Right of access

[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In the case which is often cited as “proof” that permission can be withdrawn, the police officers were held to be trespassers because there was at that time no law permitting them to be on the property without permission.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.

[Guest]

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.

[Amethyst]

Re: Right of access

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

[Guest]

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 ?

[Guest]

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."

[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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[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.....

[Guest]

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)

[Nibbler]

Re: Right of access

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

[Guest]

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."

[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.

[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.