Baliff petition;Stop them getting a legal right to forced entry;Peter Bard

[peterbard]

Hi

We have a chance to make a difference here

I have been in touch with Lord Beufort of Whitley

Dear Sir

I wonder if you would bring me up to date on the progress of your excellent amendment to Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Court and Enforcement Bill.

I understand this was presented to committee an the 19th of December.

I have been involved in various capacities both as Chair and paid development worker for Credit Unions operating in the poorer areas of greater Manchester as a result I have been frequently on the front line when dealing with debts and the means that are used to collect them. I am well aware of the shortcomings’ of the present bailiff system as a means of collecting money from people with little or no possessions to offer.

The measures in the current version of Schedule 12 are in our opinion not going to help this situation and will certainly not help people get out on the contrary they seem to us to be a further burden on the less well off in society removing even the basic right to security in their own home.

To this end I would like to support your amendments and would like, with your permission to present statements of that fact to the house.

If you consent we would greatly appreciate your advice as to the most effective method of proceeding.

Please feel free to contact me at anytime.

Peter F. Bardsley

his response was that he was merely the mouthpiece and the author of the amendments was Reverend Paul Nicholson and that I should contact him I emailed him and he rang me back within an hour.

It turns out that he writes all the speeches for Lord Baufort including the one quoted from Hansard and posted by The Watchdog.( http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....jacked-11.html ) and is the driving force behind getting the amendments through and onto the bill. The amendments are now scheduled to go to the reports stage on Wednesday 31st of January where they will be voted on.
He then emailed me a list of members of the upper house that he would like as many people as possible to email in order to let them know what the public feeling is both about the bill and particularity section 12 and to recommend his amendments. To This end I have drafted a personal reply which i will send but there are many more worthy and convincing posts on this site that i feel could help enormously. Below is the E-mail sent to me after our conversation.

Dear Peter,

I was very glad to hear that you are as worried as I am about the powers to forced entry and forcibly restrain debtors and are in support of the amendments to protect vulnerable people tabled by Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I am sure the Credit Unions will the first to be picking up the pieces if there is no change of heart by the government.

It would be also great help if you would make your views known to the members we discussed who will be debating the amendments on Wednesday.
In our view no permission should be given in the law for bailiffs to resort to violence in private houses.

With good wishes,

Paul

As you can see there is a time element issue here. This is why I propose that anyone who wishes can send there e-mails to me so that i can forward them on. I have not received permission to use the facilities on this site in this regard so i will use one of my own e-mail addresses. peter.bardsley@btinternet .com
Be assured that the participant will get full credit for his /her views.
As I have said there are some excellent posts on this site that demonstrate most peoples position far more eloquently than I could, please go through your postings and if you decide to forward them to me i shall then take that as permission to send them on to the individual lords who will be taking part in the debate in the hl on Wednesday.


Peter

[i_spam]

I yes this as well.

[MizzPiggy]

I hope so......

I must admit after today I cannot help but wonder...

A person with fees that were 4 times the debt, a council that supported a total breach of the Bailiff Law for Distress for rent and add to that 14 complaints of overcharged fees and 13 new cases in the door by mail and you have to start to question things.

I have forwarded you (albeit late! I am sorry my thoughts on the discussion for Wednesday and have got some media interest that I will run with trying to highlight the pitfalls, which are many!!

Just amazes me. They should have endorsed the white paper not try to muddle it up and not do it properly like they are now.

I pointed out in my views that if this goes ahead the way it stands, then there will be more money needed for police, more money needed for prisons, as to force their way into a debtors home will cause reactions that are unwanted.

That move to spain is looking better all the time! Hope my thoughts are heard.

Alison

[The Terminator]

A point i'd like to bring up with you both.Is this bill compatible with the Human Rights Act.The reason I ask and Harriot Harman really do's not do herslf or the Goverment any justice.Just because a person doe's not open their door is not an addmitance of debt.Breaking into someone's property is a criminal offence and should be left to the public bodies provided they have a ligitamate reason to do so.I agree with The Watchdog more money will be required for police,prison's etc so where is that going to come from.People in this country will react and I would support the Lords amendments.

[peterbard]

Hi Watchdog

The bill was cleared with the human rights commision before it was presented By Barroness Ashton of Upholland.
I know beggars belief doesn't it.
Peter

[The Terminator]

Hi Peter

Just been reading the HRA and in my opinion it is still incompatible with the Convention Rights Article 3&8 and Article 1 of the 1st Protocol.If the Act was to become law without the admendments this would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.

[stan5131]

Peter, just seen this thread and sent email.

[peterbard]

Well it has ben debated and we even got an oblique mention.
Lord Beumont of whitley did us proud but i am afraid that the ammendments had to be withdrawn I will put a link to the hansard at the bottom ot theis posting. I think he says it all in the summing up to the withdrawl.

"Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, of course I realise the good intentions of the Minister—even, occasionally, the good intentions of the Government. The trouble is that when you have simplification and clarification, which sound as if they are very good in themselves, and the dusting is done, what may be dusted away and hardly noticed is something very valuable which happens to be lurking in a corner. In a way, the tradition that an Englishman’s home is his castle is one of those.
It is not for me to pursue the issue any further at this stage, but I hope sincerely that when the Bill goes to another place and is considered by Members of the House of Commons with constituents who have probably
suffered in this kind of situation, they will be able to do something to persuade the Government to go back on their decision. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment."

Says it all i think

Lords Hansard text for 31 Jan 200731 Jan 2007 (pt 000

The fight goes to the commons.
I will keep you posted

Peter

[peterbard]

HI
I have just sent the following to Rev Paul Nicolson and Lord beumont of W
Dear Sirs

I have just read the reports from yesterday. Whilst disappointed in the outcome I feel that the points you raised will make a great starting point and inspire future orators for the debates to come. Surely the inescapable logic of what was said will prevail. You can be sure that this is not the end of the matter as far as we are concerned and will continue to put our case until it is heard.

Kind Regards

Peter F.Bardsley

[The Terminator]

If this doe's become law I can see one big rebellion happening on a scale that hasn't been seen since the Poll Tax in 1991.As the lord said "An Englishman's home is his castle".If I ever have to defend my home and pocessions from intruders and break the law then so be it.

[peterbard]

HI
I have just had an e-mail from Rev Paul Nicols

Peter - in fact we had a partial victory - we all contributed to the decision by Lady Ashton not to implement the regulations on restraint - see attachment - best wishes - Paul

So well done everyone who participated,I will post the attachment when i get it to open

Peter

[InKogneeToh]

Hi Peter

Have read through the thread so far. Is the position now that the regulations on restraint will NOT be implemented?

Quote: in fact we had a partial victory - we all contributed to the decision by Lady Ashton not to implement the regulations on restraint.

Or have I read that wrong, and if so what do you need - evidence of bad practice/ a petition/ letters to M.P.??.

I am with you on this one (YEAH REALLY ) so just let me know how we can help.

Regards, Pam

[peterbard]

HI

Thanks for the recent support i forward an update as promised this was an email sent to me by Rev. Paul Nichols who is the prime mover of the action group who are trying to get these amendments through.
It seems our efforts have been of some use but a lot more needs to be done.
He mentioned a petition that he wants to present to the HL on the third and last reading of the bill on the 20th February via Lord Beaumont of Ashley.
Again it doesn't leave much time.
I can e-mail you a copy if you like but you will have to post it back to me sorry snail mail although if you have a scanner you could scan it then email it back. It would be great if you could get as many signatures as possible. If you are interested e-mail me back and I will send one return. I am also going to put something on the thread although if any of you want to do it pleas feel free.
In the meanwhile here is the letter I got earlier We need as many signaturesas possible and people to write: well it’s in the letter under here
Peter

If you want meto send a blank of the petition e-mail me at Peter.bardley@btinternet. com

Cheers Peter


Dear Peter,
Below is letter to John Marston, the Chairman of the High Court Enforcement Officers Association who, according to Lady Ashton of the DCA in the debate on the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill on Wednesday 31st Jan, supports the introduction of forcible restraint by bailiffs of debtors who interfere with their work. I am thinking of lone mothers on benefit who have not paid their TV licences, who have been grouped with "criminal fines" by the DCA, held down by bailiffs who traumatise their children. This dangerous proposal from the DCA is opposed by the bailiff, creditor and advice sector members of the Enforcement Law Reform Group, of which I am a member; they are all content to rely on the general right of self defence.

You will see from the attached Hansard extract in her name that she has moved in our direction by agreeing not to enact the relevant regulation - for now.

We now want the whole idea deleted from the Bill at the third reading in the House of Lords on the 20th February. If not we will mount a campaign in the Commons. Please tell as many people as possible to write to Lady Ashton and tell their MPs.

Forced entry has also been introduced after 400 years during which bailiffs were only allowed to enter a private dwelling peacefully and never touch the debtor. I am told it will only be used as a last resort. I have asked who decides when that time has been reached and under what circumstances. I have received 31 Pages of the Magistrates Courts Guidance - Search and Entry powers (Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004) - on 15 of them the guidance is blacked out!!! Funny sort of State secret. A copy is in the post.

Best wishes,

Paul

Dear John,

I was interested to hear Lady Ashton tell Peers that you are in support of bailiffs forcibly restraining debtors while the bailiff, creditor and advice sector members of the Enforcement Law Reform Group are not; being content to rely on the general right of self defence.

My experience of legislation making it fair to dismiss workers who did not join a union in a closed shop, or allowing magistrates to imprison poll tax defaulters, all introduced on the grounds that it will only be used as a last resort when in practice that became very far from the case, tells me that forcible restraint of debtors by bailiffs would be bad law and would be used and abused very far from a last resort putting women and children at risk of violence. When people are legally authorised to use violence they will do it.

Increasing violence against bailiffs is a very serious matter; it is part of a social malaise that also results in violence increasing against teachers, police, social workers, nurses, doctors and clergy. It should be addressed. The attached paper by Professor Richard Wilkinson provides powerful evidence that the more unequal the incomes in a society the more violent it is The incomes in British society are becoming increasingly unequal and violent gets worse.

The government's assurance that the regulations allowing such violence will not be implemented unless necessary is a step forward - but regulations a slipped in under the radar.

We are, however, mounting a campaign in the House of Commons to delete all reference to forcible restraint of debtors by bailiffs from the CTE Bill. I hope we will have your support.

With best wishes,

Paul

I think that pretty much says it all,there has been a lot of talk about this subject and a lot of anger expressed .I think people on this forum need to know what we are trying to do.
This really is our chance to make a difference.If any one can think of an idea to raise the profile and get the maximum involvement pleas do it we are runing out of time.You can bet this bill will be whipped through the commons if we let it.

Peter

[stan5131]

Peter, I have just printed off several copies of the petition. I intend to get as many signatures back to you as possible. Peter, can you change the name of the thread to get more interest? Think it needs to be something like "urgent action required by CAG re new bailiff bill. Everyone sign petition".

This is SO IMPORTANT. Even if your life has never been touched by bailiffs, we need to think of those who's lives have and the devastation this will cause to those families whose only crime is not having enough money to pay their bills.