Hi, am very interested as to how the (4A)the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act was amended to allow access to bailiffs, when the whole ethos of the act was to protect the vulnerable from distress, fear and abuse. Particularly when, most the bailiffs I've come across tend to be proficient at intimidation at best or total thugs at the worst.

Am trying to ascertain who sponsored and seconded the amendment and their logic.

be grateful if anyone could point me in the right direction.

thanks

ken h.

Yep I'd like that information also.

I think it was lobbying by the Enforcement Industry, although how legalised burglary can be termed an "Industry" is beyond me.

A question was asked about the issues contained in the clause here by Lord Lucas:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100616w0002.htm

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will revoke paragraph 3 of Schedule 4A to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (inserted by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (on the right to force entry to premises in order to execute warrants of distress issued under Section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980)) to restore the status of unpaid sums adjudged to be paid upon conviction as civil debts owed to the state to be enforced like other civil debts.[HL279]

Lord McNally: The Government intend to retain the forced entry powers contained in Schedule 4A to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, inserted by Schedule 4 to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. The powers contained in that schedule are key to successful enforcement which will ensure fines remain an effective and credible sentence. Therefore there are no plans to revoke."

So it is all about instilling fear, and is designed to make a debtor pay up or else!

It only applies to HMCS magistrates fines, but the bailiffs EAs would love it to bed extended to Civil debt like council Tax etc, and no doubt are actively lobbying for it to be extended to these also.

Hi, am very interested as to how the (4A)the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act was amended to allow access to bailiffs, when the whole ethos of the act was to protect the vulnerable from distress, fear and abuse. Particularly when, most the bailiffs I've come across tend to be proficient at intimidation at best or total thugs at the worst.

 

Am trying to ascertain who sponsored and seconded the amendment and their logic.

 

be grateful if anyone could point me in the right direction.

 

thanks

 

ken h.

Ken,

A most important question but the answer sadly is not a simple one. I actually have the entire background of this is my office so can write further on Monday but I will look to see whether I have any notes on my laptop. In the meantime you may find the attached thread of interest:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?407528-HMCS-Forced-Entry-Protocol-for-use-by-bailiffs-enforcing-Magistrates-Court-FINES

Ken,

 

A most important question but the answer sadly is not a simple one. I actually have the entire background of this is my office so can write further on Monday but I will look to see whether I have any notes on my laptop. In the meantime you may find the attached thread of interest:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?407528-HMCS-Forced-Entry-Protocol-for-use-by-bailiffs-enforcing-Magistrates-Court-FINES

In my above link a copy of the Forced Entry Protocol is exhibited. This document was the result of EXTENSIVE enquiries and complaints from non other than the Reverend Paul Nicholson (a thread about his sterling work regarding 'summons cost' and his forthcoming Judicial Review application) is on the forum.

The person responsible for introducing the amendment was Baroness Ashton and sadly, the amendment was shrouded in secrecy and the timing of her amendment was appalling. The link below explain in more detail .

The link is to a debate in the House of Lords in 2007 regarding the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Bill where Lord Lucas is arguing that the right to use force against an individual must not be allowed to be introduced into the Bill . He also refers to the background to the amendment (4A) into the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act 2004.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70220-0004.htm

PS: It is worth noting that with regards to the proposal to "use force against an individual" this was the subject of a thread on this forum in 2007 started by one individual that eventually had over 800,000 views. That person set up a petition and managed to gain huge publicity which eventually led to this dreadful amendment (the right to use force against an individual) being removed. We all have a great deal to thank him for.

This was sent to me at the time by one of the leading campaigners against the measures, i am sure he will not mind me reproducing it here.

"The powers of forced entry in the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 was a botched attempt to right this previous failing and give bailiffs the 'modern' powers of arrest they needed. I say 'botched' with good cause.

The powers are in Schedule 4A of the Act. As the numbering suggests, it was a late amendment to the Bill as it went through Parliament. In fact, it was a very late amendment which, unusually, the Department for Constitutional Affairs had been allowed to insert into a Home Office Bill. This was done without any consultation and, although I later discovered a press notice, none of the advice agencies or bailiff associations knew what was happening.

But worse, it seems to me that the eleventh hour amendment to give the powers of forced entry for arrest were, at about 59 minutes past the eleventh hour, supplemented by similar powers for distress warrants. That is why the bits of the 'secret' Guidance that are visible read rather oddly, as if references to distress warrants were added into a late draft.

The Minister at the time described the new powers as closing a loophole in the law. He didn’t mentioned that the powers were breaching two historic legal principles that were virtually part of the ‘British Constitution’: the right that an Englishman’s home is his castle and that a criminal fine should be treated as a debt to the State and no differently to any other civil debt"

This was sent to me at the time by one of the leading campaigners against the measures, i am sure he will not mind me reproducing it here.

 

"The powers of forced entry in the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 was a botched attempt to right this previous failing and give bailiffs the 'modern' powers of arrest they needed. I say 'botched' with good cause.

 

The powers are in Schedule 4A of the Act. As the numbering suggests, it was a late amendment to the Bill as it went through Parliament. In fact, it was a very late amendment which, unusually, the Department for Constitutional Affairs had been allowed to insert into a Home Office Bill. This was done without any consultation and, although I later discovered a press notice, none of the advice agencies or bailiff associations knew what was happening.

 

But worse, it seems to me that the eleventh hour amendment to give the powers of forced entry for arrest were, at about 59 minutes past the eleventh hour, supplemented by similar powers for distress warrants. That is why the bits of the 'secret' Guidance that are visible read rather oddly, as if references to distress warrants were added into a late draft.

 

The Minister at the time described the new powers as closing a loophole in the law. He did’t mentioned that the powers were breaching two historic legal principles that were virtually part of the ‘British Constitution’: the right that an Englishman’s home is his castle and that a criminal fine should be treated as a debt to the State and no differently to any other civil debt"

Thank you D/D for reminding me about this "House of Horrors" amendment.

Remarkably, Parliament were then in recess and by the time this 'amendment' came to the attention of the 'advice' sector (and even the enforcement industry) nobody was present to raise a PQ until Parliament returned. I remember the period so well and the government fought for a long time against requests for a copy of all the documents that had been presented to Parliament before this amendment was allowed to be included. Eventually it was released but most pages were black (with almost everything re-dacted). I have loads of information in the office from those days.

As bad as this part of the regulations is.....most importantly, we have the thank the sterling efforts of one gentleman on this forum who campaigned so hard in 2007 to stop bailiffs ever being given the right to use force against an individual.