Default on walking possession

[chelle1990]

Re: Default on walking possession

Hi Michelle,

The Human Rights Act 1998 is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to be enacted in the United Kingdom. Its basic thrust is to prevent the State from doing things like imprisoning people without a proper trial. It originates from the European Convention on Human Rights, also known as the Rome Convention, and was signed in 1953. It currently has 47 countries who are signatories to it, including the United Kingdom. It was originally drawn up prevent the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis during World War 2 and the evil of fascism ever walking the face of Europe again.

Successive governments over the last 30 years have conveniently forgotten that they are subject to the Convention and those who carry out functions of the State, which includes local authorities, on behalf of the State, which includes private-sector bailiff companies, hope you don't know they are subject to compliance with the Convention, also. Click on the link I have put in Post #137 and you will see, in Section 6 onwards that it is unlawful to breach a person's Convention rights or attempt to deprive them of those rights and of the remedies available.

However, it is when you look through the Convention rights themselves that you will begin to see how your rights are being violated and trodden on by corrupt councils and bent bailiffs. These rights are inviolate and unalienable. I would not be surprised if, after reading through the relevant parts of the HRA that apply in your case, you are left feeling very angry. I would not blame you for feeling that way. It is perfectly natural to feel angry when you realise those you felt you could trust have, in fact, betrayed you and done you serious wrong. But do not allow anger to consume you. It should be channelled into putting right the wrong you have suffered and rising above it and showing those who have wronged you that you will obtain justice and justice will be done.

Bluebottle

Evening bluebottle!

Thank you, I will read it through but tomorrow

I expect I will fell angry even violated by it in some way. But I will be channelling it toward fighting chandler etc and hopefully getting the councillors involved so they have knowledge for future cases. I'd hate to think of any other family feeling how we've felt the last year. Many a tear and arguement have occurred due to this.

I'm off its been a Long day with kids and extended family!

Night all

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

Hi guys, thought I'd pop on out of curiosity and I see all this human right stuff and changes in April? (What changes?) Thought I'd clicked on the wrong thread hope your all well.

I Was thinking earlier why they didn't arrange an AOE. They knew my partner worked full time (we recieve no council tax benefit) and persue someone who they knew was a full time student. Does wind me up thinking how the stress of spending the good part of the week speaking to you guys about the bailiffs has actually cost me valuable revision time (chemistry and biology of cells anyone?).

Any way, hope you are all having a lovely weekend and I'll pop on during the week with updates (where possible) and to say hi

Thank you all again!!

Michelle

Hi Michelle,

The Human Rights Act 1998 is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to be enacted in the United Kingdom. Its basic thrust is to prevent the State from doing things like imprisoning people without a proper trial. It originates from the European Convention on Human Rights, also known as the Rome Convention, and was signed in 1953. It currently has 47 countries who are signatories to it, including the United Kingdom. It was originally drawn up prevent the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis during World War 2 and the evil of fascism ever walking the face of Europe again.

Successive governments over the last 30 years have conveniently forgotten that they are subject to the Convention and those who carry out functions of the State, which includes local authorities, on behalf of the State, which includes private-sector bailiff companies, hope you don't know they are subject to compliance with the Convention, also. Click on the link I have put in Post #137 and you will see, in Section 6 onwards that it is unlawful to breach a person's Convention rights or attempt to deprive them of those rights and of the remedies available.

However, it is when you look through the Convention rights themselves that you will begin to see how your rights are being violated and trodden on by corrupt councils and bent bailiffs. These rights are inviolate and unalienable. I would not be surprised if, after reading through the relevant parts of the HRA that apply in your case, you are left feeling very angry. I would not blame you for feeling that way. It is perfectly natural to feel angry when you realise those you felt you could trust have, in fact, betrayed you and done you serious wrong. But do not allow anger to consume you. It should be channelled into putting right the wrong you have suffered and rising above it and showing those who have wronged you that you will obtain justice and justice will be done.

Bluebottle

[chelle1990]

Re: Default on walking possession

The advice you get about the realities and what the law is is highly unlikely to come from the council as they are biased towards getting their money. Councillors are often out of their depth in legal matters and some of them are shall we say "thick"

I will leave it at that so CC can "modify" that statement to improve it.

Haha, then I think they need educating! What are the changes in April (just a brief outline?)

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

I also wonder why it isn't publicly made aware what the councillors can actually do or in fact why the above advice you guys have given me isn't on the net any where? (I actually tried googling after etc) needs to be out down in lay man terms for people like myself who have little or no knowledge of their rights with out seeking help from CAB etc (there always a huge wait here to see anyone). Or even on the councils website. Might ask my councillors about that.

The advice you get about the realities and what the law is is highly unlikely to come from the council as they are biased towards getting their money. Councillors are often out of their depth in legal matters and some of them are shall we say "thick" they rely on what their officers and contractors say is gospel and are usually in a panic when they find out the council is up the creek due to a Crapita balls-up.

I will leave it at that so CC can "modify" that statement to improve it.

[chelle1990]

Re: Default on walking possession

From skim reading it does make sense why, still makes me feel rather..... Annoyed by the fact that they think they can treat people in this way, you'd think the council would not dabble in this kind of activity.

I feel the more the public knows the better! And you guys are doing a great job giving your advice etc

I am intrigued how you all know so much!

P.s I was thinking of taking bets on how the council bailiff dispute is going to pan out.....haha! I am rather excited (strangely) to see what the chandler have to say!

Re: Default on walking possession

I Was thinking earlier why they didn't arrange an AOE. They knew my partner worked full time (we receive no council tax benefit) and pursue someone who they knew was a full time student.

With an AOE, the council wouldn't be able to collect a back-hander, bung or commission from the bailiffs. It is thus more profitable to use distress.
Please read the attached PDF file.

Does wind me up thinking how the stress of spending the good part of the week speaking to you guys about the bailiffs has actually cost me valuable revision time (chemistry and biology of cells anyone?).

My knowledge of the Krebs' Cycle for oxidative phosphorylation is, alas, very rusty indeed.

[chelle1990]

Re: Default on walking possession

I also wonder why it isn't publicly made aware what the councillors can actually do or in fact why the above advice you guys have given me isn't on the net any where? (I actually tried googling after etc) needs to be out down in lay man terms for people like myself who have little or no knowledge of their rights with out seeking help from CAB etc (there always a huge wait here to see anyone). Or even on the councils website. Might ask my councillors about that.

[chelle1990]

Re: Default on walking possession

Hi guys, thought I'd pop on out of curiosity and I see all this human right stuff and changes in April? (What changes?) Thought I'd clicked on the wrong thread hope your all well.

I Was thinking earlier why they didn't arrange an AOE. They knew my partner worked full time (we recieve no council tax benefit) and persue someone who they knew was a full time student. Does wind me up thinking how the stress of spending the good part of the week speaking to you guys about the bailiffs has actually cost me valuable revision time (chemistry and biology of cells anyone?).

Any way, hope you are all having a lovely weekend and I'll pop on during the week with updates (where possible) and to say hi

Thank you all again!!

Michelle

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

BB that's why I keep reminding Jacobs when they crop up on here with extreme muppetry and likely check LB threads of what complete penypidyn they were with that VW camper they took in Wrexham, and got an airing on VolksZone as owner reported it stolen. Under the new interpleaders Jacobs would have been home free. Hopefully they will go bankrupt and close down if they get clobbered under HRA

If the public are given the necessary encouragement and push, a lot can be achieved. However, my gut-feeling is that whilst one or two bailiff companies might escape in the early days, thereafter, I can see the outcome being that the civil enforcement industry will collapse as the public exacts retribution on it through use of the law. As you have said earlier, the HRA reaches the parts other legislation does not reach. If the civil enforcement industry has any sense, it will take a hard line with bailiffs who seize third-party goods or vehicles, making them meet the costs of restoring goods and then sacking them or, better, submitting a Form 5 and having their certificates cancelled. If they don't, then the industry's demise will take place sooner rather than later. It is an industry that has been living on borrowed time for far too long. I doubt many, if anyone at all, will mourn its passing.

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

BB that's why I keep reminding Jacobs when they crop up on here with extreme muppetry and likely check LB threads of what complete penypidyn they were with that VW camper they took in Wrexham, and got an airing on VolksZone as owner reported it stolen. Under the new interpleaders Jacobs would have been home free. Hopefully they will go bankrupt and close down if they get clobbered under HRA

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

Best of it is with regard to the EU referendum, no matter what side of the in out fence anyone sits, Lord Mandleson (aka Mandlespoon, Mandleslime, and Voldemort) doesn't trust us and in fact I feel is opposed to democracy in its simplest form.

The bailiffs will rely on the police as they do with the dodgy ANPR stops with JBW to justify taking and selling the motor, as the time limit is short most interpleaders if the innocent party can afford may well be too late as JBW or Jacobs will have flogged the car, even if it is on finance they will regard the interpleader as the way to get round the finance companies title in the goods.

BB may well be right about using the HRA, as it penetrates more deeply in its effects on other legislation than Camoron, and all the others of the LibLabCon parties would like us to know, and it is going to cause them problems when bailiffs go on the rampage in April. Ever likely Camoron wants to repeal it. It is not the Human Rights Act per se that is the problem, it is the looney interpretation of it by Common Purpose penypidyn.

Jacobs know how expensive seizing and selling a third-party vehicle can be and I would not be surprised to see Jacobs, which is a partnership, get clobbered again. Have that happen a few times and they'll be in serious doo-doo financially. JBW seized a third-party vehicle, refused to return it, but had to when the third-party's solicitor contacted the local authority who had contracted JBW. It cost the local authority a pretty penny, but they recovered that from JBW. There is usually an indemnity clause in public debt contracts requiring contractors to indemnify the local autority, government department, etc., against litigation, etc., due to their incompetence, misconduct, etc.. There is such a clause in the contracts between HMCTS and Collectica, Excel, Marstons and Swift.

I agree with your analysis in the final paragraph of your post, BB.

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

I an see big problems for the bailiffs who seize cars that don't belong to debtors even thinking that there may be violence towards them,one has to wonder why this country is run by total idiots?

Best of it is with regard to the EU referendum, no matter what side of the in out fence anyone sits, Lord Mandleson (aka Mandlespoon, Mandleslime, and Voldemort) doesn't trust us and in fact I feel is opposed to democracy in its simplest form.

The bailiffs will rely on the police as they do with the dodgy ANPR stops with JBW to justify taking and selling the motor, as the time limit is short most interpleaders if the innocent party can afford may well be too late as JBW or Jacobs will have flogged the car, even if it is on finance they will regard the interpleader as the way to get round the finance companies title in the goods.

BB may well be right about using the HRA, as it penetrates more deeply in its effects on other legislation than Camoron, and all the others of the LibLabCon parties would like us to know, and it is going to cause them problems when bailiffs go on the rampage in April. Ever likely Camoron wants to repeal it. It is not the Human Rights Act per se that is the problem, it is the looney interpretation of it by Common Purpose penypidyn.

[wales01man]

Re: Default on walking possession

I an see big problems for the bailiffs who seize cars that don't belong to debtors even thinking that there may be violence towards them,one has to wonder why this country is run by total idiots?

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

I understand Milo is working hard behind the scenes to convince the powers-that-be to curb the antics of those who seem hell-bent on causing as much aggravation as possible through the provisions due to come into force in April. However, I am of the opinion that the provisions fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998 in that they are incompatible with the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (enshrined in UK Law as the Human Rights Act 1998). Under these circumstances, Secretaries of State can be held liable and be found to have acted unlawfully, as at least two Conservative Home Secretaries have been on a number of occasions. Incidentally, the UK is hauled before the European Court of Human Rights at least 10 times a year and is considered a "repeat offender" when it comes to breaches of Human Rights Law which is International Law and must be obeyed by those countries who are signatories to the Convention that has given rise to it, in the case of the ECHR the Rome Convention, not to be confused with the Treaty of Rome.

My gut-feeling is that bailiff companies will use the interpleader provision in order to obstruct and prevent the innocent from reclaiming their illegally-seized possessions, but if the public are made aware of the incompatibility of the provisions with their rights under the HRA, steps can be taken to give bailiff companies a smack in the head they were not expecting. A comment was made back along about Waller and Co creaming their trousers at the thought of being able to seize and tow third-party vehicles and then charge extortionate sums of money to restore them to their owners. If the HRA is brought into play and the public use it wisely, I can see Mr Waller et all, far from creaming their trousers, I can see them crapping themselves as the true cost of the antics of their out-of-control bailiffs hits home hard and their past lawless behaviour comes back to haunt them.

I am putting up a link to the HRA and it will be noted that there is a one year time limit for bringing proceedings under the Act. Can you imagine what would happen if the civil enforcement industry was suddenly hit with a string of claims, under the HRA, going back over the last 12 months? It could prove very expensive for the larger firms, like Marstons and Collectica, but it could prove disastrous for small companies, like Jacobs and Newlyns.

In response to your comment about civil unrest, BB, I am of the view that there is unlikely to be violent unrest, but there will be lawful rebellion, which involves using the law against the authorities, picking them up on their breaches of the law and acting against them. Any unrest involving people taking to the street will, I suspect, be similar to that which occurred when the Lithuanian people threw out their Communist-backed government and replaced it with a democratically-elected government. Agitators and agents provocateur from within the Security Services and police have been found in amongst peaceful protesters at protest marches in London where violence has erupted and it was these agitators and agents provocateur who were involved in and lead the violence. They have been identified, their images captured and legal observers are on the lookout for them at lawful protests.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

In my opinion, it is simply legalised theft - or quasi-legalised theft!

What would happen if the owner of a motor car, being unable to afford the cost of the damn fool interpleader, issued a money claim against the council instead?

Probably get off with it as the interpleader will be the de-facto process to dispute, and tough sh1t if the innocent cannot afford justice. Milo would be the one who may know for certain.