff may force re-entry without warning & at any time if a clause exists in the walking possession agreement provided to the debtor (Lovell v O`Leary [1933]),

Peter

It may not be incorrect but it will run the risk of him being lifted for burglary. The usual wording now is:
I authorise you or a person acting on your behalf, pending the withdrawal or satisfaction of the Writ/Order, to re-enter the premises at any time and as often as you may consider necessary for the purpose of inspecting the goods or completing the execution of the Writ/Order.

This taken from a WPA issued as recently as Monday this week handed to me from someone asking for help.

[labman]

Re: Walking Possession Order

Therein lies the real problem:

"It runs the risk of him being lifted for burglary."

Sadly, the plod will turn their backs and say it's a civil matter. This may well be frustrating, but until the advice of someone like Bluebottle has been tried and tested, it is the way things are at the moment.

[ploddertom]

Re: Walking Possession Order

Knew there was an update somewhere but couldn't remember where it was.

AMENDMENTS TO TEXT
There have been changes wrought by case law and also by amendments to the
Distress for rent Rules 1988 and Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement)
Regulations 1993 as follows.
p5 Forcing re-entry
The law upon the rights of bailiffs to force re-entry to premises in order to remove
goods previously seized has recently been clarified. In Khazanchi v Faircharm
Investments; McLeod v Butterwick [1998] 2 All ER 901 the Court of Appeal held that
bailiffs may only force re-entry where they are being deliberately excluded from
premises. It will thus be necessary in most cases for the bailiff to notify the debtor in
advance of the date and time of the visit in order to remove. If the debtor is then
absent from home, or refuses entry, force may be employed.

[labman]

Re: Walking Possession Order

So basically, if you're there let them in. If you're not they let themselves in

[Guest]

Re: Walking Possession Order

It may not be incorrect but it will run the risk of him being lifted for burglary. The usual wording now is:
I authorise you or a person acting on your behalf, pending the withdrawal or satisfaction of the Writ/Order, to re-enter the premises at any time and as often as you may consider necessary for the purpose of inspecting the goods or completing the execution of the Writ/Order.

This taken from a WPA issued as recently as Monday this week handed to me from someone asking for help.

Hi
Sorry but how does this stop the bailiff re entering any time he likes, on the contrary it seems to give him carte blanche as long as the debtor signes this"agreement".

Peter4

[Guest]

Re: Walking Possession Order

Knew there was an update somewhere but couldn't remember where it was.

AMENDMENTS TO TEXT
There have been changes wrought by case law and also by amendments to the
Distress for rent Rules 1988 and Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement)
Regulations 1993 as follows.
p5 Forcing re-entry
The law upon the rights of bailiffs to force re-entry to premises in order to remove
goods previously seized has recently been clarified. In Khazanchi v Faircharm
Investments; McLeod v Butterwick [1998] 2 All ER 901 the Court of Appeal held that
bailiffs may only force re-entry where they are being deliberately excluded from
premises. It will thus be necessary in most cases for the bailiff to notify the debtor in
advance of the date and time of the visit in order to remove. If the debtor is then
absent from home, or refuses entry, force may be employed.

Hi Sorry cant do that multiple quote thing.


This sems to be a device for stopping the debtor from escaping the siezing of goods by just not being in.
Notice is given so then it makes no difference if they are in or not.

Peter
.

[labman]

Re: Walking Possession Order

Or they're trying to frighten the debtor into paying money they haven't got!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Hi Sorry cant do that multiple quote thing.
Peter
.

Come on now Peter lol!

Just to the right of the normal 'Quote button' is a piece of paper with a pencil on top (the one immediately to the right).

Click that on the posts you want to multi-quote.

Click post reply as normal to reply to a post.

Your multi-quotes will be there ready for editing. Give it a go! lol

[ploddertom]

Re: Walking Possession Order

I refer you back to what I said in Post 17 whereby if you deny them re-entry they have to apply for an Order and then inform you when they will attend.

[Guest]

Re: Walking Possession Order

I refer you back to what I said in Post 17 whereby if you deny them re-entry they have to apply for an Order and then inform you when they will attend.

Where does it sat they have to apply for an order, and it only says they may have to give notice in most cases.

Not being argumentative but i was under the impression that the only paperwork they needed to force re-entry was the initial warrent and a signed WPO showing previous valid levy.

Now you are saying that they need another order?

Peter

[ploddertom]

Re: Walking Possession Order

If everything was as simple as you seem to infer all these forums would be awash with complaints of Bailiffs having forced entry. The reason they are not is quite simply because the Bailiffs gob is a lot bigger than what it allows him to do.