Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If you're set on pursuing the receiver then a complaint to his governing body (if any) might be a sensible low risk first step. You need to confirm what qualifications he actually has. I don't believe an LPA Receiver necessarily needs to be a licensed insolvency practioner, although he may be. Or he may a chartered surveyor. I note you say "LPA" and "fixed charge" receiver, but aren't those two different appointments with different remits? What relevant powers are given in the mortgage terms and security? Or if that's unclear then how was the appointment described to you? Ducking back to the comment I made earlier, you consulted a solicitor who advised a claim against the receiver. How did he advise that you do so?   Some background reading (accepting it's from 2013 and you may be working off more recent preceded overturning this) .. LPA receivers owe very limited duty to borrowers; a reminder WWW.WRIGHTHASSALL.CO.UK As lenders rely more and more on their powers to appoint an LPA Receiver, a recent case has clarified the Receiver’s obligations, both to the lender and its borrower.  
    • Good Law Project are trying to force HMG to release details of how Sunak's hedge fund made large profits from Moderna. Government ordered to disclose Sunak’s hedge fund emails - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG Good Law Project has won a battle with the Treasury after it tried to suppress emails between Rishi Sunak and the hedge fund he founded.  
    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4816 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Case law dictates that Distress for Rent should not take place between sunset & sunrise, therefore as I said earlier it looks as if they called out of time - even if it was just a few minutes - therefore they were committing trespass.

 

Entry Rights of the Bailiff

Case law also says that a bailiff may "do that which, if any other person did it, would be a trespass". Acting lawfully he has a right to enter premises although this right is based on 2 important conditions:

 

1 - the right of entry must be exercised in a peaceable manner, if entry is obtained through force it is an illegal act and the distress is trespass. A criminal offence may also be committed.

 

2 - Case law restates that his entry must also be with permission. At the Court of Appeal it was stated that entry may only be made "with the consent of the occupant or person in in possession of the premises".

 

It can be seen that the Bailiffs rights of entry are less than what they think they are.

 

A challenge brought under Section 8 of the ECHR has confirmed that the Police must strike a fair balance between the right to respect for the home and the prevention of crime & disorder, and must ensure that their actions are proportionate to the degree of risk existing at the time. Officer Dibble had no right assisting the Bailiff in this matter.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT

 

Any details or links to those rulings / case law? I understand if there isn't - i can't remember where and when i read things.

 

Besides, this case still boils down to whether 'a foot in the door' is 'forced entry'.

 

Putting your foot into the space that appears when ANY inward opening door is opened certainly does not involve any use of force.

 

We really need to sort this one out. If we don't, we may as well post a sticky saying "Once you open the door by six inches, they are in - that's it" then put our keyboards away....

 

I don't believe this is the case, but we need to back it up with facts and win this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT

 

Any details or links to those rulings / case law? I understand if there isn't - i can't remember where and when i read things.

 

 

I'll send you a PM with the details of them but give me a day or three to do it as the back end of the week is my busiest period. It's not that I want to keep the details secret but don't want to alert the enemy too much on the arsenal at ones fingertips.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a look at this site below it proves that foot in the door is forced entry

 

direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingDebt/DebtsAndArrears/DG_10034289

 

I have the sergeant visiting me this morning so will be gathering all the information together and will post an update after the visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a look at this site below it proves that foot in the door is forced entry

 

direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingDebt/DebtsAndArrears/DG_10034289

 

I have the sergeant visiting me this morning so will be gathering all the information together and will post an update after the visit.

 

"

What bailiffs can and can't do

 

If the bailiffs come to your home, you don't have to let them in. They can't force their way in, but they can enter through an open window or an unlocked door.

Forced entry includes pushing past you once you have opened the door to them, or leaving their foot in the door to prevent you closing it. Such action would make the whole process illegal.

Bailiffs recovering unpaid magistrates' court fines, however, do have the power to force entry, but this is always a last resort.

Bailiffs trying to recover money you owe to HMRC are allowed to break into your home, providing they have a magistrates' warrant - but this method is rare and only used as a last resort."

 

 

Quoted from that very site, Officer Dibble, Dutti Babylon, Plod or whatever we call him was way out of order, as it was therefore forceable entry. the bailiff has committed a criminal offence imho, and should lose his certificate (in a perfect world he would)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to push the point of what did the PC who attended know of Bailiff rights and wrongs - I would guess very little.

 

PT

 

Agreed PT this aspect should be stressed in any complaint made regarding the officers behaviour and actions in support of the bailiff.

 

Police should be properly trained in aspects of what bailiffs can and cannot do, when they attend as they are not there on behalf of the bailiff or the debtor, but to uphold the "Queens Peace" In the OP's situation it was indeed the bailiff who should have been arrested, as it was he, on the facts as presented who was "breaching the peace"

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont need legal aid for this. The system is user friendly.

 

To make a claim against a debt collector, file a Form N1 at your local county court.

 

To make a claim against police or a specific officer then make a complaint with the IPCC and say what you want the police to do e.g. how much they should pay, compensate you for misfeasance, professional incompetence etc.

Professional property investor and conveyancer

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I understand correctly then, if I hear a knock on the door whilst upstairs, look out and see a bailiff, tell him to bugger off, and he then walks in through an open door or window, it is still forced entry, since he does not have my permission?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't think it is quite as easy as that,

my understanding is you are correct if they have not made a legel levy

 

 

if the have a legel levy. then open window /doors fair game

 

But i stand corrected if others correct me.

Edited by Leakie
add sentence
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can they levy on first visit?

 

yes thats why the bailiffs there (at the property) to levy

 

 

A For making a visit to premises with a view to

Levying distress (where no levy is made) -

(i) where the visit is the first or only

such visit): £24.50

(ii) where the visit is the second such

visit: £18.50

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do not require a levy to enter through an open door or window, this would be considered peaceful entry.

 

Use of force can best be summed up as a situation where a person is opposing the bailiffs entry, ie, the householder trying to close the door and the bailiffs foot prevents its closure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Placing a foot in the door to prevent you from closing it is classed as forced entry. Fact!

A judge ruled in my case that the Bailiff had overstepped his authority by way of preventing me from closing the door by leaving his foot in the door way. THEY CAN NOT PUSH OPEN A DOOR AND FORCE THEIR WAY PASSED YOU.

PT is correct when saying that a bailiff collecting for rent arrears can only collect between daylight hours.

The police cannot intervene and can only stand by to make sure no unlawful act has been committed by either party. the police are wrong in allowing the bailiff entry to your property. This is a civil matter. All the police should of done is advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello seanam.

 

Thanks for posting that.

 

I had the pdf of your court judgement down loaded to my computer, but because the details are deleted i couldn't remember who it related to.

 

Now i know.

 

Can you divulge the case number?

 

Was it a 'form 4' complaint, or a normal county court action.

 

Ruling No. 1, is quite explict. The foot in the door was beyond the legal power of the bailiff.

 

It is relavent to this case, and indeed provides some basis to initiate action against the police and bailiffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to seanam's judgement, this from another thread:

 

LORD JUSTICE MORRITT:

 

"It is not in dispute that entry for the purpose of effecting the initial seizure may only be made with the consent of the occupant or other person in possession of the premises."

 

Read more: http://vlex.co.uk/vid/ur-judge-cox-5...#ixzz1E4xu4Gj2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello seanam.

 

Thanks for posting that.

 

I had the pdf of your court judgement down loaded to my computer, but because the details are deleted i couldn't remember who it related to.

 

Now i know.

 

Can you divulge the case number?

 

Was it a 'form 4' complaint, or a normal county court action.

 

Ruling No. 1, is quite explict. The foot in the door was beyond the legal power of the bailiff.

 

It is relavent to this case, and indeed provides some basis to initiate action against the police and bailiffs.

Hi pimpernel

this is a strange thing there was no case number, not that I have seen on the paperwork, but I still have the Judgement some where so will try and get it out, Im moving soon so the paperwork is archived in a box some where.

Yes it was a form 4 and took about a year to get to the Judgment stage.

Also I dont know if I mentioned in my thread that the council sent a very long letter apologising for THEIR mistake and was very sorry for what had happened, they stopped the bailiff from ever working for them again. I have since found out that my council no longer uses Marstons because of their bailiffs behaviour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im afraid I dont have very good news for you, but here goes.

 

1. The police definition of "forced entry" is not the same as Breaking & Entering. A certificated bailiff carries a card that authorised him to enter a property "without permission" and the police call that "forced entry" and say its lawful. Its know in civil enforcement that jamming a foot into the door is called the Threshold Manoever.

 

2. He should have sown ID but im not sure of the legal position however I do know the law requires he must carry it. Check hios certificate is valid, if not then you have a noce ace up your sleeve on the bailiff and police officer (for failure to properly check the bailiff carried the appropriate authority) See Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/CertificatedBailiffs/

 

3. Not as far as I know, but even if he did, proving it his word against yours and the police will close ranks, so you will need to sirect your complaint to the IPCC if you find a police officer has concealed evidence of a crime. A very difficult burden of proof.

 

4. Yes, its a criminal offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Dont expect the Crown prosecution Service to be entheusiatic about charging a bailiff or a police officer for assisting.

 

5. Yes, it a pre-existing contition has been aggravated, and that qualifies for a claim under the Personal Injury Protocol. You will need a Personal Injury Solicitor to file the claim against the authority that contracted the bailiff. Not a good idea to sue the bailiff company because they usually have a slush fund for this very purpose.

 

6. Dont know, unless anyone else was present when the bailiff and police officer spoke to each other in the police car. Its hard to prove whether a police officer was assisting an offender when nobody else saw it.

 

Sorry, but re paragraph 1, this is WRONG!!!!!

 

Bailiffs may ONLY enter 'peaceably' and with the 'permission' of the occupier. This permission may be implied - as in a front door being left open - but if the debtor finds a bailiff has just entered his hallway then it is perfectly lawful to ask the bailiff to leave and they must comply. Until the bailiff has actually started the process of compiling an inventory then they must leave.

 

The case law in this matter is: Khazanchi v. Faircharm [1998] 2 All ER 901 and Snook v. Mannion [1982] Crim LR 601

 

The 'threshold move' in this case, under the circumstances you describe, is nothing more than a 'forced entry' and as such is trespass. Under the circumstances you could forcibly resist the baillif attempts to enter the property and focibly eject them using 'reasonable force'. Using 'forced entry' even goes against the National Standards forn Enforcement Agents. The case law for 'forcible resistance' is: [1968] 1 All ER 1154; (1880) 44 JP 781 & (1894) 58 JP 350.

 

As is usually always the case, through ignorance more than anything, the attendance of the police in these cases is more hinderance than help. Officers at the scene will usually side with the bailiff and attempt to put pressure of the debtor to let the bailiff in. THIS IS WRONG. The role of the police is to 'prevent a breach of the peace' and not to assist in the recovery of civil debt. The aforementioned words are very important in wording your complaint to the police and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

 

Here the police have assisted in an 'unlawful entry' since the bailiff does not have a power on entry per se.

 

Complain to the police and the Bailiff Regulators. Copy the IPCC into the complaint to the police and make sure the local officers know you have done this.

 

As far as I see it, unless the bailiff at the time was able to produce a part completed and accurate inventory to prove peaceable access have been obtained then it's difficult for them to actually claim that the entry was lawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...