Jump to content

Tuco

Registered.
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Tuco

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I agree-Although I do feel that you owe it to the OP to explain exactly why his Mother cannot refuse permission to enter her home, especially as she doesn't have any debt. Surely you would want to offer her protection, given that the bailiff has told her that he will remove anything, regardless of who it belongs to? I would have hoped that this sort of scenario was exactly the type that inspired you to campaign for debtors rights to refuse entry?
  2. Okay. For clarity, the courts have determined that there is an implied right of entry if a bailiff discovers an unlocked door. This is completely separate to an implied right of access. How do you think that it was originally determined that a bailiff may enter through an unlocked door? It's hypothetical in any case as a letter refusing permission to enter covers unlocked doors in any case. If you recall, you yourself were active in ensuring that debtors have the right to refuse entry. I Simply advise people to act on this right by placing revocation of permission in writing. It's nothing to do with fmotl, it's a basic right of any council tax debtor
  3. Oh right-So we can only imply a right if it's in connection with ancient law. Priceless-I must inform Mr K
  4. "Another implied right "??? You Can imply a right to almost anything. Does a bailiff need permission to enter? Can a debtor refuse permission? Is a letter in writing sufficient refusal? Three simple and reasonable questions. Not sure quite how you connect it to fmotl? If you answered no to any of those quet, you might as well give up now. It really is basic and straightforward. I fail to see any need to complicate things
  5. Nobody is suggesting a letter to remove implied right of access. We are talking about implied right of entry. The two are completely separate issues. A bailiff implies a right to enter if he discovers an unlocked door. Informing him in writing that his permission to enter is denied will stop him in his tracks- especially if the householder is not the debtor. Have a look at the thread by BMW boy. B&S claim that although they have been unsuccessful in gaining entry, they will "endeavour " to continue to try. A letter in writing confirming that permission is refused would have killed off any attempt. There are actually several letters in place currently that have stopped subsequent visits. There is of course discretion to visit but once the £235 fee has been triggered, the will to do so evaporates. Especially as there is 0% chance of goods being seized as entry to the premises is not possible. Please refrain from "correcting me with nothing but your own opinions. If you have evidence then let's see it. I of course do have evidence that this type of letter succeeds
  6. There is no problem The EA has no discretion. It has been placed in writing that he may not enter the property. It doesn't even matter if the son is inside, swigging a bottle of whiskey & smoking a big fat spliff. People are getting a tad confused here between council tax enforcement and fines enforcement. For fines, a bailiff may force entry-For council tax, he needs to be invited in or imply right of entry through an unlocked door. A householder may refuse this-Again people are getting confused, it doesn't have to be a verbal refusal, a written refusal works just the same-Better in fact because a copy can be sent to the creditor and there can be no doubts, further on down the line.
  7. The bailiff can ask for what he likes The homeowner/tenant is under no obligation to provide it. He may enter a home peaceably, with the occupiers permission-Once permission is declined, he is under a duty to abide by that decision, just like you or I would be The Mother would not be in any trouble whatsoever, let alone serious trouble-I repeat, we are living in the UK, not North Korea.
  8. Unfortunately for the council, much as they'd like to, they cannot simply add £37 here and there when they feel like it. They have to pursue the figure granted on the liability order. Unfortunately for you, many people miss their last payment, many see this as a last act of defiance. Bailiffs are ready when this happens and don't hang around. £40 is way too much for it to be as a result of the 7.5% add on. You need to question whether this £37 should be lawfully collected. As they are visiting your mothers house, all she needs do is drop a short line to the bailiffs, informing them that you do not reside there and that she does not want them visiting or harassing her. She should also state clearly that she is refusing permission to enter her home Lets see them touch her stuff then.
  9. Hi Con I have been reading this thread with interest for some time. Tonight, I have decided to register in order to respond. Firstly, I can assure you that nobody else other than yourself is in danger of having goods removed unless they are named on the liability order -This is the UK, not North Korea, we still require due process here. Secondly, I think you are taking your eye off the target. You have no need to get dragged into petty squabbles regarding what is owed, what the bailiffs can take and what is outstanding. The bottom line is that JBW are trying to royally shaft you and this is what you need to address. I would venture to suggest that any agreement that you have made was done so verbally over the phone? Did JBW follow this up with anything in writing? If so, did it mention a specific date that payments should be made by? Did it mention the consequenses, if you didn't pay by that date? The answers to the above are not crucial as your case is very strong in any case, the answers may determine what follows though. You need to send in a formal complaint to the council. Your grounds are: 1. The unreasonableness of JBW's actions 2. What was the purpose of the visit when the payment had already been made? 3. Why was the visit made so long after the payment had been made? 4. What harm was caused to JBW and/or the council by the payment being 2 days late? 5. Why visit in the middle of March when the final payment was due in less than 2 weeks in any case? 7. Why have no further visits been made? (the answer is because JBW cannot manufacture any further fees) 8. You agreed to make monthly payments and you kept to this-This was the agreement. 9. Ask the council to supply copies of any agreements made You now consider the matter closed and you ask the council to put a stop to the intimidation and harassment that JBW are inflicting on you.
×
×
  • Create New...