Right of access for bailiffs - problem?

[charitynjw]

This is Civea's advice to bailiffs

http://www.civea.co.uk/news-24.htm

Take No Notice

17th May 2013
There are currently numerous websites and forums which advise debtors to display notices on their property stating that they have withdrawn consent for the bailiff to attend that property and that any future attendance will constitute a trespass.
Such advice is nonsense; bailiffs executing a court warrant have an express right of access which cannot be withdrawn by the debtor. CIVEA is advised that member companies should disregard such notices and continue with enforcement action.
Whilst it would be open to any debtor, in such a situation, to institute court proceedings against the bailiff for trespass they would thus risk significant costs being awarded against them to cover the expense of defending such a pointless and inevitably unsuccessful action. As always, it would be prudent to seek advice from a fully qualified legal practitioner before embarking upon court proceedings.

[bluebottle]

Re: Right of access for bailiffs - problem?

The withdrawal of implied rights of access notices is Freeman On The Land practice. I would not like to comment as to the enforceability, in law, of such practices.

CIVEA is not entirely correct in what it says as a bailiff may well be trespassing if a warrant or other court order is defective in some way or he/she is prohibited from encroaching on land by way of statutory enactment, e.g. Defence Lands Act. CIVEA really do need to stop deluding themselves that their members are free to do as they please without consequence. It would not surprise me if they had taken legal advice from a lawyer dealing with Commercial Law matters. Such lawyers are not familiar with other areas of the law, that need to be taken into account, and this could result in a bailiff or bailiff company going into court, believing they are going to win, and then find out the opposite.

[bizzybob]

Re: Right of access for bailiffs - problem?

Bailiffs no matter what they or CIVEA think are not immune from Criminal Law, and should be very careful as there is a thin line between legal and criminal when they enforce, and can cross it very easily either purposely or unknowingly.

[bluebottle]

Re: Right of access for bailiffs - problem?

Bailiffs no matter what they or CIVEA think are not immune from Criminal Law, and should be very careful as there is a thin line between legal and criminal when they enforce, and can cross it very easily either purposely or unknowingly.

You would be surprised just how easy it is to breach the Criminal Law, BB, inadvertently or not.

[bizzybob]

Re: Right of access for bailiffs - problem?

You would be surprised just how easy it is to breach the Criminal Law, BB, inadvertently or not.

Bailiffs breach the peace every day.

[charitynjw]

Re: Right of access for bailiffs - problem?

The withdrawal of implied rights of access notices is Freeman On The Land practice. I would not like to comment as to the enforceability, in law, of such practices.

btw, Bluebottle, what is the problem with FMoTL philosophy?


Joking!

[bluebottle]

Re: Right of access for bailiffs - problem?

btw, Bluebottle, what is the problem with FMoTL philosophy?


Joking!

I know you are, Charity. Seriously, though, whilst FOTL philosophy does have its strong points, it also has its weak points. A lot of it seems to be based on Common Law principles, which is what the English legal system was until the politicians started buggering around with it and brought in Administrative or Statute Law. My gut-feeling is that the current system is going to collapse because people have realised it is being abused and ignores the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (enshrined in English Law as the Human Rights Act).