Removal of Implied Rights

[EWHC1362]

 

If you pay the council direct can you ignore the bailiff fees?

 

NO you cannot !!!

 

What the majority of the public fail to realise is that the statutory regulations regarding the enforcement of council tax specifically provide that from all payments made, bailiff fees MUST FIRST BE DEDUCTED.

 

What should happen is that if a payment is made to the council they are supposed to deduct from that payment the applicable bailiff fees and send the payment to the bailiff company and retain the BALANCE which is applied towards the Liability Order. Given the problems with computer software etc, the local authorities instead keep the money and instruct the debtor to contact the bailiff direct regarding their fees.

 

 

The regulation specifically dealing with the priority of payments in circumstances where less than the total amount due is paid is 52(4) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992:

 

Relationship between remedies

 

52(4) Where a step is taken for the recovery of an outstanding sum which is or forms part of an amount in respect of which a liability order has been made and under which additional costs or charges with respect to the step are also recoverable in accordance with this Part, any sum recovered thereby which is less than the aggregate of the amount outstanding and such additional costs and charges shall be treated as discharging first the costs and charges, the balance (if any) being applied towards the discharge of the outstanding sum.

 

The way I see it is the bailiff firm has a problem here, because the regulation above can only apply where the council's enforcement is in-house.

 

The regulation categorically expresses the action in terms of "any sum recovered". Clearly the bailiff firm has not recovered anything if the payment has been made voluntarily to the council.

 

The council clearly has no claim to the fees, because no visits have been made by council employees in respect of the debt. To add to this, it would probably be unlawful if the council forwarded any monies to the bailiff firm, paid by the debtor in respect of their Council Tax liability.

[tomtubby]

I think that you will need to refer to the Contracting Out of Council Tax Enforcement regulations etc.

[EWHC1362]

I think that you will need to refer to the Contracting Out of Council Tax Enforcement regulations etc.

 

That's a good point and one I've wondered about in regards how things stand with these fees. But thinking about it, wouldn't SI 1996/1880 reinforce the argument that any payment made direct to the council could not be apportioned to the contractor, as they have not collected any money.

 

Such an arrangement could only be enforced if there was no possible way other than paying the contractor or the local authority refused payment. We know councils systematically refuse payment in these circumstances, but isn't it common knowledge there are ways around this?

Edited May 4, 2013 by EWHC1362

[postggj]

Talking on the post Relationship between remedies

 

It has been mentioned that it will only apply if the local authorities enforcement is in house

 

It is common now for a local authority to have a commercial contract with a bailiff company.

 

A Freedom of Information Act request in my case to my local authority stated that part of the costs in obtaining a liability order was sent to maintain bailiffs contracts.

 

SO IF THEIR IS A COMMERCIAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE BAILIFF COMPANY, CAN ENFORCEMENT BE SEEN AS IN HOUSE AS THE BAILIFF IS ACTING AS THE LOCAL AUTHORITY IN ENFORCEMENT

[tomtubby]

It is best not to get away from the subject matter of this tread which concerns the "Removal of Implied Right of Access " notices.

[sgtbush]

I must admit to being a little confused about this, I was under the impression that court officers and bailiffs were serving and executing warrants and orders under the powers of the court, not under any implied right of access.

 

Did I have it wrong ?

 

people like tv inspectors and DCA companys can have the implied access rights withdrawn,however it takes more than a note stuck in the window to do so.

they need to write to the company informing them of the withdrawl. however this just leads to greater steps being taken more quickly to recover the monies owed, prob a CCJ etc

 

bailiffs with court warrants of distress or commital cannot have the access withdrawn as they are ordered by the courts to attend and do what ever the warrant states

[sgtbush]

I suppose there's no point in denying access to TVL if they can clearly see you've got a telly on from the road outside (draws curtains )?

 

having a tv does not necessarly mean you need a tv licence. its the reception of live pictures you need the licence for.

if your tv is hooked up to a dvd player with no ariel to recieve live pictures, or you use it to watch only on catch up tv you do not need a licence

[sgtbush]

Capita self employed sales agents.

 

 

sorry!!! my boo boo:lol:

[brassnecked]

sorry!!! my boo boo:lol:

 

No problem, they like to think they have authority, but gain prosecutions by tricking people at the door, they have gained convictions against people who don't have a TV that way.

[SWLABR9]

But what happens after a CCJ? Do bailiffs come then? What's a warrant of distress please? Is there not a FAQ answering all this on the site?

[wonkeydonkey]

A ccj is judgment on a civil debt, it has no penalty to having the debtor 'arrested' as it is not a criminal offence to owe money.

 

Following the Judgment the creditor can pursue for payment by using a court bailiff, private bailiff or if the debt is more than £600 they can transfer to the High Court and seek a HCEO to 'collect' for them.

 

The bottom line in all classifications is the same, they cannot collect what you don't have. That is the bottom line and to get the bigger picture would take all day but there are a number of threads that explain the problems the debtor has encountered and the ways they have been dealt with. Each case is different.

Edited May 4, 2013 by wonkeydonkey

[caledfwlch]

It's a shame the press doesn't do some articles, or maybe a TV Documentary on the so called "Freemen"

 

They are causing absolute nightmares for people who aren't very clued up on their rights in the first place by misleading them with the absolute rubbish they churn out. It is an absolute disgrace.

 

Excellent advice from TomTubby as always, but I got the impression she is suggesting there have been C Tax Committals to Prison as a direct result of the Implied Access Issue? I cannot believe that and do not believe it to be a credible consequence, what I CAN believe however is that people misled by the Freemen into believing that the Implied Access letter applies to Bailiffs have been summonsed to a Committal Hearing, and then of course followed the various other bits of Freeman "advice" on how to deal with the Hearing, the usual refusal to pay, demanding the Magistrate show their Seal of Office, trying to seize control of the Courtroom and so on. Not to mention of course the ranting at the Magistrate about how the room they are standing in is an Admiralty Court, based 400 miles out at sea, during stormy weather, and anyway is a private corporation so ya boo sucks, not paying, or whatever flavour of lunacy they have this week!

[SWLABR9]

What has happened to them then?

[caledfwlch]

What has happened to them then?

 

To who?

[josephbloggs]

Examples of court cases are in a section of this wiki page

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

In particular the second one and the last one relate to council tax

[caledfwlch]

Examples of court cases are in a section of this wiki page

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

In particular the second one and the last one relate to council tax

 

I don't understand how people fall for them, given the Freeman are incapable of even being honest in their own publicity.

 

All the videos proudly marked "Freemen arrest Judge" yet that never, ever happens in the videos.

 

I did have a snigger at the one where a Freeman makes a bemused Police Constable interview his Birth Certificate rather than himself though.

[Peterbard]

I can easily see how people spouting fol doctrine can end up i clinc.

 

In 2010 according to LGO figures 1.5 million liability orders were issued to bailiffs and out of these 17800 arrest warrants were issued after application to the magistrates court.

 

Committal can only be granted when the debtor refuses to pay(basically for contempt), the FOL doctrine fits the bill exactly.

[caledfwlch]

I can easily see how people spouting fol doctrine can end up i clinc.

 

In 2010 according to LGO figures 1.5 million liability orders were issued to bailiffs and out of these 17800 arrest warrants were issued after application to the magistrates court.

 

Committal can only be granted when the debtor refuses to pay(basically for contempt), the FOL doctrine fits the bill exactly.

 

Disrupting the Court, attempting to Arrest the Magistrate etc is never going to go down well. I am amazed they don't get additionally punished for Contempt, though as they often turn up with several supporters at least, I suppose the Mag's use discretion and just get rid rather than call in sufficient police backup to arrest them all.

 

Might teach a few of them a lesson though.

[josephbloggs]

The best one ive heard regarding fotl was from a couple of my mates who are self employed bailiffs.

They went to a property big band d property nice area, previous visits debtor stated they were not the people on the liability order but were merely "lawful residents" so when they knocked they were told the same thing, and had the door shut on them.

The freemen forgot to lock the door however so the bailiffs basically followed them into the hall. Arguments ensued and the occupiers called the police.

10 minutes later when the police arrived they tried the same thing on the police, police said ok well if you are not the two people on the liability order who are registered at the address, and you wont give details of who you are, we will arrest the pair of you for burglary.

They searched the property found driving licenses passports and v5's all with their names on and photos, the police had a rant at them saying you use your drivvel beliefs as and when it suits but as soon as it comes to wanting something that will be of benefit to you ie driving license, it all goes out the window and bang goes the real name on the paperwork.

My mates already knew the vehicles were theirs anyway (but thats another story for another time) and the mrs had to walk down town paid a sizeable amount to pay the council tax.

Completely agree that the committal route is the best way to go for these types if all other avenues fail.

Unfortunetly when you type in google how to get out of debt these websites are all to prominent so i think the ideology will get a lot more popular and i dare say there will be an awful lot of posters using this method

[SWLABR9]

Following that link led me to this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/18/freeman-land-strategy-bullet-debt which in general I'm sure most here would agree with. I noticed in the comments someone said this though "The fact is that, Jon Witterick's approach is based on Contract Law. Yes, Law. Lenders have been breaking this law for too long; they charge us interest on money they didn’t have to lend (their first violation of Contract Law) and they sell our promise to pay to third parties. This is how subprime mortgages caused all those problems in 2008. If the banks hadn’t sold the debts, they would simply have foreclosed on the homes and no-one else would have been involved. In order to be able to sell a debt, lenders avoid lawful contracts. A lawful contract is signed by both parties and copies are held by both. A loan agreement is no such contract. The lender doesn’t sign it (the second violation of Contract Law) because he wants to ‘monetarise’ it and sell it as a financial instrument. The fact that he doesn’t disclose this fact to the borrower constitutes the third violation of Contract Law which requires full disclosure by both parties." and quite a bit more too, I don't know how to link directly to it, sorry. If you Google it you'd probably find it quickly. I don't actually know squat about contract law other than what I've heard (which is largely that both parties have to offer equal consideration for it to be a lawful valid contract), does anyone here who does have any comments?

[Peterbard]

I don't actually know squat about contract law ?

 

agreed

[postggj]

People are mentioning this and that violates contract law

 

SO GIVE A LINK TO THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT IS CONTRACT LAW in which to do a comparison

 

Subjective reasoning again and based on hearsay and personal opinion

[wonkeydonkey]

It would be possible but very time consuming to take on the task of going into contract law on this or any forum......I have tried in earnest to get to grips with it, no sooner do I think I have understood an argument using the precedents available, I then find the precedents that counteract the same arguments.

 

There is nothing that I can find that show these notices have any effect, the video being touted to show' victory' over the police/bailiff has never offered the second installment so we are left to assume the battle was won but the war was lost. IMHO that does not give grounds for the people touting /peddling these notices to drag others into their world of fantasy, putting them at risk to possibly ending up in a worse position than if they had simply refused to open the door to a bailiff. Ask yourself this ...if by simply posting this garbage a bailiff is unable to do his job, why hasn't the industry collapsed ?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The world of FOTL is much akin to ''fairyland'' a pleasant dream for those daft enough to believe in it, but a distinct danger to those who are inexperienced and may seriously mislead them in to making costly mistakes.

[brassnecked]

The world of FOTL is much akin to ''fairyland'' a pleasant dream for those daft enough to believe in it, but a distinct danger to those who are inexperienced and may seriously mislead them in to making costly mistakes.

Absolutely