Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'implied'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums


  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




Found 7 results

  1. nhs contracts? Hi all, i am now working in the nhs as part of the theatre department and in doing so signed the usual contract agreeing to working on calls, late shifts and weekends etc, the problem is that some staff are not taking part in this arrangement because of various reasons ( my cats scared of the dark or little johnny wets the bed) sanctioned by the managers and therefore the remaining staff are having to work extra shifts to compensate. My question is, are we all being treated equally and do we have any basis for taking action against the management. Any help would be great. Cheers.
  2. Hi All, First thing, is this notice now legal or does it need more work? READ THIS NOTICE Removal of ‘Implied Right of Access’ Notice: Except: Family, Friends, Postal Services, Delivery Services and the Emergency Services - (limited to the time needed to deal with the reported emergency), a Bailiff with a valid Court Order Signed by a Judge including full printed name of Said Judge. (Note: A Bailiff has NO legal right to force access (nor is it implied by this notice) to a residential property, only by “Peaceful” enter by invite only)). Any other person(s) and/or any companies not on the exceptions list above will be liable to Prosecution for Trespassing - definition: [Entering onto land without consent of the landowner/homeowner or Tenant] and be fined £1000. Access MUST have been granted by prior appointment ONLY by the landowner/homeowner or Tenant of the Property. Note: CCTV is in use on this PRIVATE PROPERTY. Thank you. Second, if you have this notice up can this be used as a defence against the "amended in 2014" Dangerous Dogs Act", which states "Except Trespasses", meaning your Dog will not be taken away as the "Implied Right of Access" Notice (excluding people named on the Exceptions) are now trespasses. Thanks for any input and help. Paul Barnes
  3. p3t3r wrote: The Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access - this is a perfectly valid notice, - my opinion of this is backed up by the ruling from Judge Pugh which is shown earlier in this thread. The notice is akin to 'No Cold Callers' notices which are supplied by various police forces, councils etc. In relation to bailiffs, the notice is not considered to be valid. Firstly, there is no implied right of access for a bailiff since it is an explicit right. The bailiff has the right to attend the property and as such ignore the notices. IMPORTANT: Anyone relying on this notice to get rid of the bailiff is more likely to suffer financially since they are presumably under the illusion that such a notice would simply get rid of the bailiff. In this instance, the notice is absolutely useless because the bailiff does not have an implied right whatsoever, the bailiff has an explicit right - which is backed up by UK legislation which affords such right to the bailiff. Again, this is backed up by Judge Pugh. So, whilst the notices are akin to 'no cold callers' notices and apply to the vast majority of people, the notices do not apply to people who have a legal right to attend your home. The bailiff has a legal right in UK law to attend a debtors home. The reliance on such notices by individuals can lead to a dangerous scenario since the individual is under the false illusion purported by FMOTL that the notices are valid. Again, to put it simply, the notices are not valid to anyone who has a legal right to attend a home - and this includes bailiffs who are given the legal right to attend a home. Now, turning to a possibility as to how the notice is valid against bailiffs. EU law, ECHR, human rights... Lets take an example of council tax. If a debtor can not pay council tax, then their ability to pay should be assessed by a court. My opinion: If the person does not have an ability to pay, then allowances should be made by the court. In no circumstance should a liability order be granted on a person who does not have an ability to pay their council tax since as this is perverse! There is absolutely no point in instructing bailiffs to attend a debtors home and therefore significantly increase the debt by adding on bailiff fees. However, in the case of a debtor who can afford to pay but does not pay, then bailiffs should attend. IMO, bailiffs should be used as a last resort against the debtor who refuses to pay where all other possibilities have been exhausted such as deductions from benefits, salary deductions etc. There are IMO various EU laws which would help with the validity of the Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access. Firstly, the right to a fair trial. There is absolutely no fair trial in the scenario of council tax where liability orders are processed almost automatically, 'rubber stamped' by the Judges. This goes against ECHR article 6, the right to a fair trial. If the debtor has not had a right to a fair trial as defined by ECHR article 6, then the bailiff should be informed of this in conjunction with ECHR article 8, the right of respect for his home, family etc. The debtor should make their case known to the bailiff and the bailiffs client. If the bailiff does not leave the property after being informed of ECHR article 6 and article 8, then it could be argued that the bailiff is in violation of those applicable laws. This is my opinion and until someone actually tests the legality of this in a court, then it is just that, an opinion. A (BBC?) report which can be seen from one of my links in this thread from a few years ago states that the use of bailiffs should decrease since the human rights act. Unfortunately, I feel the reverse has happened in the fact that liability orders are rubber stamped and as such bailiff use has increased rather than decreased. Again,I reiterate that use of such notices are ineffective against bailiffs and other people who have a legal right under UK legislation to attend the home of a debtor. However, as Judge Pugh has outlined, the notices are valid toward those people who do not have a legal right to be at the property. Usage of such notices used in conjunction with that of various EU laws and human rights should IMHO prevent the bailiff from attending the property until such time that a FAIR TRIAL (article 6 ECHR) has occurred. The debtor should then escalate their case using ECHR and EU law in order to provide remedy. Summary: Notice of implied right of access is perfectly valid, but not valid against people (bailiffs) who have an explicit legal right to attend. However, such right should be examined under EU law since I feel that more often than not, article 6 has been violated (fair trial) which would then lead to article 8 violated. EU law / ECHR - This trumps UK law! Whilst people may have an explicit right under UK law to attend a debtors home, this is not necessarily so using EU law. Discuss.
  4. Six years ago (in 2009) a Freeman on the Land (FMoTL) supporter by the name of Mike Dobson (Mike:of the clan Dobson) drafted a Removal of Implied Right of Access notice which he used to ‘scare off bailiffs’. He advised on the Freeman Ireland website that the notice should be put up at the boundary of the ‘private estate’ and the ‘public access way/street’ and that if a bailiff came to the door of the house they should be politley told that they would be trespassing and that they would have just 60 seconds to leave before a call would be made to the Police. Due entirely to the internet, the Removal of Implied Right of Access notice drafted by Mike Dobson went 'viral' and appeared on the Freeman on the Land’s favorite media outlet; YouTube. In 2010, the notice first appeared on the popular FMoTL forum; Get out Of Debt Free. Within a short time all popular Freeman on the Land websites carried the notice with many of them making their own changes to the wording. In March 2014 I researched the background to these silly notices and started a thread on this subject which to date has received over 12,000 visitors (link below): http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from PS: Unfortunately, the internet sites that recommended using this notice were unaware that the notice proved to be a complete and utter failure for it’s author; Mike Dobson (see link below) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from&p=4664219&viewfull=1#post4664219
  5. Enter the words” Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access” into your computer search engine and you will be referred to various websites with connections to Freeman on the Land movement and other “get out of debt free” sites. If seeking help regarding bailiffs pursuing a Liability Order for unpaid council tax or a warrant of execution for an unpaid parking charge notice you will soon discover that such sites actively encourage debtors to display a “Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access” ……(many times shortened to NORIRA) in the mistaken belief that in so doing, this will legally prevent a bailiff from entering the property boundary and will stop all enforcement of the debt. For those unfamiliar with such notices it is purported on such websites that if the bailiff ignores the Notice of Implied Right of Access that the occupier of the property may legally instigate a claim of trespass against the bailiff company. It is very well established that debtors can in any event refuse to allow a bailiff to have “peaceful entry” into their property and the Court of Appeal stated this very clearly in the case of Khazanchi v Faircharm Investments [1998] A recent instance of a debtor who used this Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access procedure occurred in the summer of 2012. The claim related to an outstanding council tax debt which Rossendales had been instructed to collect by the local authority concerned. The case is an interesting one concerning these Notices of Implied Right of Access which are a defective idea and cannot have the effect claimed for. Background In July, the debtor wrote a letter to Rossendales headed “Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access.” It was sent by recorded delivery. The letter purported to be a legal notice removing the bailiff’s right of access to the debtor’s property and warned that any attempt to enter the address by a bailiff of the company would be deemed as trespass. The letter went on to say that a criminal complaint would be filed against any party violating the notice and that a penalty of £750 would be charged. Rossendale's responded to the letter by advising the debtor that as a liability order had been obtained at the magistrates court and instruction had been received from the local authority to execute distress, that the bailiff was able to legally attend the property in order to enforce the debt. Subsequently,a visit was made to the debtor’s property by the bailiff. No contact was made with the debtor at this particular visit although the relevant bailiff attendance documents were left at the property by the bailiff. The next step taken by the debtor was for a claim to be lodged to the county court for an alleged trespass by Rossendales Ltd on his property. The case was heard at Norwich County Court in January 2013 via*the Small Claims Track before District Judge Pugh. Particulars of claim: These were as follows: • The claimant (debtor) had served Rossendales Ltd (defendant) with a Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access by recorded delivery in respect of the claimant’s property. The notice contained contractual terms and conditions including a penalty of £750 to be paid by Rossendales in the event of trespass. • By the bailiff subsequently attending the claimant’s property it was averred that an act of trespass was committed and the contractual term to pay the trespass fee stated in the Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access had been accepted by the defendant. • The bailiff had no legal right to attend the claimant’s property as he did not possess a copy of the liability order. • Reference was made to the case Davis v Lisle KBD 1936 in which the Court of Appeal held that a permission given to enter private property may be revoked, making the visitor a trespasser. At the hearing: Rossendales as the defendant, rebuffed the claims made stating that it had authorisation from the local authority to execute distress (a copy of which was made available at the hearing), but that Regulation 45(1) Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (S.I.1992/613) provides that: "Where a liability order has been made, the Billing Authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of goods of the debtor against whom the order was made" Furthermore, Regulation 45(7) says that: "A distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order, and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser on that account".; and that: "no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser from the beginning on account of any subsequent irregularity in making the distress, but a person sustaining special damage by reason of the subsequent irregularity may recover full satisfaction for the special damage (and no more) by proceedings in trespass or otherwise". Judge Pugh questioned the legality of the claimant’s case. He said that while he had no reason to query the use of the Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access, he felt that its relevance in this particular matter was left wanting, as withdrawing consent to the right of access to the property did not override the legal right of the bailiff. He agreed with Rossendales that the bailiffs had been granted powers by statute contained within the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 to levy distress and that as per Regulation 45(7) they could not be considered a trespasser. The Judge went on to say that as a liability order had already been granted by the magistrates court, he had no reason to “look behind” the validity of the application and did not intend to question this further, accepting that any appeal relating to the making of the order should have been made to the magistrates court after the original liability order hearing. Furthermore, the Judge said that despite what the claimant had written in the notice regarding contractual terms and conditions, it was not a contract as there was no consideration from either party involved. The claimant could not simply rely on Rossendales accepting the terms of the notice purely because they carried on with the lawful act of levying distress. The Judge felt that the claimant was confusing the law of contract with the tort of trespass – which was a different element of law altogether. It was stated by Judge Pugh that it is a common misconception that trespassers can be automatically prosecuted when in fact they cannot. Instead, an aggrieved individual would have to demonstrate that there had been a loss as a result of damagescaused by the defendant’s alleged trespass Despite remonstrations from the claimant, the Judge dismissed any reference to the case Davis v Lisle* (1936) mentioned in the claimants application, saying that it did not bear any direct relevance to the matter before him between the claimant and Rossendales. The question was put to the claimant; where was the loss in this particular instance? The claimant could not provide any evidence to support his claim. Conclusion: The subject of “penalty clauses” is one that is currently causing a great deal of debate in particular; with private parking companies who frequently attempt to impose a penalty charge of up to £100 ( and in some cases even more) for overstaying the stated parking time in supermarket car parks such as Lidl, Morrison, Aldi etc. POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) and the county courts are frequently rejecting such charges on the basis that they are not a “genuine pre-estimate” of the likely damages experienced. As the Rossendales bailiff had merely visited the property and left a notice confirming his attendance, any trespass would have been negligible and damages nominal. In his final summary, the Judge made it clear to the claimant that he had been ill-advised in making his claim to the county court to try and prevent the bailiff from carrying out what he was perfectly legally entitled to do. From the claimants’s response it was clear that he had been influenced by information on the internet when preparing his case. Not surprisingly, the court claim failed. Judge Pugh dismissed the penalty of £750 and ordered the claimant to pay Rossendale’s legal costs.
  6. just a quick question. I have seen many posts advising that letters be sent removing this right. I know it doesn't affect court appointed officials, as some might believe( FOTL), but what does it actually mean? I ask because there are many houses where the door of the property opens directly onto the pavement. Does this mean that anybody can knock on the door irrespective of the letter being sent or can you place a notice on the property?:
  7. Morning, I have two unpaid council tax bills from 2008 and 2009 that Rossendales are chasing. I have been making small weekly payments each week direct to the council. I sent Rossendales a notice of implied rights of access by recorded delivery. They sent a reply that worries me and need advice on what to do next. They say they will be enforcing two liability orders against me from the years above. They say they are proof of my lawful obligation to pay council tax. It says the orders enable a certified baliff to act for the council to levy distress. Says recovery action can result in improsement through the courts. Lastly they say they have peaceful right of entry what i do know but the liability order maybe residing on assets and will supersede the notice of removal of implied rights of access. Trawled through forums but can not find the answer to the implied rights of access being over ruled. To add it is my partners property and everything is in her name. Some advice would be great.
  • Create New...