Please feel free to post anything my husband or I have posted to who ever can help. Our ultimate goal, like everyone here, is to stop this bill going through in its present format. I's interesting, I lived in Hungary for the last two years before the Communist regime fell (1988/1999). Before that I lived in Italy for 16 years. When I lived in Hungary, the optimism that they were over turning a Communist regime was overwhelming and when I lived in Italy,(in the 70's and 80's) the general perception that they had over turned a history of Facist regime was inspiring. I ask myself now, are we living under a Communist or a Facist regime here? Either way, we seem to have lost the concept of democracy and I do remember being considered as part of a priviledged society when i lived in Italy and Hungary because England was thought of as the pillar of democracy to other countries. So I find it very sad what is happening in the UK now. Best to all Span

Hello to Peter and everyone, If I appear to have been a bit quiet recently it's not because we haven't been busy on this issue and we're still battling away furiously. My husband has been in continual correspondence with various members of the council and our MP. Also, we've had some great support from Sheila Harding who wrote the following letter which she and we have sent to various parties. I've also posted the reply from James Paice MP to us in reply to Shelia's letter: 21st March 2006. Dear Paul, Re: Newlyn Plc and South Cambridge District Council. I refer to our recent telephone conversations in connection with the above, and I would also like to thank you for providing us with copies of your various correspondence on this matter. As I discussed with you, I have attended with various lobby groups at the House of Commons concerning the matter of the forthcoming Tribunals Courts & Enforcement Bill that is of great concern to our company and. without exception, all other advice agencies also. The TCE Bill proposes a whole raft of changes to the manner in which Bailiffs can enforce debts. The worst measure of course being the right to force entry, using force if need be. I will not go into the merits of this bill too much in this letter, suffice to say, that the TCE bill, I believe, is totally and utterly ill conceived and before considering bringing these sort of additional powers, the Government themselves should first ensure, not only that bailiffs are Certificated, but that Local Authority personnel are adequately trained in Bailiff law, with particular emphasis on the fee structure of their bailiffs, who are after all acting as their agents. This has been demonstrated to us yet again, by the letters that have been exchanged with Newlyn Plc, but more importantly by a senior member of staff holding the position of Head of Revenues at South Cambridge District Council. From your letters, what is clear is that your local authority obtained a Liability Order against your company, Zenith Publishing Ltd for arrears of Non Domestic Rates for a business that is run from your home and two liability orders against you personally for arrears of Council Tax. As I understand it also, you have staff, and you can clearly demonstrate that your business is manned 24 hours a day. VISITS 12TH SEPTEMBER 2006 & 3RD OCT 2006. Newlyn‘s allege that they visited you on two occasions: 12th September 2006 and 3rd October 2006 for Council Tax liability. As there is someone at your home 24 hours a day, you claim categorically that these were “phantom visits”. No letters were left as proof of these alleged visits. VISIT 11TH OCTOBER 2006. You have confirmed that a bailiff, by the name of Ben Smith, from Newlyn Plc arrived at your home on this date. Apparently he telephoned his office to obtain a DVLA search on motor vehicle(s) parked at your home. He alleges that he “levied” upon this vehicle. I have grave concerns on this for 2 reasons: if he did carry out this check, it would have revealed the vehicle is not owned by the LTD Company, but is privately owned by your wife. Secondly, if, which is denied, he did levy, no Walking Possession was either completed or signed by you or has been provided as proof by the bailiff. On this day, you paid a total of £948.68 to the bailiff, by way of 2 separate credit card transactions of £667.05 which was in respect of the outstanding NDR and £281.63 in respect of the supposed fees due to that date. To clarify, yet again this was paid on 11th October. You quite rightly have queried the legality of the bailiff charges of £281.63. FEBRUARY 2007. You received instructions that the bailiffs are now to pursue you, yet again, for an additional amount of £258.00 to cover further bailiff fees relating to the arrears of Council Tax. If paid, I have calculated that the bailiff fees to collect the outstanding NNDR and Council Tax liability, on a first visit, would total £539.66 as you maintain that the bailiff only ever made one legitimate visit on the 11th October 2006. The Head of Revenue (Mr Phanco) has itemised these charges as follows: 2005/6 2006/7 12th Sep 2006 1st Visit Fee £22.50 £ 22.50 3rd Oct 2006 2nd Visit Fee £16.50 £ 16.50 11th Oct 2006 Levy Fee Nil £ 43.00 11th Oct 2006 Visit with intention to remove £90.00 £ 90.00 12th Oct 2006 Visit with intention to remove £200.00 12th Oct 2006 Walking Possession Fee £ 11.00 12th Oct 2006 Credit Card Fee £ 13.83 12th Oct 2006 Credit Card Fee £ 13.80 You have clearly identified, and can produce as evidence, a hand written receipt, credit card statements and a typed letter from Newlyn Plc Northampton boldly and largely titled ACCOUNT SETTLED that show that your debt to the local authority was paid in full to the bailiff on 11th October 2006, which included £281.63 of bailiff fees. For this reason, I am at a complete and utter loss to understand how your local authority can possibly say that they believe that the bailiff visited you the following day also and then alter this in their next letter to say it was the 13th October because the system holds more detail on it when the matter is escalated.This is bizarre and in particular of extreme concern as on the face of it, it would appear that they are endorsing a further “phantom” which in any event would be completely unnecessary as you paid this debt in full the previous day/two days before depending on which version of events the Council relies on. EXPLAINATION OF FEES I would now like to refer to the fees charged and in this; Mr Phanco’s (Head of Revenues) makes reference to the fee scales as contained under Head C of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It is worth noting that this original Schedule 5 was replaced in 1993 by the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 1993. All bailiff companies are aware of the judgment of Mr Justice Simon Browne (as he then was) in the High Court case of Evans v South Ribble Borough Council in 1991. In giving his judgement he held the basic principle to be that the process of distress consisted of three stages: The entry into the premises The seizure there of goods….and… The subsequent securing of the goods This matter was also the subject of closer examination still, in a further Court of Appeal Case in 2000 by Lord Justice Browne (as he had by then become).This further clarified the point that goods must have been previously seized…and also that as there was no signed Walking Possession, there was no legal power to charge the Walking Possession Fee. In your particular case, what is not disputed is that a bailiff attended on 11th October 2006, on a first visit for which he can legally charge £22.50 x 3, this is because he would have been enforcing three separate Liability Orders. The bailiff cannot charge the “Attendance to Remove Fee” as this fee requires that a levy (ie: walking possession) must first exist. You did not sign a Walking Possession as claimed and although the bailiff had made a telephone call to query your wife’s motor vehicle, nothing further was done and the debt was paid in full. As discussed with you, at one time, bailiffs were paid a fair commission rate by Local Authorities, which, without exception no longer happens. This commission rate was stopped by local authorities some 12 years ago. Since that time, the bailiff instead has to rely upon a frankly “nominal” amount of just £22.50 for a first visit or £16.50 for a second visit fee. They cannot even charge for a letter fee!! This amount is hardly sufficient to cover the bailiff’s wages, petrol and running costs. After many complaints by the bailiff industry, new regulations have just been introduced to increase these fees. The new charges which will take effect on April Fools Day are £24.50 for a first visit and £18.00 second visit fee !! As a result of the cutbacks by the Local Authorities in the commission rate, the bailiff instead can only rely upon debtors paying amounts for spurious charges often called: Administration Fees, Enforcement Costs, Bailiff’s Porter’s Fees to name but a few. As very few debtors know of their rights, they are instead paying these charges. I intend to write under separate cover for a copy of the Counsel opinion that Mr Phanco appears to be relying upon in this matter. My office has copies of 2 separate Counsel Opinions…..once of which has resulted in bailiff companies having to agree to “Indemnify the Councils against any resulting Court action” for fees that the bailiff continue to charge as result of one of these opinions. CERTIFICATED BAILIFFS Council Tax Regulations provide a legal requirement that only Certificated Bailiffs can levy distress for Council Tax and NNDR. As our office deals daily with complaints about bailiffs, we requested from The Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) a copy of the official Bailiff Register, this is particularly helpful in checking whether the bailiff is or isn’t legally certificated, and very useful when checks need to be carried out “out of office hours” As discussed, I can confirm to you that the bailiff in this particular matter, Mr Ben Smith was granted his Certificate by the District Judge at Uxbridge County Court on 1st March 2004. Certificates last for 2 years, and this one expired over one year ago. Both the Department of Constitutional Affairs and also Uxbridge County Court have confirmed to our office that Mr Smith has failed to renew his Certificate. This is of course extremely serious, in that: if he has “levied” upon goods at homes of any other debtors, this can be seen as “attempting to gain a pecuniary advantage by way of deception, trespass, and of course theft. In this any action would be against the bailiff who attended and any authority that instructed him also. This of course would include your Local Authority. I would like to thank you for bringing this particular case to our companies attention, and it is certainly one that I believe should be copied to the DCA as an example of the bad practice, not only of the bailiff himself,…the company that employs him…..but more importantly, the Local Authority that would appear to be endorsing his action as well. I can provide you with the relevant Form 4, Complaint against a Certificated Bailiff that can be sent to Uxbridge County Court concerning this matter. In addition, I will provide under separate cover, details of the Local Government Ombudsman’s address concerning the actions of this particular Local Authority. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Mrs Sheila Harding. Reply to Shelia's letter from James Paice MP 29/03/07 Dear Mr ******* Thank you for your direct emails and for copies of others. Perhaps I could firstly make the point that I do not appear to have ever received a copy of the letter to which you refer sent to me by your wife. It certainly appears from the letter from Miss Harding that you have a justifiable grievance against South Cambridgeshire District Council. I note that you she is already in contact with the council, but I will of course also pursue it with them. As far as the wider issue of the current proposed legislation is concerned, I know that my colleagues who are handling this matter on behalf of the Oppostion are concerned at some of the measures within it and have already raised them during the committee proceedings. I know that they will continue to do so as the Bill goes through the House of Commons and will endeavour to make the necessary changes for some of the reasons which you identify. Obviously, I cannot guarantee that those changes will be made or that the Bill can be stopped because of the Government's parliamentary majority, but we are aware of the issues. Yours sincerely James Paice MP So, where are we at the moment? Bizarrely, the council now seem to be saying (and this is a quote from my husband's reply to a letter from the council with their offer) : If SCDC and Newlyn Plc stop pursuing me for money I do not owe, then they will not pursue me any further if I agree to not being pursued. Have I got it right? The council have insisted repeatedly that we have had several visits from the bailiffs and that the bailiffs are entitled to claim money from us - even although the information the bailiff's company have sent them has changed the dates of the visits several times now and the council have had the nerve to thank my husband for 'bringing to their attention the poor record keeping'. The bailiffs have now decided to stop any further action (very strange action if they are so in the right)! Apparently this is a business decision because it is taking up too much of their valuable time and is likely to cost more than the anticipated revenues! And they certainly are busy because this bailiff company works for 35 local councils. And that's the really frightening thing. My husband has proved irrefutably that these visits did not take place and he has documentary evidence that proves beyond a doubt that the bailiffs are lying. So, taking the money they have taken in the way they have taken it is theft and blackmail - isn't it? And intentionally placing misinformation on their ICT system to substantiate the fees levied is fraud - isn't it? Both of which are criminal actions - aren't they? So we tried to report this to the police who have told us that it is neither - it is a failure in communication! The council themselves have told us that they issue thousands of warrants every year for coucil tax arrears. That's just our council. Multiply that by the 35 councils Newlyn work for and you have hundreds of thousands (I read on a previous posting that there were 4 million warrants issued for council tax in 2006). It is an impossiblity that our case is unique, so how big a [problem] is this? And we can't stop it because the police say it's not criminal. And the Government's answer to this is to give the very people perpetrating it (endorsed by local government) even more power!!!! Sorry if this is a bit of a book. Will keep you all updated. Best wishes Span

Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay - here's the link: House of Commons General Committee a I sent the Vera Baird quote to a few journalists and I had a couple of replies. One from Henry Porter at the Observer to say he thought it was atrocious and one from Boris Johnson just to say Thanks. Best span

Hi everyone, I have copied these two very important quotes from yesterdays Hansard. This is Tony Blair's legacy to the British people. 750 years of 'An Englishman's home is his castle' has gone out of the window. Bellingham, Mr. Henry /(North-West Norfolk)/ (Con) The case most often cited in relation to the rule that an Englishman’s home is his castle is Semayne’s case. That laid down very clearly that an individual householder has every right to deny entry to a bailiff or agent of the Crown. There have been many famous comments on the case, but none are as well known as that from William Pitt the Elder, first Earl of Chatham. It is a classic passage that sums up why it is so important to preserve that part of common law. In Southam /v./ Smout in 1964, Lord Denning quoted Pitt, who said: “*The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement”*. Baird, Vera /(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs)/ *: *I* am not implying anything. I am telling the hon. Gentleman that a power in the 2004 Act will now exist in the Bill. The power to enforce a fine by entry using reasonable force has been in existence since 2004. It has been that long since the Englishman’s castle crumbled around his ears. (Hansard 20/03/2007 - Committee stage TC&E Bill ). Best wishes Span

Hi everyone, Sorry to have been so out of contact. This bailiff issue has so consumed our lives recently that I really think both my husband and I are on the verge of a nervous breakdown. We've now exchanged a total of 21 letters with the council in a three week period and we have proved to them beyond a doubt that we don't owe them money - in fact they owe us money. But all it has served to do is increase the harrassment and we have received another letter from the bailiffs today. Will post in more detail later the things the council have put in writing that could be helpful to this cause. In the mean time best wishes to all. Span

Hi everyone, I have put this up as a new thread so that everyone see's it. It doesn't say an awful lot but it might mean that at least the Lib Dems will take this us seriously. Best Spandavia Dear Ms //////, Thank you for sending Sir Menzies Campbell MP a copy of your email tothe Prime Minister regarding the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill2006-07. Sir Menzies has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.Your comments have been carefully noted. I have forwarded them to SimonHughes MP, the Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Constitutional Affairs,for his information. Thank you once again for writing to us.Yours sincerely,Anne-Marie BuntingCorrespondence Manager, Office of Sir Menzies Campbell MP

Not suprising you're feeling cranky Peter - this is so frustrating and, as you have pointed out, the media seem relatively uninterested. Still, keep you chin up - as they say, 'it's not over until the fat lady sings'! best Span

Hi everyone, I'm posting to ask if anyone has any evidence or details of phantom visits by bailiffs? We've had a letter today from the head of revenues at our local council today attempting to justify a huge bailiffs bill by telling us they had visited us four times. As we work from home and have staff working here, we know these visits were phantom. We only had one visit. We are doing everything we can think of to fight the propossed TC&E Bill (I have even written to the PM - it's on this site as a seperate thread entitled Letter to PM and it includes all the details of our personal experience with the bailiffs). I think this letter we have had from the council could be an important weapon against this Bill because it shows, quite clearly, that bailiffs lie to the councils about their visits - and it also shows clearly that a council will accept the bailiffs word even when there is documentary evidence to disprove it. I'm wondering if anyone else has similar proof because joint evidence would be even stronger. Hoping to hear from you all. Best Span

Many thanks to all for the comments about my letter. I've sent it to lots of people now including Ming Campbell and David Cameron. But having read the full transcript of Mondays Order Of The Day at the Commons and having seen how Vera Baird just ignores or spins comments from other MP's who are worried about aspects of this Bill - I can't see anyone in the Labour Party taking my letter too seriously! Still, anythings worth a try!! Best wishes Spandavia

Hi Peter and all, Yet again I haven't done much work as I've spent a good part of the day reading the full transcript of Monday's Order Of The day from the Commons. I have cut and pasted the following snippet - I know you have already read this raised this issue on the site but I am so gobsmacked by it that I wanted to share it with everyone again: Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source Before the hon. and learned Lady goes into more detail about the SIA, may I ask her about the magistrates courts guidance on search and entry powers, which was brought in under the 2004 Act to which she referred? That is the guidance to bailiffs as to how they should conduct themselves and what they may do. I understand that part of the guidance has been published, but 15 of the 31 pages have been redacted—that is, blacked out. Is there any possibility of our seeing the full text of the guidance? In the context of her remarks, it is important for us to know what guidance there is to bailiffs. Add your comment Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs) Link to this | Hansard source I am aware that there have been applications to see the full text, but the rationale for leaving out part of the guidance is that if people are told how bailiffs are to go about their business, they can put defence mechanisms in place to stop them. I will make inquiries to see whether parliamentarians on a particular footing may be entrusted with the information. I imagine that that will be possible, but I will have to take advice Are bailiffs to be the new secret police? As far as I know we're entitled to know exactly how the police should operate in relation to the public - but not bailiffs? Can it be legally right for them to withold this important info? I ask this question because I hope that you or someone on the site might know the answer to the legality of Ms Bairds statement. Another thing that occured to me while reading the transcript - this Bill is being propsed at the very moment the issue of bank overcharging is in the headlines and I've heard that it's possible the government want to push this bill through quickly in part to enable credt card companies to collect debts more easily - but surely the same over charging in interest/fees etc. applies to the credit card companies as it did to the banks? And if this is the case - will the bailiffs (complete with their new powers) in many cases be enforcing payment of debts that shouldn't exist? Sorry if I haven't explained that very well - I've only recently considered this - but I hope you see what I mean? Beacuse if this is the reason for rushing the Bill through, shouldn't the credit card companies be restricted to using this method of collection only for debts incurred after the implimentation of the Bill. Other wise we'll see a tidal wave of bailiff collection for debts that have been accruing interest for years! On our own case - we haven't had the bailiff here yet but we have had a letter in the post today telling us that we have to pay £168. So much for the pleasant phone call yesterday telling us it's £39.00. Best wishes Spandavia

Hi Peter and all, Well today has turned out to be a bit of an anti climax - not that we wanted a bailiff visit but having got the message, we were at least well prepared this time. And to be honest, we would rather they came and we dealt with them rather than this almost daily threat of a visit. But we got a phone call from the bailiffs office about 2.00pm and a very pleasant lady (quite a shock that she was quite so pleasant) explained to me that there is only £39.00 outstanding on our account and if I could pay it, she wouldn't send the bailiffs! I asked her what happened to the £258.00 they were claiming last week? She didn't seem to know what I was talking about. I passed the phone to Paul and he had a long conversation with the woman and he explained that we don't owe them anything because we've already paid £281.63 in fees for one visit. She was shocked - and insisted this was not possible! Then she very reasonably said that clearly there was a mistake in all the paper work and she would have to pass the file to her superiors. So the saga continues. Last week the council proposes that we should have the bailiffs fees reduced by £90 and now the bailiffs are saying it's all a mistake and they're not even sure we owe them the £39.00 they asked for today! Of course I'm glad they haven't come but they won't confirm that they're not coming at all so we're sort of in the same boat - waiting for the bailiffs. Anyway thankyou for all your kind words and for thinking of us. Will keep you in the loop if they get back to us. Peter, re my e-mail to Chris Bell: I agree, it would be impossible for him to reply with the list I asked for - but that's not because it doesn't exist, it does, even if only for the purposes of fending off pesky members of the public. Chris Bell was reading the list off to me last night and had I been a bit quicker off the mark, I would have asked him to repeat the list very slowly so that I could write it down. So he's in a sort of Catch 22 position at the moment; he won't want to put in writing what he said last night but neither can he reply saying that the list doesn't officially exist. And if he just ignores my e-mail completely, it could back fire on him down the line i.e what are his reasons for ignoring it? Hopefully he'll get back to me tomorrow. Best wishes to all Spandavia p.s. I copied my letter to the PM to Ming Campbell and my local MP. I can't find an e-mail for david Cameron - only this stupid 'Ask David' thing on his site where by you post a blog and the public vote on which blogs are the most interesting. Then 'David' replies to the three blogs that get the most votes per week. Sort of 'X Files for the democratic masses!

Hi everyone, Just got in and picked up a message on the ansaphone. Apparently the Bailiffs are visiting today. Will let everyone know what happens. Also, I've e-mailed Chris Bell via Michelle McGukien to ask where we can find this list of safeguards and protections the public will have against abuse of power by bailiffs. I will pass on any reply. best wishes to all Spandavia.

Many thanks KJD for your support. I'll let you know if and when I get a reply - but don't hold your breath! best wishes Spandavia

Who knows what they're up to Peter - I did point out that they could regulate bailiffs without these draconian measures but he wasn't having it. I don't think the poor man does anything but take orders and carry them out. He's one of the lucky ones- do your job, get paid, go home, have dinner, take the three week holiday - do your job, get paid....... Thinking is such a dangerous hobby! We shouldn't do it!!! best Spandavia

Hi Peter, No he didn't mention that when he was reeling off the list of regulations for bailiffs - but I did point out to him that no, I haven't seen these new rules because they're not included in any Bill I've read. Hey ho - I'm glad you think it's positive he felt he should speak to me. Personally I'm not so sure. I'm sure that lots of you contacted Michelle via the link you pointed me to at the Commons. So I imagine that he looked at his options and thought - legally trained people in this field or middleaged mum. I'm sure he called me becaue he thought he'd have an easy ride. he didn't get it - but I'm not sure that is going to worry him too much. He reminded me of a junior bank manager - they know what to say but they don't really have an in-depth knowledge wof why they're saying it. except that they have a job to keep. I really think you should have a word with EDIT: Personal Details Removed at ITV who is collating the info for 'Tonight With Trevor'. I spoke to her today and she's just started her investigations into the new bailiff law and she's already outraged. Her phone number is EDIT: Personal Details Removed. Speak soon. Spandavia

I never had a number for Chris Bell - only for Michelle McGuckien who is the administrator (I think she's very junior) for the Bill. Here's the numbers for Michelle (she's going to love me)! Michelle McGuckien TCE Deputy Bill Manager Tel: 0161 868 6606 0207 340 6564 Good luck - my husband is going to try and contact Chris Bell as well - he has a very legal brain and generally leaves it to me to talk to people because I'm more emotive at getting my point across - maybe too emotive - I get so outraged I give up! But only temporarily. Best Spandavia

Hi to Peter and everyone, I have just had a phone call from Chris Bell who is apparently Policy Leader for this Bill. He called me because I had e-mailed Michelle McGuckien who was a link on the Commons post from Peter. She passed my e-mail to Chris and he called. This is a very basic account of our conversation - wish I had recorded it, my brain's already frazzled so I just hope I did some good: Chris started by immediately explaining that we will all benifit from this Bill. Because of this Bill bailiffs will be regulated, they will have special training about how to deal with people, they will have to be certified, they will learn how to evaluate situations so that vulnerable people will be dealt with in a suitable manner and most of all, they won't have the right to kick your door down and enter your premises until every other option has been exhausted. He started going through a list of the protections we will have and the varios regulations bailiffs will have to adhere to under the bill. he asked me if I'd read all of these - I haven't because as far as I know they aren't detailed in the Bill. Maybe they are - in the 15 missing pages! I asked him why bailiffs couldn't be regulated anyway - I pointed out that this government has been promising to regulate bailiffs for a long time and regulating bailffs doesn't need the caviat that they can kick your door in. I reminded him that 'an Englishman's home is his castle' or actually, ' a man's home in his castle' has been part of common law for 700 years. His reply was that a) an Englishman's home hasn't been his castle for a few years now (presumably since the Labour Government came in) because all sorts of people have the right to enter your premises including council officers, police, utiities officials etc. and b) when that law was written in 1267, your home was only your castle if you happened to own a castle!! because no one else had locks on their doors. Therefore anyone could push the door open and enter. Here's a point - I never lock my door. I expect people to knock or ring the bell before entering - especially bailiffs. I expect the people were of the same mind in 1267. Here's another point - surely castles had moats and gates - not locks. I pointed out endlessly that bailiffs take no account of the limited regulation that is in place for them today - so what makes the government so sure they will adhere to new restrictions for them? He was adamant - their new regualtions will protect all people who are anything other than willful debtors. I asked him what he thinks the people of Great Britian will do faced with violent intruders in their houses. I pointed out that the only similarity I could think of was the Nazi party and the Brown Shirts. Chris insisted that the occassions of bailiffs forcing entry will be so minimal and so exclusively refined to genuine wilfull debtors, that we will not need to worry about it. I suggested that, if you can absolutely prove someone is not paying their debt because they just don't want to - then they should go to court. that way they could explain why they don't want to pay - either because of hardship or because they genuinely feel they shouldn't have to pay. And in this instance a judge could decide whether they should have to pay and how. If they don't abide by the judges ruling, he would have the logical options of the law including sending them to prison. Chris's reply was I am the first person he has spoken to for ages who suggested the return of the debtors prison! Very heavy spin!!! Clearly what I was suggesting was that the public would prefer the justice of the court to the justice of the bailiff. I tried very hard to explain what kind of people some bailiffs are - but he wasn't having it. If there are bad bailiffs they will be weeded out by this new Bill. I tried to appeal to his political nature - does Tony Blair really want to be seen as the Prime Minister that over turned a nation's civil rights and ignored the common law that has given us those rights for so long? Answer - we were back to square one - we haven't had those rights for a few years anyway - we won't miss them. I asked him since when does this government have the right to over rule the common law with statute law? His answer was that statute law always over rules common law. I said I though that statute was supposed to reflect common law? No - apparently not. Finally I asked him what he would/will do if bailiffs come and kick his door in, pin him to the ground and remove his goods? Would he not feel inclined to retaliate? Protect himself? Protect his family? His answer was that he is absolutely sure that due to the regulations being put in place by this Bill, such a situation would never arise. Well of course it wouldn't because baliffs will not be allowed to visit officers of councils or the government. So of course Chris can be absolutely sure that he is immune from this sinister situation! By this time I was so exasperated and frustrated I agreed we couldn't agree and told him I think we're on the brink of a blood bath in this country. We mutually gave up. I'm sure he thinks I'm a feisty bitch - my opinion of him? Nice enough guy - doing his job - saying all the right things that he has to say as part of that job. The most important thing that I remember of our conversation is that at one point I had to say to him "you are talking as if the passing of this Bill is a foregone conclusion" and his answer was "it has to be because it's the only way we can regulate bailiffs". So there it is - in my opinion this government is determined to pass this Bill regardless of what anyone thinks, says, or does. So I'm not expecting a reply from the Prime Minister to my letter and I just hope I win the lottery so I can get the hell out of here. But of course that isn't the answer when you have two children and two step children - who's going to protect their rights? Sorry to end the evening on a downer everyone. Best wishes Spandavia

Dear all, I wanted to share this with everyone. I'm still awaiting a visit from the bailiffs and the whole issue of what will happen if the proposed Bill goes through is depressing me so much I can hardly function. i.e. I have hardly done any work for days now and I just rack my brains continually to think of how on earth this sinister situation can be avoided. Sadly I don't have the money to challenge the government in the courts and I wouldn't know how to do it anyway - so I've done the only other thing I could think of - I've written a letter to the Prime Minister. I'm sure lots of people have already done this but one more can't hurt and maybe it would even be a good idea for us all to write to him -DAILY!!!! I've copied it below for everyone to read. Best wishes to all Nikki Dear Tony Blair I am writing to you as a 50 year old wife, mother and terrified citizen of this country – and I am not alone. You already know, I’m sure, that many people in Great Britain are concerned about some of the new laws your government has pushed through in the last couple of years but few are as sinister and potentially catastrophic as the TC &E Bill you are attempting to pass now. If you implement this bill you will be responsible for domestic violence (i.e. violence in the home) on a scale never seen here and only comparable with Nazi Germany. I can only imagine that you are allowing your government to attempt to implement this Bill having had no personal experience of a bailiff visit and therefore I am writing to tell you personally exactly what it is like. And I hope that when you have read this you will not want to endorse legislation that will legalise harassment and violence against the people of your own nation. The following is an account of my own experience which I posted on a consumer website and which has been copied to various Members of Parliament: As I write this, I am sitting in my house with all the windows and doors closed (stuffy) because we are waiting for a visit from a bailiff - for something we do not owe! The bailiffs insist that we owe them £258 for Council Tax Arrears. The council has confirmed that we have no arrears either for council tax or business rates - but the council never the less insist that we DO owe the bailiffs money for visiting us. When the bailiffs did visit us, back in October, we paid them a fee of £281 over and above the £600+ we paid for the debt. We then set up a payment schedule with the local council for the remaining council tax and business rates (bear in mind that we were appealing against the business rates when the bailiffs came). We paid over £3000 to the council in a period of approx. 7 weeks and we also paid the court liability orders. All arrears were paid by Dec 14th and as far as we were concerned that was the end of it. On Feb 14th we got a letter from the bailiff addressed to 'the occupier' saying that they were looking for my husband - why they were looking I don't know, we live here and we work here - we're pretty easy to find! We called the Council and they confirmed that we had paid all our Council Tax liability. The letter(s) from the Bailiffs were followed up with two notices saying that they would be visiting us on 17th Feb to remove goods to the value of £129.00 x 2 for 'outstanding council tax'. We got this notice on the 16th Feb. We spoke to the council again who said they would confirm in writing that we didn't owe them anything. Then we spoke to the bailiffs who said they would delay collection for two weeks so that we could get confirmation from the council that there was no debt. When the council's letter finally came, it said we had no arrears but we did owe £258.00 to the bailiffs. We asked them what for? We've had one visit, for which we paid £281.93 - what was the £258.00 for? My husband pointed out that if the bailiff felt we owed them this money then surely they should send us an invoice - not on behalf of the council - and we could challenge it in court. What did the council have to do with it? Why is a local council allowing its name to be used to collect bailiff’s fees? Subsequent to various e-mails backwards and forwards, it now appears that a) the council would appear to have issued instructions to the bailiffs for an extra debt that we (nor they?) know anything about and b) the council have paid the money we paid to them, to the bailiff? So do bailiffs now factor for local councils? Or are they just viewing a shared system and if so, why? Anyway we've got nowhere thus far. We've spoken to the council, the bailiffs, our local councilor, a company called 'payplan' who give free information about bailiffs (and they're advice was 'pay it - you can always try and get it back later'), citizens advice and even the police. No one can explain to us why we are being asked to pay over £500 for one visit from the bailiff - who did not enter the premises or levy distress. According to the original paper work we got from the council, a bailiff can charge £22.50 for the first visit. So in the mean time we're awaiting the visit with doors and windows shut. We've advised our local councilor that we are going to video any bailiff who comes here and we will make the video available to any newspaper, TV or media that we feel should see just how heavy handed these people are. Personally I believe this has been caused by an error in the council office but that is not the point. For what ever reason this has happened it is nothing less than unbelievable that people in Britain - a country that has always prided itself on being a democracy that upholds peoples rights to civil liberties, should find itself in this sorry state. As you can probably deduce from this, we are fortunately not the kind of people to take this lying down and we are incensed rather than intimidated. But what about old age pensioners, single mums, or anyone who finds themselves on their own facing legalised thugs at the door? I am not suggesting in any way that people should not pay their bills - but the speed with which these situations arise is frightening. We weren't even assessed for business rates until late May last year and then it was backdated for two years thus causing the large debt and we we were in the process of appealing both that and the significant rise in our council tax when we had the visit from the bailiffs. But we weren't given the time to resolve anything - the council with the help of the courts just sent in the bully boys. I know, from all that I have read since this happened, that there are far worse cases than ours but I'm hoping that we will ultimately get an invoice from the bailiffs. Unless they can prove it is reasonable to charge such huge fees for a single visit, we will not pay it and they can pursue the matter in the small courts. That is the only way we can see to high light the matter. There is no guarantee, even then, that the system will be altered but it is surely worth a try. In the mean time I have, of course, joined the petition. I'll keep everyone posted on the outcome of the bailiffs visit - if he actually turns up. Many thanks to Peter and all those who are trying to protect our civil liberties. Let's hope this government will listen. Best wishes What this letter doesn’t mention is how terrifying it is to have semi literate, burly men in bomber jackets and ‘bovver boots’ with aggressive attitudes standing at you door threatening you. And as we await their return we cannot help but wonder what the outcome of such visits will be when you have authorised them to break into our property? They will be able to break the door down and use physical restraint on us while they remove our goods and even our pets! And how do you think the average member of the British public will react to this when it happens to them? I fully believe that not many of them will take it lying down. I do not tarnish all bailiffs with the same brush but in far too many cases bailiffs are simply legalised thugs who have got their job for the very reason that they are intimidating. And for the same reasons the British stood up to German thugs over 60 years ago, we will have to do so again but this time for the protection of our own democracy . People just won’t allow themselves to be treated like this and they will fight back. So this bill is going to turn decent, law abiding citizens into criminals who will have no alternative but to use violence to protect themselves from violence. Please do not delude yourself into thinking that bailiffs only visit terminal debtors who have no intention of paying their bills. We live in a consumer society where everyone has been given the opportunity to get into debt with credit cards, store cards, bank loans, and mortgages. We have been encouraged to have these things and rightly or wrongly we have them complete with exhorbitant interest charges. On top of that we have all sorts of taxes and I recently read that 80% of money collected by bailiffs relate to government taxes e.g council tax and congestion charges. People at the bottom of the wage scales and pensioners are having a very hard time in Britain and these are the people who will be hit hardest by this new bill. But they are by no means the only people who will experience this personal rape. Just today I received a link to an article in the Daily Mail on line by Richard Littlejohn who wrote about a typical example happening to a well known person. Here’s the link if you’d like to read it: State-sponsored daylight robbery | the Daily Mail I urge you as a mother and a citizen to modify this aspect (Enforcement) of the Bill and if you do, it will be one of the most important things you will have done as Prime Minister. ‘An Englishman’s Home Is His castle’ and has been for over 700 years in the common law with regard to bailiffs. Please do not be the Prime Minister who destroys that right. The proposed Bill is evil and an insult to democracy. It can only bring about dire results and reckless behaviour. Finally, I know you are extremely busy but can I ask that you send a reply to this letter that addresses the matter and if it doesn’t confirm that the Bill will be modified then please give me your reasons for believing you are justified in passing it with its present intended powers for the bailiffs. A simple ‘thank you for your letter bla bla’ reply would be inappropriate given how serious this matter is and how many people the wrong outcome will affect. Yours sincerely Nikki Turner

many thanks for that update Peter. How bizzare this whole thing is! 15 pages blocked out!!! I have just posed this question on the Question Time website: The old adage 'an Englishmans home is his castle' which is based in the common law and has been upheld for over 700 years is to be abolished if the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill becomes law in it's present form. Does the panel think that giving bailiffs more power than the police so that they can break into people's homes is good law or will it just be further hardship for the most vulnerable people in society and increase domestic violence? I hope they use it as the programme is a forum for serious debate. Could be useful if lots of people sent them a similar question - what do you think? here's a link to the programme: BBC NEWS | Programmes | Question Time

I was quite disappointed with the Wright Stuff - Mr Wright seemed fairly cavalier about the situation even although he has had a visit from a bailiff. I think the problem is that people who haven't experienced this situation just assume that people with a debt deserve all they get! So I'm not sure how you get the seriousness of this bill across to the general public because they think it doesn't affect them. Which of course it does! I tried to find out yesterday who had posted about the bailiffs collecting for ID cards (I copied the post to this site) because this seems very serious and an explanation of why the government are so eager to push the bill through. But the site it was on is locked and you can't reply to posts. Has anyone else heard any mention of this? Best to all.

Me again, Not getting any work done today because I'm totally mesmerised by the number of things I'm finding on the net relating to the demise of our civil rights. Just found this article (see link) and I suspect some of you have already seen it. But for those who haven't - have a read and lock up your pets!!! Thank God my husband is the boss here or I'd definitely get the sack! London Motorists Action Group - IS THE GOVERNMENT FEATHERING ITS OWN NEST BY HARSHER BAILIFF LAW?

Hi everyone, I just found this on a BBC forum - thought you'd all like to see it as it explains such a lot!! Posted: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:17:25 +0000 Post subject: BBC News: Ministers warned over bailiff law http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6358591.stm Quote:New powers for bailiffs may be at risk of contravening human rights laws, a committee of MPs and peers has warned. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill proposes new powers, including forced entry and the right to restrain people, for enforcement agents. Any changes to how bailiffs are allowed to operate is significant because the government intend to use fines enforced by bailiffs to enforce compliance with ID Cards. To give bailiffs the power of forced entry would represent a major erosion of civil rights for non-payers and the heavily indebted in general.Back to top

Hi everyone, Below is the email I sent to Michelle McGuckien. I have had a read receipt this morning at 10.20 and I hope she will take my points into consideration. Since sending this my husband has heard an article on Sky News saying that this new law will allow credit card companies to use baliffs without going through the normal court processes! Where are we going? Dear Michelle McGuckien, Thank you for your reply and yes there are other comments I would like to make but not in relation to my own situation (I would like to resolve my own situation but I am sure this is a small part of a much bigger picture). As my husband and I are going through this stressful period and have had a visit from a very aggressive bailiff, it has prompted me to read every thing possible on the Internet about this predicament. I can only write to you from the point of view of a mother and a housewife (albeit a professional publisher - but in this instance let's leave it as a Mum and a wife) and I would like to raise the following general points that I hope will be taken into consideration: * Letters regarding the imminent arrival of bailiffs can arrive any time usually between one and four days before their visit. Understandably this gives little time for anyone to contact the relevant parties to resolve the issues (and if there is a weekend in this period, there is no time). I am sure the bailiff's offices would say that they they advise people within seven days. This is simply not a consistent circumstance and very often the letters are dated seven days before the proposed visit but then posted second class the day after the letter is written. My point? People should be given more time to resolve this especially as it is not a foregone conclusion that you get any notification the issue is going to court. therefore you are dealing with a foregone conclusion that you knew nothing about. Therefore, on this and other matters, the bailiff companies must be strictly regulated. * The majority of people receiving these letters are not, due to unforeseen circumstances, in a position to pay the fines and charges imposed on them. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that everyone is given a reasonable amount of time to resolve their financial situation and there should surely be some legislation allowing them to do so. i.e. if Mrs X owes the council £500 it is not reasonable that she should be asked to pay £800 + on the spot which she clearly cannot do and which she has no time in any event to arrange (there is a tariff that bailiffs should adhere to re Council Tax but, as I have found myself, visits seem to be unprescribed as to how they are defined and charges therafter are an unstated amount enforced as and when the bailiffs decide and generally masqueraded by the word ' reasonable' - and even months after the disputed matter has been satisfied). We already have a situation whereby bailiffs can very often appear menacing. In many cases they are not reasonable intelligent people but rather uneducated, violent and even ignorant people who have been employed partly because of their intimidating looks and attitude . I regret to say that because it sounds as if I am putting all bailiffs in the same boat - I am not - but it has been my unfortunate experience to encounter the kind of people who would be better employed by Tony Soprano than by the local council! These people may not intimidate everyone but I am absolutely convinced that they threaten and frighten some people beyond the limits that a reasonable democratic society should allow. * If this new bill is passed allowing bailiffs to force entry into any person's property I can foresee only the most extreme of results. People who are already stressed by difficult circumstance have only one bastion left to protect - their own home! To allow people to be violated in their own homes by legalised thugs (and I'm sorry but that is what some bailiffs are) is ultimately a recipe for disaster. I don't want to be emotional about this matter (clearly emotion would not be useful) but I have lived abroad for 20 of my 50 years. I've lived in Italy, France, Germany and Communist Hungary and I have never, not even in Hungary, seen such unorthodox measures used on a post war populace. I cannot believe this government is so detached from its own people that it would believe this bill could be passed without dire consequence. * Should the bill be passed it should be noted that the local council, for one, is inundated with queries about their billing. In my own case we are convinced that the wrong documentation was passed to the bailiff because we have already completely satisfied any debt as per their instructions and including any bailiff's fees- but there has been no time to debate or resolve this - simply letters from the bailiffs to say WE'RE COMING, YOU MUST PAY. Why should we pay when there is no payment due? Why should we be harassed by aggressive people coming to our door and demanding entry because no one at the council will attend to this? I use my local council only as an example. In this technological age it is actually terrifying just how much wrong data is exchanged. Computers may be full proof but, as yet, they still rely on humans to input the information and humans are not full proof. * This is not an easy time for many people in this country. At the same time we are reading about the billions of dollars the banks make, the millions of dollars the stock brokers make in bonuses and the trillions of dollars big business make, we are also hearing why millions of people are not getting the pensions they believed they had paid for and why the small trader is continually squeezed out of the market place and into bankruptcy. It is tough enough without the government passing bills that sends the brown shirts in! * Finally (and probably most importantly from a Government point of view), I understand from what I have read that this Bill overturns over 700 years of precedent in the common law. Since circa 1300, it has been each citizen's fundamental right to refuse entry of a bailiff to his home - an Englishman's home is his castle. This right has been upheld throughout the intervening years by case law including Semayne's case in the 1600s and, more recently, by a Judgement of Lord Denning in the early sixties. This Bill has not been fully debated as to this fundamental point in the chamber of the House of Commons and I would suggest will undoubtedly lead to a difference of opinion between the legislature and the judiciary. The present situation is good law and this Government seems to be seeking to overturn good law with draconian powers given to uncertified "hoodlums" which allows them to break into people's homes, use physical violence if necessary to achieve their aim and get passed by the legislature without due process. It will give unbelievable power to corporate business who will undoubtedly utilise the Act (if the Bill becomes one in it's present form) to threaten everyone and ultimately it will be challenged through the Courts but only after a huge amount of anxiety, anguish and possible domestic violence incurred by the actions of bailiff companies. It is a fundamental afront to the ancient rights of the people of this country. Please take into account all of the above when passing your bill. I sincerely believe that this bill will only result in extremely violent reaction from both the public and the bailiffs. Certainly I am not eager to allow anyone to break into my family's house without resistance - and I don't believe that anyone passing the bill would be eager to have a similar event. The fact that the people passing the bill might never be in that position is immaterial - we all find ourselves in different positions at different times. The times when people are at their lowest ebb is surely not the time that their own government would kick them! Finally, if you have any doubts that I am exaggerating the possible negative results of this bill, please visit the Consumer Action site and read some of the truly dreadful accounts posted on there. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs/ I hope this letter will be useful in your debate. I will try to call you tomorrow to discuss this but I suspect the bill will already be in debate. Yours sincerely

Dear all, I apologise that I haven't posted earlier. It's not because I don't want to progress or support this - simply a matter of hours in a day when you have teenage kids, an elderly mother and a business! I had a reply on Friday to the e-mail I sent to the links for that Commons (as recommended by Peter). The reply came from: Michelle McGuckien TCE Deputy Bill Manager Tel: 0161 868 6606 0207 340 6564 It was a fairly vague reply but it gave her contacts in case I wanted to discuss this or send any further comments. I enclose these details because I think I'm not the only one who wants to send comments in! I am going to compose a reply with more comments tomorrow and I will post it to all as soon as I have sent it. I'm also going to phone her on Monday - I know that Monday is the deadline for the second reading of the bill. We continue on in paranoia here and I'm minded of the phrase, 'just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not out to get you'! Sadly I believe this government is out to dominate everyone with these tactics. And at 51 I'm just about old enough to remember how proud England was in the 60's at having stood up to sinister regime in the 40's. How times change!!!! I've read some really disturbing things on the threads on this site - and sadly we don't all have the option of just moving to another country!! Thank goodness there are people like Peter and others who are willing to make a stand. Will post again tomorrow with my letter to Michelle. Best wishes to all Spandavia