Right of access

[MattDavies]

To access our house you need to go approximately a quarter of a mile up a private road (not owned by us). I have heard a phrase "implied right of access" been mentioned a few times recently. Could I remove this and inform that any attempt to visit my house would result in "trespass" on the owner of the roads land ? OR if i were to leave a vehicle on this land would it be illegal for them to access the vehicle as it would result in trespass also ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Right of access

Thread closed being as you don't seem to be able to discuss it without making personal digs. Couple of posts removed.

Apologies to the OP.

Re: Right of access

Perhaps it is just not clear to you, perhaps I can clarify. Sending the notice instead of addressing the first warning letter will result in a visit DEPITE the notice, the visit will incur the fee.

Perfectly clear ot me

Perfectly clear to you?

Theres a first.

Re: Right of access

The way you posted makes it appear that the debtor will incur the £235 if they utilise the notice.

With respect, that is anything but "pretty clear" If anything, an unsuspecting debtor could be forgiven for thinking that not getting involved in the notice will somehow help in avoiding the £235 fee.

In the interests of being "pretty clear", I think it should be noted that the notice will have no bearing on the £235 fee either way. It is crucial that the debtor contacte the EA upon receipt of the NOE.

Perhaps it is just not clear to you, perhaps I can clarify. Sending the notice instead of addressing the first warning letter will result in a visit DEPITE the notice, the visit will incur the fee.

Perfectly clear ot me

Re: Right of access

To make simple, these notices have no value whatsoever in any attempt to stop bailiff enforcement. (never have)

Re: Right of access

The way you posted makes it appear that the debtor will incur the £235 if they utilise the notice.

With respect, that is anything but "pretty clear" If anything, an unsuspecting debtor could be forgiven for thinking that not getting involved in the notice will somehow help in avoiding the £235 fee.

In the interests of being "pretty clear", I think it should be noted that the notice will have no bearing on the £235 fee either way. It is crucial that the debtor contacte the EA upon receipt of the NOE.

Re: Right of access

Just for clarity, are you saying that not deploying the notice will avert the £235 fee?

What are your thoughts on sending a notice after receiving an enforcement notice that doesn't contain the information laid out in Par 7 of the TCG regs?

I've read a couple of posts (possibly on here) when Par 7 hasn't been adhered to.

Why do you feel that you must persist in this nonsense ?

Re: Right of access

I'm saying exactly what I wrote to clarify as things are now. That included the words, "I don't intend to become involved now ....."

All pretty clear.

Re: Right of access

In that case, you might want to learn what the difference is between the two :tinysmile_twink_t2:

I don't imagine that the difference has changed since i first encountered both many years ago., makes no difference in the present context however I will explain them to you if you like

Re: Right of access

I've avoided getting involved in this intentionally, and I don't intend to become involved now. It is a theoretical discussion as times have moved on. I'm happy with my view of the notice.

For anyone reading this post, there is always the chance they may make the mistake of thinking this is current.

THIS IS THE POSITION AS IT IS NOW:

Debtors need to be aware that if they are encouraged to 'deploy a NORIROA' (whether at the entrance to their property OR sent to the council or whoever) then this could well lead to a bailiff / EA attending their property and applying a fee of £235.

I'll gracefully back out again now, but just thought it worth throwing in the reminder just in case. Better safe than sorry and all that .........

Just for clarity, are you saying that not deploying the notice will avert the £235 fee?

What are your thoughts on sending a notice after receiving an enforcement notice that doesn't contain the information laid out in Par 7 of the TCG regs?

I've read a couple of posts (possibly on here) when Par 7 hasn't been adhered to.

Re: Right of access

Ha Ha grasping at straw now, i generally say warrant /lo missed out the last bit

In that case, you might want to learn what the difference is between the two :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[UnitedFront]

Re: Right of access

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.

Point 3 - The Regs gave the LA authority to levy distress, but were quite clear that the actual levy could only be carried out by an authorised bailiff. You're coming across as very bitter for someone who has a post-grad qualification in “Legal History” and 30 years' experience of researching the law.

Point 4 - I think it's clear that we'll have to agree to disagree. People can read the thread and make their own informed decisions.

Point 5 - It doesn't prove any such thing. What is proves is that in a discussion that has principally been concerned with the law as it stood between 1992 and 2014, Statute law preceding 1992 was not of major relevance.

Point 6 - Your advice that the notices probably won't work now is, indeed, sound advice. The fact that you've been encouraging the use of the notices for however long was, in my view, the spreading of dangerous theories.

I repeat that I have worked with many people who have suffered greatly as a result of adopting this and other theories. Almost all of the harm suffered could have been avoided / mitigated, had it not been for vulnerable people getting sucked into believing in snake oil.

At this point I think it's best to agree to disagree. As I said, people can read the thread and come to their own conclusions on the contents and the people who have written them.

Re: Right of access

I've avoided getting involved in this intentionally, and I don't intend to become involved now. It is a theoretical discussion as times have moved on. I'm happy with my view of the notice.

For anyone reading this post, there is always the chance they may make the mistake of thinking this is current.

THIS IS THE POSITION AS IT IS NOW:

Debtors need to be aware that if they are encouraged to 'deploy a NORIROA' (whether at the entrance to their property OR sent to the council or whoever) then this could well lead to a bailiff / EA attending their property and applying a fee of £235.

I'll gracefully back out again now, but just thought it worth throwing in the reminder just in case. Better safe than sorry and all that .........

Re: Right of access

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?

Ha Ha grasping at straw now, i generally say warrant /lo missed out the last bit

Re: Right of access

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.

3 Nope no mistake perfectly accurate

4 Evidence is ther and over on CGA if by nothing else then vi the number of people who say these notices do not work

5 NO ignorance I can see for this particular user , it all seems to be coming from you

6 Yes the regulations confirm the previous situation got one right(sort of)