Thread: Bailiffs Forcing Entry and Using Restraint - Please Read, Important - Deadline

I couldn't see this in this forum, and it's so important so I thought I'd post it again. Peterbard is in talks with representatives from the House of Lords about a petition showing support for amendments to a bill that allows bailiffs in certain cases to force entry to collect on a debt - even if you are not there. If you are there, and try to stop them, you yourself will be forcibly restrained. If the phrase 'An Englishman's home is his castle' has ever meant anything to you, please take the time to sign this petition or mail the Lords and Baroness in question to show your support for the amendments needed to remove this bailiff carte-blanche.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...stop-them.html

Similar Threads:

• ~~~**IMPORTANT** Mortgage Claimants ~ PLEASE READ ~~
• Council Tax Bailiffs -pls read all with questions
• Do you want bailiffs forcing entry to YOUR HOME. If not
• Do you want to see bailiffs regulated? Read on...
• Do you want bailiffs forcing entry into your home ?

Good post on the matter from the bailiff Watchdog here.

Really? Sorry, blacksheep, I've lost all respect for you. Nothing personal.

Anyway.

From peterbard's post, thanks peter:

Hi
I have just been reading the response that Reverend Paul Nicolson got back from the DCA when he asked them just exactly who would decide what would be reasonable force and when it would be appropriate.
Unfortunately I do not have a scanner but I will borrow one at the first opportunity and post the whole thing.

Firstly there is a covering letter which thanks him for his initial request under the freedom of information act and giving the following reasons why the report was withheld.

“To release it could prejudice the administration of justice by sharing guidance which provides advice to CEO’s on what do in specific situations:
The disclosure of methods used by Enforcement Agents could assist defaulters to evade Enforcement Officers in the execution of their duties.”

Rev Paul Then wrote back demanding an internal Review regarding the DCA handling of the request
After which they relented and issued a copy of Search and entry powers (Domestic violence, crime and victims act (2004)
You would think that this was a good thing until you open the document.
First page Contents

Heading
During the visit:
Blanked out

Transport of female Prisoners
Blanked out

When Powers may be used
Blanked out

Retention of removed articles
Blanked out

Complaints
Blanked out
There then follows some thirty pages of completely or partially blanked out non information

So much for the freedom of information act

Peter

Originally Posted by blacksheep1979

I personally feel I have been robbed by this person, it would be different if they couldn't afford to pay us back, but the fact that they can and are out there spending money that isn't really theirs is a bit annoying.

"Pay us back", blacksheep ? I assume you mean legally owned debts ?

Are you talking about someone that you personally took to court for money that was owed to you personally ?

I think you need to make this a bit clearer, otherwise folk will assume that you are either a bailiff yourself, or work for a DCA...

The problem is, Blacksheep these people who can afford to pay the debt off in one go were the bailiffs to break in, they will ooze out of it somehow... As usual, if these facist laws are brought in, and frankly if they are then the United Kingdom will officially be a dictatorship - no modern 21st century democracy allows nor should allow these actions.

And the most important thing of all, is, as is always the way, its the vulnerable, and the people who DONT have the money who will suffer. The rich as always will get away with it, sure the bailiffs might kick the door down, and get cash or a check within 2 mins. What about the people who genuinly cant afford it? bailiffs will kick the door in and they WILL threaten to use violence unless you pay, and they WILL give kickings to people for not paying, thats what will happen, afterall, all they do once the police turn up is "he attacked me officer" and the police will back away, understanding that bailiffs now have powers even they themselves as officers dont posess.

In a way it would be poetic if the first bailiffs to use the powers got murdered/severely injured by outraged tentants.. but the way these things go, it would end up being one of the very few decent bailiffs that got the chop.

Originally Posted by blacksheep1979

But surely once the fact that the person owes the money is determined by the court and the fact that they can pay it then they are pretty much committing theft - which is a criminal offence.

I personally feel I have been robbed by this person, it would be different if they couldn't afford to pay us back, but the fact that they can and are out there spending money that isn't really theirs is a bit annoying.

I think Lord Beaumont's scenario is what I fear will happen.

"I have been told of a case in which a lone mother with two children under 16 was fined £175 in her absence for the truancy of one of them. The enforcement agent put her on bail to appear in court on a certain day. It was discovered by a volunteer who prepared her means statement that that the child in question was deaf, the mother was long term unemployed on Income Support, which is below the government’s poverty threshold, and their home was over three and a half miles away from the school. They were vulnerable. The education authority had failed to inform the magistrates of these essential facts. When they heard them the magistrates’ set their decision set aside. The case tried again and she was acquitted.
Under the present regime of collection orders and warrants to force entry, the most likely outcome was that the fine would have been enforced threats will be made to force entry, goods could have been be seized and the magistrates never know the facts.
...
"Such a bad law will certainly be used and abused. I can visualise the possibility of an unemployed lone parent with several children receiving benefit and under stress because of her poverty. The DCA has been shown a copy of answer to the PQ showing that all unemployment benefits are below the government’s poverty threshold. She has been fined for failure to pay her TV licence (now referred to by the DCA as a criminal fine when such fines have in the past been enforced as a civil debt - being a debt to the Crown). She has debts to Provident Plc, the leading home credit company, for £500 on which she is paying £300 interest over a year; HM Revenue and Customs was late in cancelling the child benefit for he eldest son when he reached the age of 18, finished full time education and left home so she repaying an £800 overpayment.
She has not responded to the summons about the TV licence because she is semi literate and cannot afford the transport to the courts and there is no one to look after the children while she is out. She was fined disproportionately in her absence. The male civil enforcement officer/bailiff has a warrant to seize her goods to cover the fine and his fees; he forcibly enters the property with a male colleague; she threatens to punch him on the nose; the two men hold her down and a fight ensues; the children join in defence of their mother and are traumatised. (In different circumstances Social Services put children on the “at risk list” when they are traumatised by domestic violence between partners). Any complaint will be her word against the bailiffs; the chances of her having advice or legal aid are very, very slim. Repercussions in the community against the bailiffs are more likely than any appeal. "

Still okay with this going through?

You need to download the word document on this page here. Sign it, then scan it and email to peterbard or snailmail it to the address on the document.

Peters thread is on all 3 Debt sections.
I have tried to bump it a few times so thanks for bringing it up again.
Time is running out for Peters petition.
I urge all that have not already done so........to get it signed.
I have asked my neigbours to do it as well

Originally Posted by blacksheep1979

Yes it was a personal matter - but I still think this is irrelevant. If a person owes money for an item purchased, screwing someone over, breech of contract or any other real reason, can afford to pay then they should and if they refuse continually then the money should be taken from them by any means possible - but only if they truely can afford to pay. I'm not talking about taking some single mothers last slice of bread and tin of beans but going into someones house and confiscating a plasma screen tv or hifi etc should be perfectly fine - they aren't necessary for living the persons life.

As it was a personal matter blacksheep, I can understand your frustrations. You need to sort this out through the courts... again, if necessary.

In your post however, you are assuming that bailiffs would be operating within a softly, softly framework of understanding. If bailiffs do not operate within the law now, what makes you think that they will do so when armed with the right to break into people's homes and take what they like ? How could these actions be regulated anyway ? A system that is based on such unfairness.... and aimed directly at persecuting the poor and vulnerable will never work in practice.

I therefore suggest that you try and find alternative ways of sorting out your own issues... which I do understand as being extremely frustrating for you.... before supporting methods that would effectively transport most of us right back into the Middle Ages and beyond...

All the very best to you....