Default on walking possession

[ploddertom]

Re: Default on walking possession

I am intrigued how you all know so much! - Usually because we have been in your shoes previously.

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!

As to how it pans out - dead easy. Most Councils hand over Bailiff complaints to the bailiff Co and of course it comes back they have done nothing wrong because of course the Bailiffs are whiter than white. What it usually means therefore is that the Council don't have a clue and think because they have a Bailiff Co then they should know what they are doing and would never dream of doing anything underhand. Mind when it comes to light they have been telling porkies to the Council the sh1t really hits the fan.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Default on walking possession

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.

The Convention was originally presented to and ratified by the Council of Europe, of which the UK was a founder member. (link)

Successive governments over the last 30 years have conveniently forgotten that they are subject to the Convention

Successive governments over the last 30 years have conveniently forgotten that the Convention was actually written by the UK delegation under the leadership of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, QC, MP. (link)

[CleverClogs]

Re: Default on walking possession

As to how it pans out - dead easy. Most Councils hand over Bailiff complaints to the bailiff Co and of course it comes back they have done nothing wrong because of course the Bailiffs are whiter than white. What it usually means therefore is that the Council don't have a clue and think because they have a Bailiff Co then they should know what they are doing and would never dream of doing anything underhand. Mind when it comes to light they have been telling porkies to the Council the sh1t really hits the fan.

Indeed - when the complaint then goes to the Local Government Ombudswoman, she finds maladministration by the council and tells them to behave themselves.

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

Indeed - when the complaint then goes to the Local Government Ombudswoman, she finds maladministration by the council and tells them to behave themselves.

They then go a little red like a naughty schoolchild, and carry on as usual. after the heat dies down, The complainant usually gets what they are after though.

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

The Convention was originally presented to and ratified by the Council of Europe, of which the UK was a founder member. (link)


Successive governments over the last 30 years have conveniently forgotten that the Convention was actually written by the UK delegation under the leadership of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, QC, MP. (link)

I knew the UK was the architect of the Convention and a Founding Member of the Council of Europe. Strange, isn't it, that, now, the Tories want to take us out of the Convention. But, then, when you have a government that is trying to bulldoze through a corporatist globalist agenda, human rights are an obstacle to achieving their objectives, aren't they? Peeps need to get wise as to what is happening, albeit that an increasing number already are, and stand up to those who want to take us down a road more akin to what previously existed in Eastern Europe. Cameron and his co-conspirators know they've been rumbled and are trying to rush through some pretty oppressive and draconian measures without proper scrutiny to try and head off those who can stop them. However, as Cameron has discovered, even his own backbenchers are unhappy with what is going on and, along with MPs from other parties, blocked him from sending British troops into Syria. I've heard Cameron described as a little boy who knows next to bugger-all, but is dangerous. I would agree with that analysis.

People who try to push the sort of agenda Cameron is trying to push are, in essence, criminals. On the front page of yesterday's The Independent was a headline that organised crime has infiltrated every aspect of how the UK is run at government level. It would appear that the infiltration affects the UK's justice system, the security services, the police and just about every government agency and department. This is not something that is recent - it has been going on for a long time, decades it would appear.

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

People who try to push the sort of agenda Cameron is trying to push are, in essence, criminals. On the front page of yesterday's The Independent was a headline that organised crime has infiltrated every aspect of how the UK is run at government level. It would appear that the infiltration affects the UK's justice system, the security services, the police and just about every government agency and department. This is not something that is recent - it has been going on for a long time, decades it would appear.

We have known for ages that Crapita and the likes of G4S Serco etc may well be corrupt to the core with a world of backhanders, commissions bungs, jobs for the boys 'n girls amongst other more serious transgressions by Capita's bailiff cos like upfront fee fraud by bailiffs from Equita and Ross 'n Robbers.

Problem is that these companies have been stitched into the government infrastructure by all the parties, there is absolutely nothing to choose between them, Labour, Conservative, LibDim, they are all infested by Common Purpose Quislings, and probably are signed up to UN Agenda 21.

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

We have known for ages that Crapita and the likes of G4S Serco etc may well be corrupt to the core with a world of backhanders, commissions bungs, jobs for the boys 'n girls amongst other more serious transgressions by Capita's bailiff cos like upfront fee fraud by bailiffs from Equita and Ross 'n Robbers.

Problem is that these companies have been stitched into the government infrastructure by all the parties, there is absolutely nothing to choose between them, Labour, Conservative, LibDim, they are all infested by Common Purpose Quislings, and probably are signed up to UN Agenda 21.

Which shows the extent of the criminal infiltration and the many guises it has, BB.

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

[/B]
Which shows the extent of the criminal infiltration and the many guises it has, BB.

I think if Labour are elected we will see the same result in the end as if Camoron gets back in, all the main parties seem to be Fabian to a greater or lesser degree, with Fabianism comes the idea of Eugenics, and the Fabian solution to the Jeremy Kyle fodder and the lumpen proletariat and poor would be mass sterilisation, as espoused by none other then H.G. Wells. George Bernard Shaw, Malthus amongst many many more.

The relevance to chelle's situation, is on several levels, the primary one being that as many councils are left wing in their politics, even if they have a Tory majority the Officers may well not be. there has grown a culture in government that they rule us, and know what is best for us. To them we are but children to be scolded and herded like sheep. We are supposed to take whatever we are told as gospel, and bailiffs as they are employed by the council can do no wrong. To challenge is an affront and like Winston Smith we must be taught to love big brother.for our own good, so in their eys it is like Catholic Pennace to pay the fees that will impoverish someone already in dire straits who could not afford the original bill which takes no account of ability to pay.

On another level, they regard themselves as akin to an omnipotent god, and we are the little people.

Theat is why they recoil in horror when they are found out as charlatans and fraudsters, who think they can make it up as they go along and are poleaxed when the realise that yes the law does apply to them. HRA is looking an increasingly good stick to beat them with, but it must be applied to each case on its merits.

[chelle1990]

Re: Default on walking possession

You guys fill me with such hope for the future of living in this country haha

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

You guys fill me with such hope for the future of living in this country haha

You are now part of that change, as before you came to LB, you took as gospel the carp the council and bailiffs fed you, now you know the truth you are empowered to help the change by fighting your case, and passing that knowledge on to someone else being oppressed as you had been. Knowledge is power, and councils and government would rather keep that from us.

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

I think if Labour are elected we will see the same result in the end as if Camoron gets back in, all the main parties seem to be Fabian to a greater or lesser degree, with Fabianism comes the idea of Eugenics, and the Fabian solution to the Jeremy Kyle fodder and the lumpen proletariat and poor would be mass sterilisation, as espoused by none other then H.G. Wells. George Bernard Shaw, Malthus amongst many many more.

The relevance to chelle's situation, is on several levels, the primary one being that as many councils are left wing in their politics, even if they have a Tory majority the Officers may well not be. there has grown a culture in government that they rule us, and know what is best for us. To them we are but children to be scolded and herded like sheep. We are supposed to take whatever we are told as gospel, and bailiffs as they are employed by the council can do no wrong. To challenge is an affront and like Winston Smith we must be taught to love big brother.for our own good, so in their eys it is like Catholic Pennace to pay the fees that will impoverish someone already in dire straits who could not afford the original bill which takes no account of ability to pay.

On another level, they regard themselves as akin to an omnipotent god, and we are the little people.

Theat is why they recoil in horror when they are found out as charlatans and fraudsters, who think they can make it up as they go along and are poleaxed when the realise that yes the law does apply to them. HRA is looking an increasingly good stick to beat them with, but it must be applied to each case on its merits.

Absolutely, BB. This is why I stressed that the HRA should be used wisely in an earlier post. As long as it is used wisely, the HRA can be a very powerful weapon in dealing with the corruption that is now coming to light, but has existed for a long time, albeit that it has been well-hidden up to now. I am of the opinion that it will only take a few cases to shake up local authorities, elected representatives and council officers alike. However, it is the public anger that will follow and how that anger is channelled that will determine what happens thereafter. I can certainly see MPs being put under pressure to enact legislation to curb the powers of local authorities and the introduction of mandatory local referenda.

As far as distress goes, distress should be a last resort measure, not the first line of attack. The use of distress to collect CT arrears without using Attachment of Benefits Orders or Attachment of Earnings Order in the first instance appears to be deliberate and practised with the intention of softening up the public for the introduction of some pretty draconian measures. Once the HRA starts being used wisely against local authorities and their contracted enforcement agents, it is then I can see public anger starting to rise, but I can also see those police officers who are becoming increasingly concerned as to what is going on ignoring their senior officers, in some cases resorting to the "With all due respect, sir/ma'am, go and perform a physically-impossible sex act on yourself" retort, and going into local authority premises to root out the criminal element that has infiltrated local government. The will is there and the majority of good, honest police officers are simply waiting for the right moment to move in on them.

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

Think how much worse the financial situstion for people coming on to LB for help would be if the new fee scale and interpleaders were already in, this will make distress more likely as there will be higher fees to apply to the already unaffordable account, which means more money to the council in the 8% kickback from fees. Wonder if the TCGA is HRA compliant?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Default on walking possession

"With all due respect, sir/ma'am, go and perform a physically-impossible sex act on yourself"

I am not sure that I understand.

Would you care to elucidate? :bolt:

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

I am not sure that I understand.

Would you care to elucidate? :bolt:

"With all due respect, sir/ma'am, go f**k yourself" The more common version of it was "All respect, guv'nor, up your's."

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

Think how much worse the financial situstion for people coming on to LB for help would be if the new fee scale and interpleaders were already in, this will make distress more likely as there will be higher fees to apply to the already unaffordable account, which means more money to the council in the 8% kickback from fees. Wonder if the TCGA is HRA compliant?

I very much doubt it, BB.

Section 6 of the HRA makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right;

Article 17 states -

"Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention"

Article 18 states -

"The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed"

Article 1 of the First Protocol deals with Protection of Possessions. Although it allows distress in respect of penalties and taxes (Penalties being those imposed by a court or legally-convened tribunal), it follows that, in the case of a person who is not a CT/NNDR debtor or a magistrates court fine defaulter, they cannot have their possessions or any possessions loaned or entrusted to them under a legal agreement seized by some out-of-control private-sector bailiff acting for a local authority or HMCTS, CSA, HMRC, etc., and then be subjected to what is, effectively, blackmail and fraud to get it back. If the bailiff has no right in law or lawful authority to seize someone's possession, due to the fact they are not a debtor or defaulter, then, in my opinion, the interpleader breaches the Convention rights under the HRA. If you look at it logically, you cannot have your possessions taken from you without lawful authority and then be required to pay extortionate fees have them restored to you. The same could be said of the rules applicable to seizures by HCEO, which appear to be exactly the same as these new provisions.