Right of access

[Nibbler]

Re: Right of access

"There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able 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 MR.

Interestingly, the first time I ever saw that posted on forums was on CAG by pt2537.

(not saying it originated there, but that is just the first time I ever saw it)

Paul may have revised his opinion of that template since then.....

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.
3. I've never read a post from anyone claiming to have not bothered dealing with the threat of bailiffs after they've been encouraged to use a notice and I read all relevant forums. I accept that a bailiff visiting will ignore a notice (I would do the same in that situation) but once one is sent to the companies head office, that is the end of the matter.
4. I rarely encouraged others or advised them to use the notice on the internet (I have done so in the real world, locally where I've had more control of the matter)
5. Nobody is suggesting a notice will work post April 6th
6. I have used the notice several times. One person claims my success wasn't because of the notice but for other reasons. This is of course a load of rubbish but if for point of argument, it was true then the notice will have been successful in an indirect way.

There was never any harm in posting a notice to a bailiff company. A debtor had nothing to loose & everything to gain. The opposition to the notice by so many people who have no first hand experience with it is one of the most baffling things I've experienced on these boards.

Other bailiffs argued that the courts had ordered them to attend and that is why they were able to ignore the notice. The bailiff acting for a council for council tax arrears did not have that argument. It appears that you and many more are trying to create another separate argument. If there was one, the bailiffs collecting for other debts would have mentioned it at some point.

Re: Right of access

A hundred percent behind using any effective methods against bailiffs in whatever form, problem with the letters is that they do not work.
This in itself is not a problem, however it can be if people depend on it as an alternative to effective measures.

People have been known to put off or even not bother dealing with the threat of bailiffs, because they have been encouraged to believe that sending one will make them immune to their visits.

This is untrue, and the belief should be discouraged by anyone who wishes to impart responsible bailiff advice.

Re: Right of access

And this is exactly why I resorted to using the notice. It was just another way of giving power back to the debtor. Why let a creditor or their agent decide who is vulnerable?

If it was me personally, I would have preferred the bailiff to have visited as it would have entertained me and there would have been no way in hell that I would have paid any visit fees. I used it on behalf of single mothers who were intimidated by the thought of visits from a very persuasive gentleman.

[bizzybob]

Re: Right of access

ST income from benefits soley is subsistence with nothing left over so should always be regarded as vulnerable, sadly many EA's formerly bailiffs regard DLA as available income. even though they should not.

The EA deciding who is vulnerable under the new riules will backfire in a most spectacular manner very soon, when someone with a h congenital defect that is known and diagnosed with medication prescribed dies during a visit from an EA, who doesn't regard them as vulnerable.

Re: Right of access

Amethyst. It is important to remember that this debate is hypothetical as we are debating circumstances pre April 6th. Milo's post is relevant post April 6th. I did notice this statement near the end of her post:

"If the enforcement company are satisfied that 'vulnerability' has been demonstrated then the position is that the 'Enforcement fee' of £235 is removed and the case 'rewound' to the Compliance Stage. "

Sadly, an enforcement companies interpretation on whom may be vulnerable differs somewhat from yours or mine. If I had the option of the notice, I would use it ahead of relying on an enforcement companies satisfaction of vulnerability. The words below are an extract from Mike Garland of Excel Enforcement and clearly demonstrate the interpretation of "vulnerability" from an enforcement agents point of view:

"In terms of your vulnerability I would repeat what I stated in my letter to you of 11th October 2012:
You have cited the reason for your claim as the fact you are unemployed and in receipt of income support
and that this is a category noted in the National Standards for Enforcement Agents (NSEA).

I’m afraid that simply being unemployed and in receipt of income support does not necessarily determine that you are a vulnerable person in respect of enforcement action.

You will note on the extract you provided very clearly states, “Those who might be potentially vulnerable include:”
The word ‘potentially’ is underlined and I would also place emphasis on the word ‘might’.
I would also add that the NSEA is not a legal binding instrument but guidance.

To be clear, it is our belief that someone is vulnerable in terms of enforcement action
if, due to their condition or circumstances, they are unable to fully comprehend the enforcement process and /or are unable to manage their own affairs in any way.

Judging by the research you have obviously undertaken and your clear ability to convey your concerns regarding the process in writing,
I would risk suggesting that you are not vulnerable for the purposes of enforcement of a warrant of execution.

That said I will be pleased to receive any medical evidence to support your claim.

A letter from your doctor or a qualified health professional will suffice."

Re: Right of access

I don't know how many times I've got to say this:

Notice should not be displayed at your property, it should be sent to the bailiff company with a copy going to the council. This eradicates any issue of a rouge bailiff visiting as the debt is simply returned to the council.

Yes I think we heard, however the truth is that it would do no good anyway. The notices do not apply to bailiffs or anyone empowered to serve a warrant/LO. Even if we were wrong and they legally did(which we are not), bailiffs ignore them, so they will call anyway, so then you are left with trying to make civil claim for trespass, good luck with that.

It is a problem with anecdotal evidence of this kind.
In November there was a severe weather warning, I sent a letter to the met office complaining, guess what no wind, you think my letter worked ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Right of access

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...erability-quot ref vulnerable debtors.

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

I don't know how many times I've got to say this:

Notice should not be displayed at your property, it should be sent to the bailiff company with a copy going to the council. This eradicates any issue of a rouge bailiff visiting as the debt is simply returned to the council.

[UnitedFront]

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.

No it doesn't. If the notices were successful, it was because either:

1. They were never going to send anyone anyway.
   
2. They didn't understand the law.

We are really circling a bit now, but you are just plain wrong.

A policeman in general can't enter premises without permission unless under a warrant. Unless, of course, there is a law permitting entry without a warrant. There are many laws that allow for this.

In the case which is often cited as “proof” that permission can be withdrawn, the police officers were held to be trespassers because there was at that time no law permitting them to be on the property without permission. The law that I cited earlier gave permission for the LA's Bailiffs to be on the property – they were therefore not trespassers. They did, however, still have to act peacefully.

The law that I cited earlier expressly gave LAs the power to interfere with the rights that an individual would normally have. A claim that one of you "notices" can alter the effect of the Statutory provision is just plain wrong.

I'm not claiming that your notices have never succeeded - just that if they did succeed, it wasn't because your arguments are legally correct. Because they're not.

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.

[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

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.

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)

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.