Right of access

Re: Right of access

quite a lot really and the subsequent posts form member to TT seal the deal

The refusal of the debtor to allow the bailiff to enter the premises is not the same as the ability to serve the warrant, this is part of the enforcement officers legal duty under the statute and cannot be revoked by this notice, especially now, there is no legal justification for these notices, they are impractical and frankly dangerous in that they can result in making matters worse for the debtor.

Great-So all you'd have needed to support your skewed opinions regarding council tax collection was a warrant.

Unfortunately, bailiffs didn't have one did they?

Re: Right of access

Firstly I can assure you I do have a first-class law degree - not only did I obtain a first class law degree, but I graduated at the top of my course (of around 300 students).

Respectfully, the fact that you've taken to making such a ludicrous insult is just showing yourself up for what you are. I'm glad everyone reading this thread will be able to see that.

If I've inadvertently written April 14th in any of my posts, that is quite clearly an error and should have read "April '14" or something similar. The fact that you've latched onto such an obvious type really does show you to be a very facetious person.

I agree with points 1 and 2 in your list.

With regards to point 3 in your list, the legislation I cited gave an authorised bailiff (which the local authority is not!) the power to levy distress anywhere in England and Wales. That includes the property of a debtor.

In relation to point 4, I respectfully disagree. Whilst one could always prevent a bailiff entering a property such as a house, I disagree that one of your notices could ever legally have prevented a bailiff from peacefully entering upon the property (for example a driveway).

In relation to point 5, the fact that legislation dates back further isn't really relevant to the discussion.

In relation to 6, I respectfully disagree.

Point 3: Legislation actually gives the authority the power-Tut tut Mr LLB (Hons) (law) What an elementary mistake
Point 4: Believe whatever you want, you've provided no evidence to the contrary.
Point 5: Just serves to show another example of your ignorance of the subject.
Point 6: Yeah righto-My posts stating the notice will not work post April 6th are really going to be deemed bad advice.

Re: Right of access

[QUOTE=The Starving

You don't appear to have understood anything in this thread.[/QUOTE]
I would say the same about you, you have been shown the relevant legislature the reasoning the cases where these notices have been ignored yet you persist in this dangerous fiction

[Amethyst]

Re: Right of access

So can we quit the personal comments please - really doesn't help the discussion get anywhere.

[UnitedFront]

Re: Right of access

Actually, if we're going to summarise, lets do so properly:

1. A bailiffs peaceful entry could have been withdrawn simply by slamming the door in his face or not answering it at all.
2. Once inside a property, provided that he hadn't begun his levy, a bailiffs implied right of access could have been withdrawn verbally and the bailiff would have been under a duty to leave the property swiftly.
3. You did not provide any legislation that afforded a bailiff the powers that were greater than the police, debt collectors or general public. You merely confirmed that once a LO was obtained, one of the options available (to the authority) was to levy distress.
4. Being able to levy distress does not afford you the right to ignore common law.
5. Legislation actually dates back much further than 1992. The Poll Tax regs were almost identical to the CT regs.
6. I do not spread "dangerous nonsense across the internet" I have stated several times in this thread that the notice is probably no use post April 6th (or 14th as you bizzarely seem to think)

The only thing I've read from you today that makes any sense whatsoever is written in red. It states:

"I make mistakes just as we all do".

If you've got a first class LLB (Hons) (law) degree, I'm a qualified pilot.

Firstly I can assure you I do have a first-class law degree - not only did I obtain a first class law degree, but I graduated at the top of my course (of around 300 students).

Respectfully, the fact that you've taken to making such a ludicrous insult is just showing yourself up for what you are. I'm glad everyone reading this thread will be able to see that.

If I've inadvertently written April 14th in any of my posts, that is quite clearly an error and should have read "April '14" or something similar. The fact that you've latched onto such an obvious typo really does show you to be a very facetious person.

I agree with points 1 and 2 in your list.

With regards to point 3 in your list, the legislation I cited gave an authorised bailiff (which the local authority is not!) the power to levy distress anywhere in England and Wales. That includes the property of a debtor.

In relation to point 4, I respectfully disagree. Whilst one could always prevent a bailiff entering a property such as a house, I disagree that one of your notices could ever legally have prevented a bailiff from peacefully entering upon the property (for example a driveway).

In relation to point 5, the fact that legislation dates back further isn't really relevant to the discussion.

In relation to 6, I respectfully disagree.

Re: Right of access

quite a lot really and the subsequent posts form member to TT seal the deal

The refusal of the debtor to allow the bailiff to enter the premises is not the same as the ability to serve the warrant, this is part of the enforcement officers legal duty under the statute and cannot be revoked by this notice, especially now, there is no legal justification for these notices, they are impractical and frankly dangerous in that they can result in making matters worse for the debtor.

[Amethyst]

Re: Right of access

This is part of an old letter we used back in 07\08 on here to DCA's who were threatening doorstep visits.


Please note that I am only prepared to communicate with you in writing. Should it be your intention to arrange a "doorstep call", please remember that there is only an implied license under English Common Law for certain people to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.). I hereby revoke license under English Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so without my permission, you will then be liable to damages for a tort of trespass. You would also be conspiring in a trespass if you sent someone to visit me nevertheless.

Re: Right of access

see here for further inf posts 23 and 51 are pretty much say it all

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ome-from/page2

What in Gods name has the opinion of a HCEO got to do with anything?

I don't believe there is any doubt that a notice will not be effective when HCEO's are involved.

You don't appear to have understood anything in this thread.

Re: Right of access

Actually, if we're going to summarise, lets do so properly:

1. A bailiffs peaceful entry could have been withdrawn simply by slamming the door in his face or not answering it at all.
2. Once inside a property, provided that he hadn't begun his levy, a bailiffs implied right of access could have been withdrawn verbally and the bailiff would have been under a duty to leave the property swiftly.
3. You did not provide any legislation that afforded a bailiff the powers that were greater than the police, debt collectors or general public. You merely confirmed that once a LO was obtained, one of the options available (to the authority) was to levy distress.
4. Being able to levy distress does not afford you the right to ignore common law.
5. Legislation actually dates back much further than 1992. The Poll Tax regs were almost identical to the CT regs.
6. I do not spread "dangerous nonsense across the internet" I have stated several times in this thread that the notice is probably no use post April 6th (or 14th as you bizzarely seem to think)

The only thing I've read from you today that makes any sense whatsoever is written in red. It states:

"I make mistakes just as we all do".

If you've got a first class LLB (Hons) (law) degree, I'm a qualified pilot.

Re: Right of access

see here for further inf posts 23 and 51 are pretty much say it all

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ome-from/page2

[UnitedFront]

Re: Right of access

Correct

BUT bailiffs collecting council tax WERE debt collectors. They had no warrant or order from the court to visit-They had the same power as debt collectors and police without warrants.

With all due respect, I've pointed out numerous times in this thread that what you are saying is just wrong. Debt collectors were not acting under any kind of Statutory provision that allowed them to levy distress; bailiffs were so acting, as I showed earlier in this thread when I cited the Statutory provisions.

It is very telling that you simply ignore the Statutory provisions that don't fit with your ideas.

It is even more telling that you simply refuse to acknowledge that an argument counter to yours has been raised.

[UnitedFront]

Re: Right of access

With the greatest respect, you've used licence to ad lib there a tad.

1. You claim that the letters do not work yet you've never tried one yourself, nor do you know anyone who has.
2. Nobody on here today has provided any evidence or legislation that gives a private bailiff powers that are greater than the general public, in the absence of a warrant.

What utter nonsense. As any person reading this thread will see, I did provide evidence of legislation that gives private bailiffs powers that are greater than the general public. The general public could not take your goods away from you. A private bailiff could.

A member of the "general public" can be excluded from your property by withdrawing consent. As per my previous posts, and the legislation cited therein, one cannot (and could not since 1992) remove the ability for an authorised Bailiff to make peaceful entry.

Far from what you claim, it is you who has failed to put forward any proof that bailiff's right to peaceful entry could ever be withdrawn.

I showed what the old law was and, in reply, you made some spurious claim that the word “may” somehow permitted a Common Law right to over-ride the express intentions of Parliament. You made your claim without putting forward so much as one shred of evidence.

So to summarise:

1. I put forward some statutory substantiation for my understanding of what the law was; and
2. You claimed that I was wrong, but without citing a single piece of evidence.

I reiterate that I'm not disputing the fact that you may have had some success when you've sent out these letters. You may well have had some success.

I have worked with people who have suffered serious detriment when they've been sucked into believing such nonsense though. I've seen people lose their homes and their possessions, all in situations that could have been avoided if they had sought proper advice and not been lulled into a false sense of security that effectively encouraged the ostrich syndrome of burring their heads in the sand.

So whilst I commend you for the work you do to help people; I cannot condone your spreading dangerous nonsense across the internet.

Re: Right of access

Correct

BUT bailiffs collecting council tax WERE debt collectors. They had no warrant or order from the court to visit-They had the same power as debt collectors and police without warrants. Heres the CAG version:

"Please be advised that I will only communicate with you in writing. I have noted your repeated attempts to contact me during the past few weeks and these have been duly logged by time and date. Should it be your intention to arrange a doorstep visit, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you.

There is an applied licence under English common law for people to be able to visit me at my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Limited [1959} 2QB 384. Lord Evershed M.R). Therefore take notice that I revoke licence under common law for you or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to police attendance."

[Nibbler]

Re: Right of access

Yes. should have added it was re debt collectors and not bailiffs that I saw Paul post that. :o

Re: Right of access

Most importantly Bailiffs say they will ignore these/
There is no legal reason why they should not
Other forums have cases where these notices have been detrimental to their users.

THE NOTICES MAY WELL BE OF SOME USE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT UNDER STATUTE TO BE THERE, IE DEBT COLLECTORS COLD CALLERS ETC. BUT NOT BAILIFFS(bailiffs do not rely on the implied right of access to serve a warrant/LO)