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 ?

[wales01man]

Re: Right of access

You could try highly unlikely any bailff woud take any notice

[josephbloggs]

Re: Right of access

Removal of implied right of access is something dreamt up by a group known as freeman on the land. It has no legal bearing in society. It has never worked properly and is only usually put up by people who have no intention of paying their debts and contributing to society. Using a freeman of the land tact in a court can result in the person being charged with contempt. Dont waste the ink in your printer. Stay away from such "information" websites.

[Crazy council]

Re: Right of access

Acsess rights over land will be in the deeds of all propertys that acsess it. You can get yourself in serious trouble blocking an acsess route.. think ambulance or fire. If its a seriuos question about legal rights of acsess. Fire away. Will see if i can advise.. if its an fotl thing. Like the others say. Dont get dragged in. Its a fools folly. If you want advice in dealing withvwhatever situation has lead to the bailifs or there charges. Some of the otheres who post on here are great at that.....

[MattDavies]

Re: Right of access

I was referring more to pointing out to the company that they would have to access someone else's property to get to mine, not to send a NOR letter in reference to my propertty. It was more a question as to whether it would be legal to attempt to levy say on the vehicle that was parked on someone else's land.

[MissFM]

Re: Right of access

I'm quite interested by the "access" arguments.

In the olden days we used to have laws against trespass and put up signs (eg "Private property, no unauthorized access", "Trespassers Will" etc.). Nowadays it does seem impossible to challenge or prevent anyone from entering private property unless they commit overt (provable!) criminal damage. Even then, the police tend to not wish to be involved and advise extreme caution.

And don't let's even get started on the "right to roam".

So how any NORIEA (or whatever the acronym) can prevent somebody going about their lawful business as ordered by the courts is beyond me.

I have seen rather historical (pre April 14) anecdotal evidence on various websites and videos where it has been claimed that invoking this notice has occasionally delayed the inevitable (but we haven't been apprised of the final results).

In the absence of any actual proof that the customary legal system can be suborned in this way it seems irresponsible to advise people in desperate situations to do otherwise than to engage with the relevant authorities to mitigate and resolve problems.

QV the advice in the Bailiff sections on this site and the one or two other internet sites that offer free and impartial informationat no profit to themselves.

However, as said, it's a subject about which, like the OP, I would like to learn more - particularly if there are legal precedents etc..

[enquirer]

Re: Right of access

Removal of implied right of access is something dreamt up by a group known as freeman on the land. It has no legal bearing in society. It has never worked properly and is only usually put up by people who have no intention of paying their debts and contributing to society. Using a freeman of the land tact in a court can result in the person being charged with contempt. Dont waste the ink in your printer. Stay away from such "information" websites.

Most FMOTL material is certainly to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, withdrawing the implied right of access (WOIRA), is a reality and can be enforced.

"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.

[MissFM]

Re: Right of access

Most FMOTL material is certainly to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, withdrawing the implied right of access (WOIRA), is a reality and can be enforced.

"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.

Please would you enlarge on this, Enquirer?

Also, what are the implications where there is NO "implied right of access" in the first place?

[enquirer]

Re: Right of access

You withdraw the implied licence. In effect, you simply say 'You may no longer assume that you have permission to enter onto my property'.

With access direct from the highway, it's straightforward. The OP's situation is less clear - access is from the highway, then over land owned by a third party. The OP has the right to pass over that land, but does not own it, or appear to have any exclusive rights.

On the details given, I would say that the OP could withdraw the implied right to knock on his door (that is to say, to come off the access road and onto his exclusive property), but no more. I suspect that any vehicle left on the access road would be fair game.

As to locations with no implied right of access (any recognised postal address would be held to extend same), I would have thought that simple trespass would apply from the outset.

[wales01man]

Re: Right of access

Would a bailiff give a stuff we see some taking third party goods and cars despite strong evidence

[MissFM]

Re: Right of access

As to locations with no implied right of access (any recognised postal address would be held to extend same), I would have thought that simple trespass would apply from the outset.

For which there would appear to be no satisfactory legal redress.....

Would a bailiff give a stuff we see some taking third party goods and cars despite strong evidence

Quite.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

Please would you enlarge on this, Enquirer?

Also, what are the implications where there is NO "implied right of access" in the first place?

I will enlarge on this:

The quote comes from a template used on CAG for DCA's.

Many bailiffs like to tell all & sundry that NOROIROA stems from FMOTL. They conveniently forget that CAG urge people to deploy the notice and also Nottingham City Council have deployed the notice. So much for it being "FMOTL"

Another favoured claim from bailiffs is that it is "put up by people who have no intention of paying" This ridiculous statement is also way off the mark. it is very often used by vulnerable people who have been let down by their local authorities & the notice is a last resort.

Nobody could be "charged with contempt of court" for using a notice.

You talk about people "going about their lawful business"

Pre April 6th, a private bailiff had no more powers than any other member of the general public. Debt collecting for the council for council tax arrears on the strength of a liability order did not give a bailiff anywhere near the powers that an agent working on behalf of the courts had. This scenario MAY have changed post April 6th. What is still clear is that an EA may not assume implied right of access to a debtors home and may only enter upon invite.

Regarding the tort of "trespass, it used to be an offence, hence the "trespassers will be prosecuted" signs. Nowadays, an offence will only kick in at the aggravated trespass stage. With a notice displayed, it is far more easier for an offence of aggravated trespass to occur.

Regarding "no satisfactory legal redress", I would probably agree, however a bailiff collecting on the strength of a liability order would invalidate any subsequent fees.

I speak from first hand experience btw so far from "delaying the inevitable", I stopped civil enforcement there and then.

[Wombats]

Re: Right of access

Was that pre or post the new regulations?

The situation post the new regulations is yet to be tested in court as far as I know. I do know the views of the MOJ and of John Kruse (The Starving Taxpayer will already have this, or similar, elsewhere):

According to the Ministry of Justice from 6th April a householder’s right to refuse or revoke permission to enter their premises will be overridden by Sch.12 para.14(1) which states as follows:

“An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods.”

John Kruse’s view on the above clause is that :

“It is not immediately apparent whether or not this provision does anymore than confirm the existing right of a bailiff holding a lawful warrant to enter property”

and that:

“Whether the courts will agree that the common law on trespass has swept away in so cursory a manner remains to be seen”

Under the new regulations an enforcement agent is not rendered a trespasser by any error he has made- in other words, all wrongful levies in future will be ‘irregular’ rather than ‘illegal’ (in the present terminology).

A bailiff breaching the provisions of the Act will therefore not have trespassed. Trespass takes three forms- to land, to goods and to persons (assault and battery).

It would seem that claims for trespass- whether against land by forcible entry, by violence against the debtor or by wrongful seizure or removal of goods- will no longer be possible in respect of the taking into control of goods.

It is a highly controversial area, hence me trying to report impartially on things as they stand.

My personal opinion is that there will need to be court cases to set case law, and no doubt SI's will be brought in to stop the plug hole leaking. Detailed elements of the new regulations are questionable, and certainly subject to challenge if someone chooses to do so.

As far as FMOTL goes, again the waters are muddied IMO, as there are occasions where the common law right can be revoked and 'the deployment' of this notice can help. According to the new regs, that right no longer applies to bailiffs, if indeed it ever did.

[Wombats]

Re: Right of access

I used the notice on several occasions under the old regulations.

Ironically, the man that you are all obsessed with is also of the opinion that the notice will not work as long as the new regs are followed.

My response was aimed at MissFM who was spouting all the same old tiresome templates regarding the notice.

I would also like to point out that contrary to Miss FM's claims, I also offer free, impartial advice at no profit to myself

ST - I hope your credentials are not in question. That's not how I read it and I'm happy to clarify you make no profit from giving advice here or anywhere else on the internet as far as I know.

As for other sites, it is up to them what they advise and whether or not they charge for that advice. While I can't speak definitively for LB, my view is LB is LB and does what it does, just as other sites do what they do. Pitching one against another is pointless and unhelpful.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

Well if you would care to name & shame these websites that you've looked at, especially the ones that operate at "profit for themselves" then maybe I could give you the detailed explanation you require.

I suspect that, like 99% of the sheep who post on these boards, you know exactly what I am referring to & have nothing of substance to add yourself.

Still as long as you think you're doing your bit eh?