Right of access

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

see here for further inf posts 23 and 51 are pretty much say it all

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ome-from/page2

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

Actually, if we're going to summarise, lets do so properly:

1. A bailiffs peaceful entry could have been withdrawn simply by slamming the door in his face or not answering it at all.
2. Once inside a property, provided that he hadn't begun his levy, a bailiffs implied right of access could have been withdrawn verbally and the bailiff would have been under a duty to leave the property swiftly.
3. You did not provide any legislation that afforded a bailiff the powers that were greater than the police, debt collectors or general public. You merely confirmed that once a LO was obtained, one of the options available (to the authority) was to levy distress.
4. Being able to levy distress does not afford you the right to ignore common law.
5. Legislation actually dates back much further than 1992. The Poll Tax regs were almost identical to the CT regs.
6. I do not spread "dangerous nonsense across the internet" I have stated several times in this thread that the notice is probably no use post April 6th (or 14th as you bizzarely seem to think)

The only thing I've read from you today that makes any sense whatsoever is written in red. It states:

"I make mistakes just as we all do".

If you've got a first class LLB (Hons) (law) degree, I'm a qualified pilot.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

see here for further inf posts 23 and 51 are pretty much say it all

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ome-from/page2

What in Gods name has the opinion of a HCEO got to do with anything?

I don't believe there is any doubt that a notice will not be effective when HCEO's are involved.

You don't appear to have understood anything in this thread.

[Amethyst]

Re: Right of access

This is part of an old letter we used back in 07\08 on here to DCA's who were threatening doorstep visits.


Please note that I am only prepared to communicate with you in writing. Should it be your intention to arrange a "doorstep call", please remember that there is only an implied license under English Common Law for certain people 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 M.R.). I hereby revoke license under English Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so without my permission, you will then be liable to damages for a tort of trespass. You would also be conspiring in a trespass if you sent someone to visit me nevertheless.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

quite a lot really and the subsequent posts form member to TT seal the deal

The refusal of the debtor to allow the bailiff to enter the premises is not the same as the ability to serve the warrant, this is part of the enforcement officers legal duty under the statute and cannot be revoked by this notice, especially now, there is no legal justification for these notices, they are impractical and frankly dangerous in that they can result in making matters worse for the debtor.

[UnitedFront]

Re: Right of access

Actually, if we're going to summarise, lets do so properly:

1. A bailiffs peaceful entry could have been withdrawn simply by slamming the door in his face or not answering it at all.
2. Once inside a property, provided that he hadn't begun his levy, a bailiffs implied right of access could have been withdrawn verbally and the bailiff would have been under a duty to leave the property swiftly.
3. You did not provide any legislation that afforded a bailiff the powers that were greater than the police, debt collectors or general public. You merely confirmed that once a LO was obtained, one of the options available (to the authority) was to levy distress.
4. Being able to levy distress does not afford you the right to ignore common law.
5. Legislation actually dates back much further than 1992. The Poll Tax regs were almost identical to the CT regs.
6. I do not spread "dangerous nonsense across the internet" I have stated several times in this thread that the notice is probably no use post April 6th (or 14th as you bizzarely seem to think)

The only thing I've read from you today that makes any sense whatsoever is written in red. It states:

"I make mistakes just as we all do".

If you've got a first class LLB (Hons) (law) degree, I'm a qualified pilot.

Firstly I can assure you I do have a first-class law degree - not only did I obtain a first class law degree, but I graduated at the top of my course (of around 300 students).

Respectfully, the fact that you've taken to making such a ludicrous insult is just showing yourself up for what you are. I'm glad everyone reading this thread will be able to see that.

If I've inadvertently written April 14th in any of my posts, that is quite clearly an error and should have read "April '14" or something similar. The fact that you've latched onto such an obvious typo really does show you to be a very facetious person.

I agree with points 1 and 2 in your list.

With regards to point 3 in your list, the legislation I cited gave an authorised bailiff (which the local authority is not!) the power to levy distress anywhere in England and Wales. That includes the property of a debtor.

In relation to point 4, I respectfully disagree. Whilst one could always prevent a bailiff entering a property such as a house, I disagree that one of your notices could ever legally have prevented a bailiff from peacefully entering upon the property (for example a driveway).

In relation to point 5, the fact that legislation dates back further isn't really relevant to the discussion.

In relation to 6, I respectfully disagree.

[Amethyst]

Re: Right of access

So can we quit the personal comments please - really doesn't help the discussion get anywhere.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

[QUOTE=The Starving

You don't appear to have understood anything in this thread.[/QUOTE]
I would say the same about you, you have been shown the relevant legislature the reasoning the cases where these notices have been ignored yet you persist in this dangerous fiction

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

Firstly I can assure you I do have a first-class law degree - not only did I obtain a first class law degree, but I graduated at the top of my course (of around 300 students).

Respectfully, the fact that you've taken to making such a ludicrous insult is just showing yourself up for what you are. I'm glad everyone reading this thread will be able to see that.

If I've inadvertently written April 14th in any of my posts, that is quite clearly an error and should have read "April '14" or something similar. The fact that you've latched onto such an obvious type really does show you to be a very facetious person.

I agree with points 1 and 2 in your list.

With regards to point 3 in your list, the legislation I cited gave an authorised bailiff (which the local authority is not!) the power to levy distress anywhere in England and Wales. That includes the property of a debtor.

In relation to point 4, I respectfully disagree. Whilst one could always prevent a bailiff entering a property such as a house, I disagree that one of your notices could ever legally have prevented a bailiff from peacefully entering upon the property (for example a driveway).

In relation to point 5, the fact that legislation dates back further isn't really relevant to the discussion.

In relation to 6, I respectfully disagree.

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.

[Guest]

Re: Right of access

quite a lot really and the subsequent posts form member to TT seal the deal

The refusal of the debtor to allow the bailiff to enter the premises is not the same as the ability to serve the warrant, this is part of the enforcement officers legal duty under the statute and cannot be revoked by this notice, especially now, there is no legal justification for these notices, they are impractical and frankly dangerous in that they can result in making matters worse for the debtor.

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?

[Guest]

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)

[Guest]

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

[Wombats]

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 .........

[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.

[Guest]

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: