Removal of Implied Rights

[Mark1960]

MARK1960

 

Case law or Statutory Provision to support your statement please, nothing subjective please

 

Established facts

 

There has been to much miss-information on this subject already

 

With the greatest respect,the majority of misinformation that I have read has come in your posts to me ie "freeman" "dangerous" "shortcut" etc.You tell me all of this yet provide no case law or statutory provisions of your own.

 

There is no case law because no bailiff has ignored the notice.TT tells us that she is aware of a recent ruling and when I see the facts of this case,if I am proven wrong,I will be happy to admit so.

 

If people can comprehend that council tax & parking enforcement bailiffs have exactly the same authority as a TVL inspector when it comes to gaining entry,we might be able move forward.The notice is simply putting it in writing that you are slamming the door in the bailiffs face but has the added advantage of prohibiting them from your entire boundries.I fail to see how so many are happy to support one method yet criticise the other when they are both identical in terms of consequences and impact.

 

These notices are so last year-It seems an argument that will never be settled.

[tomtubby]

Mark 1960

 

.

.

 

 

 

PS: I'm having a quick garden break !!

 

You say that putting such a notice will enable debtors to avoid paying controversial levy, Head H fees and even a 1st and 2nd visit fee.

 

I am sorry but I really do not think that this is good advice to be putting on a pubic forum at all. Let me explain why:

 

There are statutory regulations regarding the collection of council tax and these regulations clearly provide the following:

 

"Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods against whom the order was made"

 

Even if such a notice was sent to the bailiff company ( as suggested by you) are you trying to say that the bailiff is NOT ALLOWED to still attempt to levy distress? As you will know, the regulations clearly provide that the bailiff can charge a fee of £24.50 for "attending to attending (where no levy was made) and a 2nd such visit can be charged at £18.00.

 

 

There is also something more worrying from your post.

.

 

As you say: "the reason why I'm such a supporter of the notices is that it stops the FRAUDULENT (my emphasis) doorstep visit" etc .

 

"Fraudulent" is a very serious word or indeed allegation. As you will see from this post I have quoted from the regulations. Please explain how the "doorstep visit" can in any way be "fraudulent".

 

Please be assured that I am trying very hard to understand your logic and I do look forward to your reply.

[SWLABR9]

Lamma how is it much simpler than that? They can ignore removal of rights if they want to, anecdotal evidence suggests...

[postggj]

MARK1960

 

I am not the person making a statement, you are

 

All i am asking is for you to back up you statement with objectivity, not hearsay or personal opinions

[Mark1960]

Mark 1960

 

.

.

 

 

 

PS: I'm having a quick garden break !!

 

You say that putting such a notice will enable debtors to avoid paying controversial levy, Head H fees and even a 1st and 2nd visit fee.

 

I am sorry but I really do not think that this is good advice to be putting on a pubic forum at all. Let me explain why:

 

There are statutory regulations regarding the collection of council tax and these regulations clearly provide the following:

 

"Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods against whom the order was made"

 

Even if such a notice was sent to the bailiff company ( as suggested by you) are you trying to say that the bailiff is NOT ALLOWED to still attempt to levy distress? As you will know, the regulations clearly provide that the bailiff can charge a fee of £24.50 for "attending to attending (where no levy was made) and a 2nd such visit can be charged at £18.00.

 

 

There is also something more worrying from your post.

.

 

As you say: "the reason why I'm such a supporter of the notices is that it stops the FRAUDULENT (my emphasis) doorstep visit" etc .

 

"Fraudulent" is a very serious word or indeed allegation. As you will see from this post I have quoted from the regulations. Please explain how the "doorstep visit" can in any way be "fraudulent".

 

Please be assured that I am trying very hard to understand your logic and I do look forward to your reply.

 

Hi TT

 

With regards the "fraudulent" claim that I make,bailiffs will advise debtors that the only way they can avoid paying in full immediately or within 5 days is to allow them into the house to enable a "list" being made of items inside and to sign an "agreement".We both know that this means the inventory & the WP & we both know that it is untrue and therefore fraudulent to suggest this is the only way to avoid payment in full immediately.

 

The bailiffs WILL still attempt to levy distress after the notice has been served (just like they will in cases of closed doors) but this is restricted purely to written format which is much less alarming and distressing for the debtor (who in many cases is weak or vulnerable) With regards the visit fees,NO they will not be charged if a notice has been sent as the bailiffs will not attend.

 

I currently have a notice sent out to Equita on behalf of a family member-They have written back expressing their "disappointment that the debt has not been cleared" & that the author will "have no alternative" but to instruct his bailiffs to call when they may remove goods without further notice-It is simply signed "bailiff manager".Now call me sceptical but I'd hazard a guess that it is signed in this way because the letter is fraudulent & I'll bet you a box of blueberry muffins that Equita don't come back-Bailiffs like the soft targets as I'm sure you'll agree

 

Mark

[tomtubby]

Thank you Mark

 

You have now given an explanation as to why you believe that "doorstep visits" by bailiff are "fraudulent". Personally, I do not agree with your explanation but nonetheless, thank you.

 

Can you now explain WHY you believe that withdrawing consent ( to the right of access to the property) overrides the legal right of a bailiff to attend (to levy upon goods).

 

After all, the bailiff has surely been granted powers by STATUTE LAW under the relevant council tax regulations ??

 

Am I missing something?

[unclebulgaria67]

Personally I can see how a bailiffs visit can 'become' fraudulent, if they attempt to obtain money by deception. They have to stay within the law, for it not to be fraudulent. But this is academic anyway, as the Police and prosecution authorities are very unlikely to take action.

 

A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance. This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223 - and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway, Knox v Anderton [1983] Crim LR 115 or R. v Leroy Roberts [2003] EWCA Crim 2753

 

Debtors can also remove implied right of access to property by telling them to leave: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434 similarly, McArdle v Wallace [1964] 108 Sol Jo 483.

 

This above is quoted elsewhere, but I suspect that the bailiff can still visit the boundary of the property and claim the relevant fees for the visit as set out in statute. The laws only relate to the bailiff having to leave, when asked to do so.

[postggj]

The relevant case law is in relation to the Criminal Justice Act that has been posted

 

Bailiffs operate under Civil law

 

For example

 

If a notice is posted on the door, will that stop a police constable in the execution of his duty investigating a crime, say drink driving

[Mark1960]

TT-The doorstep visits are something that I have first hand experience on,on more than one occasion-Every time I've dealt with bailiffs,they have lied for the purpose of financial gaim-This is fraud.You've seen the Rossendales documentary no doubt-What a coincidence that was that the TV crew just happened to stumble on the only dishonest bailiff in the company.The LGO Reprt of November 2012 highlighted the high amount (marginly under a third) of complaints against bailiffs that were upheld (way more than any other sector).brassneck refers to the "kangaroo" style doorstep visits by TVL.This dishonesty on doorstep visits is not so much widespread as an epidemic.Its all based on threats,intimidation and fraud and usually aimed at the most disadvantaged and vulnerable of our society.

 

The bailiff has no legal right to attend once his implied right of access has been removed.The regulations state that a council MAY levy distress.I am not aware of any regulation which states that a debtor MUST submit to this distress and I assume that is why you encourage debtors to not answer the door to bailiffs.For a bailiff to attend an address after his implied right of access has been removed,he runs the risk of proceedings against him for trespass or aggravated trespass.

[postggj]

Regulations or Statutory Instruments/Delegated, Secondary Legislation to the Parent Act which are called Regulations

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Why don't all of you take serious note on what tomtubby has posted on this subject which is FACT not imagination and delusion!!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A bailiff acting o a warrant from a court county/magistrates.\Crown or High Court (tipstaff/HCEO) will not be affected by any such statement, this would be similar to a criminal stating this to a police office with an arrest warrant/search warrant or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

[Mark1960]

A bailiff acting o a warrant from a court county/magistrates.\Crown or High Court (tipstaff/HCEO) will not be affected by any such statement, this would be similar to a criminal stating this to a police office with an arrest warrant/search warrant or reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

 

Yes but I'm talking about council tax & parking enforcement which appears to be where most people on this forum seek help on.

[postggj]

Where do you think the bailiff gets his authority from to execute his duties????

 

A bailiff must have some legal authority before he can collect the debt from a debtor. That authority will be in the form of a warrant, warrant for execution, distress warrant, liability order.

 

Bailiffs are allowed to force their way into your home to collect unpaid criminal fines, Income Tax or Stamp Duty, but only as a last resort.

Edited May 12, 2013 by squaddie

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Parking can be a matter of bye laws enforceable with penalties or civil private parking problems with action taken through the county court system. recovery of fines or parking charges can both be pursued by the appropriate bailiffs if necessary.

[Mark1960]

Where do you think the bailiff gets his authority from to execute his duties????

 

Have you not read what I've been saying?

 

I don't believe a private bailiff has any authority-That's why most people on here encourage debtors not to open doors to them.As you are using the police as an example,do you think you can refuse to answer your door to them if they come knocking with a warrant at 6am?

[postggj]

i will say one word

 

look up

 

DISTRESS

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Avoidance of or non payment of CT can result in imprisonment it is not a consumer debt but a governmental tax,.

[postggj]

have you not read what i've been saying?

 

I don't believe a private bailiff has any authority-that's why most people on here encourage debtors not to open doors to them.as you are using the police as an example,do you think you can refuse to answer your door to them if they come knocking with a warrant at 6am?

 

my point being is that the police operate under statutory authority, same as bailiffs through delegated legislation

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Have you not read what I've been saying?

 

I don't believe a private bailiff has any authority-That's why most people on here encourage debtors not to open doors to them.As you are using the police as an example,do you think you can refuse to answer your door to them if they come knocking with a warrant at 6am?

Let me give you a simple example if you owe me money and I get a CCJ against you and you do not pay the judgement order I can ask the court for a warrant to seize your goods to sold to pay the debt, that warrant is handed to a bailiff certified by a court for enforcement.

Not often I agree with squaddie but your ''belief'' has no merit.

[Mark1960]

Avoidance of or non payment of CT can result in imprisonment it is not a consumer debt but a governmental tax,.

 

Not if you offer to pay the debt it can't.

 

The purpose of the notice is to stop bailiff visits thus saving the debtor money by avoiding paying unreasonable and often fraudulent bailiff fees.

 

Nobody has ever claimed the notices are a solution to the overall problem-They just come in handy to avoid being ripped off by dishonest bailiff companies.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Have you not read what I've been saying?

 

I don't believe a private bailiff has any authority-That's why most people on here encourage debtors not to open doors to them.As you are using the police as an example,do you think you can refuse to answer your door to them if they come knocking with a warrant at 6am?

You misunderstand totally it seems I suggest that you do some research on how a bailiff can gain entry to premise.

[postggj]

The regulations allow a bailiff to come to your premises twice, and be charged twice for the privilege

 

That comes under the Local Government Finance Act

 

That is a statutory act of Parliament

 

Please tell me where this notice to withdrawal consent for access to your property comes from

 

That is the statutory act of Parliament that allows these notices

Edited May 12, 2013 by squaddie

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

From the imagination I think, is where such theories emanate.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Not if you offer to pay the debt it can't.

 

The purpose of the notice is to stop bailiff visits thus saving the debtor money by avoiding paying unreasonable and often fraudulent bailiff fees.

 

Nobody has ever claimed the notices are a solution to the overall problem-They just come in handy to avoid being ripped off by dishonest bailiff companies.

 

The ''notice'' is not worth the paper on which it is written!!

How can this ''notice'' overcome an order/warrant issued by a judge or magistrate simple answer it cannot!!