Right of access

[UnitedFront]

Re: Right of access

I would repeat that a private bailiff collecting council tax was not acting under any warrant or writ. A liability order simply determined a debtors liability and gave the private bailiff no powers that were greater than any other member of the general public.

A liability order simply afforded the authority in question further options in which to recover the debt. There is nothing within a liability order that gives a bailiff (EA) any power.

I am 100% for consumer rights and, as anyone who knows me would testify, I despise Bailiffs/EAs. But I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with you on the point in bold, above.

Sch.4 Para.7 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 provided that Regulations could be implemented giving Local Authorities, who had obtained a Liability Order, to "levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the debtor's goods".

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992/613 were implemented. This allowed the local authority to "levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor..." (Reg.45 Para.1) anywhere in England and Wales (Reg.45 Para.6) so long as it was carried out by a person authorised to act as a Bailiff (Reg.45 Para.6A). [emphasis added]

So in effect, a person's right to withdraw consent for a Bailiff to enter upon land was curtailed by law implemented by, or with the authorisation of, Parliament. This is another example of Statute Law limiting the effect of Common Law.

Insomuch as the previous regime only allowed such Bailiffs to make peaceful entry, the new law hasn't changed anything. An EA recovering Council Tax will still not be able to make forceful entry (without the express permission of the court).

Furthermore, given the above conclusion that peaceful entry by Bailiffs could not be prevented by "withdrawing permission" for them to enter land, Sch.12 Para.14 of the new law is merely a re-statement of the old position.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

I am 100% for consumer rights and, as anyone who knows me would testify, I despise Bailiffs/EAs. But I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with you on the point in bold, above.

Sch.4 Para.7 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 provided that Regulations could be implemented giving Local Authorities, who had obtained a Liability Order, to "levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the debtor's goods".

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992/613 were implemented. This allowed the local authority to "levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor..." (Reg.45 Para.1) anywhere in England and Wales (Reg.45 Para.6) so long as it was carried out by a person authorised to act as a Bailiff (Reg.45 Para.6A). [emphasis added]

So in effect, a person's right to withdraw consent for a Bailiff to enter upon land was curtailed by law implemented by, or with the authorisation of, Parliament. This is another example of Statute Law limiting the effect of Common Law.

Insomuch as the previous regime only allowed such Bailiffs to make peaceful entry, the new law hasn't changed anything. An EA recovering Council Tax will still not be able to make forceful entry (without the express permission of the court).

Furthermore, given the above conclusion that peaceful entry by Bailiffs could not be prevented by "withdrawing permission" for them to enter land, Sch.12 Para.14 of the new law is merely a re-statement of the old position.

Yes all unfortunately true.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

But you've missed out that magic word haven't you?

An authority MAY levy the appropriate amount of distress.

This effectively gave the authority the OPTION of using distress, as I stated previously. Another option was that an authority MAY apply for an AOE.

Whether the new laws have changed anything remains to be seen. I suspect they will have and I've heard arguments for this whilst quoting from the new regs.

Legislation does not state that the authority SHALL, only that it MAY-It gives permission to do so, it doesn't order the authority to do so.

Revoking right of access means an authority MAY NOT levy the appropriate amount of distress. This often meant they would then go for an AOE instead.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

But you've missed out that magic word haven't you?

An authority MAY levy the appropriate amount of distress.

This effectively gave the authority the OPTION of using distress, as I stated previously. Another option was that an authority MAY apply for an AOE.

Whether the new laws have changed anything remains to be seen. I suspect they will have and I've heard arguments for this whilst quoting from the new regs.

Legislation does not state that the authority SHALL, only that it MAY-It gives permission to do so, it doesn't order the authority to do so.

Revoking right of access means an authority MAY NOT levy the appropriate amount of distress. This often meant they would then go for an AOE instead.

Doesn't the phrase "authority may", indicate that the decision to levy rests with the authority rather than the debtor ?

You could ask with or without a "notice" I suppose but I do not think it would have any effect.

[wales01man]

Re: Right of access

By the same token they May or May not take notice of the piece of paper denying them right of access,
If we had a real life Bailiff on here we could ask them ?

[UnitedFront]

Re: Right of access

The Starving Taxpayer:

That interpretation of the law old law is/was no more than wishful thinking. The term may has no real significance, other than showing that a Local Authority is not under an obligation to levy distress.

Statute Law is supreme when at odds with Common Law. Statute Law said that Local Authorities could (via their Bailiffs) levy distress anywhere in England or Wales.

The Common Law right to refuse permission for that Bailiff to enter land cannot and never did (in law, although I concede it may occasionally have worked in reality) over-ride or undo the effects of the Statutory provisions. To make such a claim really is skirting perilously close to FMOL theories of Common Law being all-powerful.

As I previously said, the word may merely meant that the Local Authority was not under an obligation to levy distress. The use of that word in no way afforded anyone the right to refuse Bailiffs peaceful access to land. It is a gargantuan leap to go from "no obliged to levy distress" to "can be prevented from making peaceful entry".

I must emphasis, however, that

[UnitedFront]

Re: Right of access

Doesn't the phrase "authority may", indicate that the decision to levy rests with the authority rather than the debtor ?

You could ask with or without a "notice" I suppose but I do not think it would have any effect.

That's exactly what it meant. As per my previous post, to say that one can exercise a Common Law right in order to defeat a Statutory Provision (which in effect was specifically aimed at limiting that right) is nothing short of madness. Such a viewpoint really is (at very best) skirting right on the very edge of the FMOL nonsense.

It does strike me that this debate is all rather academic, since the law has changed.

My point remains the same, nonetheless, in that the new law really doesn't change much.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

By the same token they May or May not take notice of the piece of paper denying them right of access,
If we had a real life Bailiff on here we could ask them ?

seem to remember reading that CIVEA issued a memo advising bailiff companies to routinely ignore these notices.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

There is a real bailiff on here & would no doubt tell you that he would ignore the notice. He'd probably jam his foot in a door if it wasn't on camera as well. That doesn't make it legal. This is why (as I explained before), I used to send notice to head office as well as to the council rather than rely on an individual bailiffs honesty & integrity.

Once a liability order is obtained, the authority then has power to do other things. One of them was to use bailiffs. Just as a householder can stop a policeman entering the boundaries of his property without a warrant, so can he stop a private bailiff entering the boundaries of his property without a warrant.

There is nothing anywhere in legislation that states a bailiff had any power to visit once his right of access had been removed. This probably explains why I was able to use the notice successfully several times last year.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

seem to remember reading that CIVEA issued a memo instructing bailiff companies to routinely ignore these notices.

Seem to remember CIVEA stating bailiffs should charge Head H for council tax whenever a levy was made as well. Doesn't mean they were correct.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

Seem to remember CIVEA stating bailiffs should charge Head H for council tax whenever a levy was made as well. Doesn't mean they were correct.

Does indicate what a bailiff would probably tell you though, and since it is he who will be calling , relevant I would have thought.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

Incidentally I have seen bailiffs comment on these notices elsewhere and they are of the opinion that they are so much toilet paper..(to be blunt)

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

CIVEAs warped & skewed opinions have no legal standing. I tend to ignore them or occasionally chuckle at them. I read an outburst fairly recently from Steve Everson about the LGO's stance on multiple fee charging that did make me laugh. I do hope his successor is as funny.

Notice sent to the head office of the enforcement agency means that no bailiff would be visiting so a bailiff would not be telling me anything. This makes CIVEAs statements irrelevant.

[wales01man]

Re: Right of access

The biggest problem of all is Bailiffs do not always operate within the Law as in all walks of life some abide by the rules some don't.
The easiest most effective way of having to test the bit of paper is not to get in the [position where they can call on you .
It worked we are told by one Member on here others no doubt if they had tried will tell different.
I think arguing so much on the matter is getting a little to much lets hope we get a real bailiff to give their honest opinion or not

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

Incidentally I have seen bailiffs comment on these notices elsewhere and they are of the opinion that they are so much toilet paper..(to be blunt)

Well all I can tell you is that I have sent them to different bailiff companies and on EVERY occasion, the debt was returned to the council. Calling them "toilet paper" on the internet is fine. Meanwhile back in the real world, several vulnerable people were spared bailiff visits.