If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

[labman]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

So Civea say "bailiffs executing a court warrant have an express right of access which cannot be withdrawn by the debtor", but does anyone have any law on this?

Sure, here you go, see attached. Is this enough to get you started. Know vs Anderton in particular is often misquoted, and I believe a certain person is now saying it is irrelevant as he was rather hoping people didn't have access to it. He was wrong!

[TVJonesClassic]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

Labman, not sure what you are saying with those first two articles. The first shows that the landings of a block of flats are public spaces (duh) and the second that someone's front garden is not a public space.

The third is more interesting, in that the judge mentions "the legal right of the bailiff" but there is no reference. The judge appears to be assuming that the bailiff has a legal right which over-rules other rights, because of a court order granting the power to levy distress, but what is this assumption based on?

45(7) is more specific but it still seems to have this huge hole in the logic which is the assumption that the bailiff's right to be on a property over-rides the householder's right to ask them to leave. This isn't related to the terms in the second clause, as it doesn't depend on there being any irregularity in the process. It's only about, if someone comes on my property I have a right to ask them to leave unless they have express permission in the form of some kind of warrant (Davis v Lisle KBD 1936). So far I haven't seen any law which states otherwise, just Civea's statement, and that ruling from the judge who appears to have accepted some assumptions put forward by Rossendales. I can't believe his ruling hasn't been challenged. So where do bailiffs get that power from?

[labman]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

Labman, not sure what you are saying with those first two articles. The first shows that the landings of a block of flats are public spaces (duh) and the second that someone's front garden is not a public space.

A NOROIROA had been deployed in Case 1, claiming that once the front door had been entered you were in private property. This was found to be incorrect.

Case 2 showed that the public had access to the garden as a public space on Count 2 of the charge, thus destroying the notion of a garden as a private place.

The third is more interesting, in that the judge mentions "the legal right of the bailiff" but there is no reference. The judge appears to be assuming that the bailiff has a legal right which over-rules other rights, because of a court order granting the power to levy distress, but what is this assumption based on?

45(7) is more specific but it still seems to have this huge hole in the logic which is the assumption that the bailiff's right to be on a property over-rides the householder's right to ask them to leave. This isn't related to the terms in the second clause, as it doesn't depend on there being any irregularity in the process. It's only about, if someone comes on my property I have a right to ask them to leave unless they have express permission in the form of some kind of warrant (Davis v Lisle KBD 1936). So far I haven't seen any law which states otherwise, just Civea's statement, and that ruling from the judge who appears to have accepted some assumptions put forward by Rossendales. I can't believe his ruling hasn't been challenged. So where do bailiffs get that power from?

With respect I think you need to do some more reading around the above cases and their implications. Have you read the case of Davis v Lisle KBD 1936. I know it was sourced from the other site, as it is often cited there. However, in Case 3 above this was said:

Despite remonstrations from the claimant, the Judge dismissed any reference to the case Davis v Lisle (1936) mentioned in the claimants application, saying that it did not bear any direct relevance to the matter before him between the claimant and Rossendales.

If you choose to ignore all of this, it is, of course, your absolute right, go ahead and follow the direction you wish. Please keep us updated though as to how things progress.All we can do is give the best advice we feel able. If you disagree with us, that is fine - don't follow our suggestions. I have a feeling that you've come to make a point and have never had any intention of following what we say, but what we've said has withstood your scrutiny. I may be totally wrong and it's always good to have someone who questions.

Whether you decide to go with what we've said or do something different, please let us know how things go. :beagle:

[bluebottle]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

So Civea say "bailiffs executing a court warrant have an express right of access which cannot be withdrawn by the debtor", but does anyone have any law on this?

CIVEA is a trade association which looks after the interests of its members, i.e. bailiffs and bailiff companies. It is all very well them making the statement they have, but there may well be factors at work which mean the debtor can legitimately and lawfully deny access to the bailiff, whether the bailiff has a warrant or not. Any sensible bailiff will do their homework before attending a debtor's premises and identify any hurdles there may be and ways of overcoming them. As we all now, a lot of certificated bailiffs don't do their homework and then find themselves up against obstacles or well and truly in the proverbial because, with them, it has been a case of "Act in haste, repent at leisure".

Certificated bailiffs could save themselves a lot of time and hassle if only they devoted some time to do their homework first, instead of blundering in regardless.

[labman]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

The removal of implied rights of access can be very useful, but only in the right circumstances.

[bluebottle]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

Sure, here you go, see attached. Is this enough to get you started. Know vs Anderton in particular is often misquoted, and I believe a certain person is now saying it is irrelevant as he was rather hoping people didn't have access to it. He was wrong!

Who is the "certain person", Labman, not Happy Entrails, by any chance?

[TVJonesClassic]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

I'm in green! TVJ

Case 2 showed that the public had access to the garden as a public space on Count 2 of the charge, thus destroying the notion of a garden as a private place.

But that was overturned on appeal, at the end of the document?

Despite remonstrations from the claimant, the Judge dismissed any reference to the case Davis v Lisle (1936) mentioned in the claimants application, saying that it did not bear any direct relevance to the matter before him between the claimant and Rossendales.

Yes, bad decision imho, hence my wondering if it had been challenged.

I have a feeling that you've come to make a point

No, just trying to get some clarity. I think you might be over-estimating me :tinysmile_twink_t2:. I'm not going to base any course of action on one angle, particularly where the law seems so nebulous, and there's so much conflicting advice.

it's always good to have someone who questions.

It's that, or lie down and give in. I'm not there yet, too many things that don't add up between the bailiffs and the council. And I have to keep questioning as I don't want to shoot myself in the foot when I do act.
Whether you decide to go with what we've said or do something different, please let us know how things go. :beagle:

I will. And thanks for the input.

[labman]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

I don't think I over-estimate you, I think it's great that your questionning everything and seeing the issues that we have to battle with. Very little to do with bailiffs is actually black and white - it's a system which is unfit for purpose, and we hope things will improve next year, not that that helps you now.

You've had some straight opinions on taking action, and possibly you're starting to see for yourselves why we are saying that. When you want anything, just shout, we're always around and we'll always do our best to help. We can't make any guarantees, but we'll try!

[Guest]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

The Distress for Rent Rules 1988 don't appear to have anything to say on this matter http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/made

and is that the Magistrates Court Act 1980, or one of the 56 other acts with these words in the title? :tinysmile_aha_t:!

The rules have plenty to say about the way that distress is made and the 1980 act also about warrants and how they are enforced, however you are welcome to try and tell the bailiff that he has no right to be there whilst he is removing your goods, it will give him a good laugh if nothing else.

Most on here however are looking for less fanciful methods of keeping them at bay.

[Guest]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

Just as my final thought on this from me, there has recently been a major consultation regarding all measures to be employed by bailiffs, and the implementation of some new and some existing regulations to be enacted under the 2007 TCEA.

There are sections on permitted methods of entry, permitted methods of re-entry, exempt goods, etc.* see part 3 and schedule 12

In all this discussion there was not one single paragraph or sentence regarding what the bailiff should do if the person denied him entry by placing a sign on a gate post.

Do we think that this is an over-site, or is it more likely to be because it is not an issue that merits any serious discussion.

[bluebottle]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

The removal of implied rights of access can be very useful, but only in the right circumstances.

Very true.

[bluebottle]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

Just as my final thought on this from me, there has recently been a major consultation regarding all measures to be employed by bailiffs, and the implementation of some new and some existing regulations to be enacted under the 2007 TCEA.

There are sections on permitted methods of entry, permitted methods of re-entry, exempt goods, etc.* see part 3 and schedule 12

In all this discussion there was not one single paragraph or sentence regarding what the bailiff should do if the person denied him entry by placing a sign on a gate post.

Do we think that this is an over-site, or is it more likely to be because it is not an issue that merits any serious discussion.

I think it is going to be a case of whether a bailiff obeys the law or decides to be a tit and disregard the conditions attached to a warrant or LO. Not complying with the conditions attached to any judicial order is asking for trouble and guaranteed to come back and bite one on the rear end.

[labman]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

I think it is going to be a case of whether a bailiff obeys the law or decides to be a tit and disregard the conditions attached to a warrant or LO. Not complying with the conditions attached to any judicial order is asking for trouble and guaranteed to come back and bite one on the rear end.

Right, I'll start the book - who's having the first bet. I'd bet on the bailiff being a tit!

[bluebottle]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

Right, I'll start the book - who's having the first bet. I'd bet on the bailiff being a tit!

What are you offering, Evens or Odds-On Favourite?

[teaboy2]

Re: If a bailiff is asked to leave before they have levied, do they have to?

Gosh you do sem to be having a problem remembering what you wrote teaboy, to remind you again word for word;

"A bailiff can not turn up on first visit and clamp a car or take any goods"

This is wrong as a bailiff can.

Why is it so complicated for you ?

Lol well done andy on proving to the world that you are incapable of accepted you misread what i put and instead revert to using subtraction, by simply taking what was part of 1 sentence to prove your point and conveniently missing out the rest of the same sentence that contains the most important information such as "Without first levying the car or goods".

You also conveniently completely ignore the rest of what i wrote in the same post. Below is the post in its entirety so the rest here can see what i really said, and that your simply manipulating what i said just because you can not admit you misread my post and got it wrong when you said i was incorrect!

Come on guys, lets get this thread back on track shall we.

The bailiff had no lawful right to clamp the car in this case, the answer as to why is in the Threads Title, "without Levy". Without a levy the bailiff can not seize goods, including clamping the car. There was also no previous communication from the bailiff, giving the OP time to pay or make a arrangements to make a repayment schedule. A bailiff can not turn up on first visit and clamp a car or take any goods without first levying the car or goods and then returning at a later date after issuing the levy to collect payment or take goods.

Bailiffs have rules to follow, breaching them is unlawful and can cost the bailiff their job, not that it stops them from trying to hoodwink people or the police!

Is there a full stop or comma after "A bailiff can not turn up on first visit and clamp a car or take any goods"? No there is not, nor was there in the original post. So the sentence did not cease there but continued to go on to state "without first levying the car or goods" - Therefore making it clear that a bailiff can not seize a car or goods and remove them without first having levied the car or the goods with a form 7 or a signed walking possession! It doesn't matter if it was the first visit or the 1000th visit, no levy or walking possession order that include the car or goods, then no legal right to clamp car and/or to remove goods.

By the way, we all here know who you are Andy, what your previous username was and we all know you have form for being augmentative.

So Andy i know what i said, i know what my statement clearly says, how you interpreted my statement is up to you. But don't try telling me i said something i never said, just because that's how you read it or interpreted it. As others here know what i said too and i doubt they agree with your interpretation and as such your refusing to accept you misread what i said, and your attempts to manipulate what i said to back up your argument only makes you look like an indiot! As i never said they can not clamp a car or remove goods, i said they can not do so "without first levying the car or goods". Keywords that you conveniently chose to ignore as you know that by confirming that i said those 3 words, you would be confirming that you were wrong to say i was incorrect and that i was right all along!

Anyway as far as am concerned, everyone can see what your trying to do and how you were wrong to say i was incorrect, and they can all see what i had in fact stated. So i have no need of desire to continue this argument with you, because as far as am concerned, and others will probably agree, you have lost the argument and were wrong to say i was incorrect. So i shall not be making any more posts regarding your interpretation and saying i was incorrect as to be quite honest, its pathetic and childish and should have ended yesterday and would have ended yesterday if you were capable of being a Man and accepting you were wrong!