Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access......debtor loses in court and ordered to pay bailiff companies legal costs

[Coughdrop]

I saw this the other day,I think the problem here is that the question is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law so there can be no intellegable answer.

 

Could you elaborate on this please?

[Peterbard]

I could CD but I will spare the persons blushes. Ithink this was the Mk 1, there are other later Mk2 enquiries which are slightly more intellegable but still based on a flawed premises. Bit like sending a foi to Santa to ask how many elves he has, there can be no answer because the question is gibberish .

[Coughdrop]

Right lol! No problem. One has to hope it never comes to internal review in that case, as it would just be a total waste of time. Funnily enough, I often think this where FOI requests end up with internal reviews. Since I've started reading more and more of them, those that go to internal review are often made by people of a certain bent. I'll climb down from my soapbox now before I get too political lol!

[Peterbard]

I think that the whole FOI process has become widely abused. It was intended to be a device where Joe public could question how his interests were being represented by the powers that be and to assist accountability. Now more often than not it is used to further some hobbyhorse(often flawed).

[Bailiff Advice]

Back onto the subject of the Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access I will once again reiterate:

 

They are a waste of time

 

and are:

 

Ignored by all enforcement agents.....the companies that employ them and the creditors who instruct them.

 

PS: I see that there have been nearly 300 additional views of this thread since this morning !!!

[Peterbard]

Back onto the subject of the Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access I will once again reiterate:

 

They are a waste of time

 

and are:

 

Ignored by all enforcement agents.....the companies that employ them and the creditors who instruct them.

 

PS: I see that there have been nearly 300 additional views of this thread since this morning !!!

 

We never left the subject realy. The reason this subject is so popular and there are so many guest viewers is because the nonsense is still being widely mooted.

 

Generally these notices do little harm as they are ignored, however the problems arise when debtors depend on them rather than addressing their debts.

[unclebulgaria67]

I have never understood them. What are they stopping exactly ?

 

If an enforcement agent comes to your house relating to something that is not a criminal fine, as long as you don't have a car at risk outside, then you don't have to answer the door. There are rules in place about how the EA can act.

 

There is nothing saying that you have to deal with an EA company. If you have debt issues to resolve, you can contact the creditors to try to come to a resolution. They can refuse to deal with you, but you can insist by making payments to them, which they can pass on to the EA, if they wish. But the main thing is that you are attempting to make payment.

 

When people don't have the money, an EA trying to add another £310 is not likely to lead to the debtor wanting to come to any arrangement with them.

 

There has to be a better way of dealing with all types of debt, where an EA is currently being instructed. I would personally suggest a greater role for the courts and if necessary some form of mediation service.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Yep, we ignore it. Its like saying the police cant come and arrest you as you have removed the right of access. We hold a court warrant that tells us to attend your address, and therefore, we do not need you permission to access your property. Your dwelling, for the most, still does require your permission to enter, unless we are chasing on a magistrates warrant.

[Peterbard]

Thinking of starting a thread on entry re entry and forced entry, there is much misconception about what each can and cannot do after April last year.

[Coughdrop]

My issue with the NOROIROA was mentioned briefly above. It doesn't work with EA's as the warrant gives them permission to gain peaceful entry, so it is ignored.

 

It does work for removing access rights of TV Licensing and debt collectors. That does not mean the debt goes away though. It just gives people the excuse to keep pretending it isn't there.

 

A thread on entry and re-entry would be great!

[Peterbard]

My issue with the NOROIROA was mentioned briefly above. It doesn't work with EA's as the warrant gives them permission to gain peaceful entry, so it is ignored.

 

It does work for removing access rights of TV Licensing and debt collectors. That does not mean the debt goes away though. It just gives people the excuse to keep pretending it isn't there.

 

A thread on entry and re-entry would be great!

 

Yes but so would a sign saying no tresspasers without appointment. The thing is there is nothing stopping anyone saying they just did not see the next five in any case. There is no viable sanction even if you were to show trespass.

[Bailiff Advice]

Thinking of starting a thread on entry re entry and forced entry, there is much misconception about what each can and cannot do after April last year.

 

In fact DB you have just remind me. I was going to update the Forced Entry Protocol and link it to a new thread. If time permits, I will do this in the morning.

[Coughdrop]

Yes but so would a sign saying no tresspasers without appointment. The thing is there is nothing stopping anyone saying they just did not see the next five in any case. There is no viable sanction even if you were to show trespass.

 

Indeed. I think the only real sanction is for damage if, say, they break something walking up your path, perhaps a pote for flowers, or somehow leave a nasty mark on the pathway which won't go away. Is it worth taking action over something minor like this is? Almost certainly no, things of this nature are of very limited value anyway.

[Peterbard]

In fact DB you have just remind me. I was going to update the Forced Entry Protocol and link it to a new thread. If time permits, I will do this in the morning.

 

OK BA,I will leave it to you, pointless duplicating, and you have access to the update info in any case. I reserve the right to contribute though )

[Peterbard]

Indeed. I think the only real sanction is for damage if, say, they break something walking up your path, perhaps a pote for flowers, or somehow leave a nasty mark on the pathway which won't go away. Is it worth taking action over something minor like this is? Almost certainly no, things of this nature are of very limited value anyway.

 

Yes pretty similar scenario to the parking charge thing.

 

Neither a contractual debt or a debt due to the tort of trespass.

In one case there is no contract formed because of lack of mutual consideration, and in the other there is no damages.

[mikeymack2002]

What if the Courts decided not to send the account to the EA to collect payment? What if they just start issuing Warrants of committal instead? Will the EA still be allowed to walk up to the door? That would be a YES!

 

 

Failing that the Police could arrest the defaulter as well if there is a warrant of arrest issued

 

 

Has anything changed whether or not an EA has the power to attend a property recently?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Has anyone read the new "Serious Crimes Act 2015" yet? If not see the attachment

[Peterbard]

Committal for purposeful none payment of CT is permitted under the magistrates court act, although technically it is for contempt of court, because as you say it is a civil action. Not many, but a few won't pays are committed every month, some even submit purposefully in order to point out the horrendous inequities in the ct system.

[Peterbard]

would hope this thread remains open.

[outlawla]

Committal for purposeful none payment of CT is permitted under the magistrates court act, although technically it is for contempt of court, because as you say it is a civil action....

 

I'd be interested to know where you learned that a prison sentence for non-payment of Council Tax is technically for contempt of court.

[HCEOs]

A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223. 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

 

 

 

administration and enforcement regulations 1992 regulation 45 para 7 a bailiff levying a distress may not commit an act of trespass the execute the levy. the human rights act states a public authority may not act in contrivention to a convention right, article 1 european convention of human rights- the peaceful enjoyment of ones possession.

 

also i believe a bailiff may not take personal computer equipment that may contain personal data as doing so could lead to a breach of the data protection act.

 

i have seen these posted some where and was wondering just how truthful this information was

 

As already confirmed the removal of implied rights of access is a nonsense for Enforcement Agents and is rightly ignored by them.

 

In terms of removing computers, we would ask the debtor to back up and clear the computer in the first instance (whether they do or not is up to them) but in any event the computers hard drives are wiped before being sold.

[Peterbard]

I'd be interested to know where you learned that a prison sentence for non-payment of Council Tax is technically for contempt of court.

 

Sure Phil Evans ex hceo and authority on baifflaw first pointed this out to me ,why do you think it is incorrect. If so start a new thread.

[mikeymack2002]

As already confirmed the removal of implied rights of access is a nonsense for Enforcement Agents and is rightly ignored by them.

 

In terms of removing computers, we would ask the debtor to back up and clear the computer in the first instance (whether they do or not is up to them) but in any event the computers hard drives are wiped before being sold.

 

There are programs readily available to recover deleted information from a hard drive even if formatted. This is still a poor way to delete your data. Hard drive removal is the safest way

 

Also most people tend to leave them on so are in use how do you over come this problem?

[brassnecked]

There are programs readily available to recover deleted information from a hard drive even if formatted. This is still a poor way to delete your data. Hard drive removal is the safest way

 

Also most people tend to leave them on so are in use how do you over come this problem?

 

 

Only safe way to ensure data is irrecoverable is to take out the HDD and smash it with a hammer and make sure the platters are broken up, Cost of new HDD and Windows license as the old license legally dies with the Hard Drive, would seriously dent any profit on it's sale by the EA at auction. In use ah yes that download and update that is ongoing when the EA calls.

[Peterbard]

I notice there is a certain amount of back peddling now regarding these notices and due to there proven innafectiveness.

The advice now being given is,whilst these notices may not work they do no harm,so send them anyway.

Personally I consider this advice to be equally dangerous. 1 it still puts in the mind of the debtor that he may be able to avoid the he visit and the charge.

2 It puts in the mind of the EA that he is dealing with someone who is trying to avoid payment.

[renegadeimp]

Old licence doesn't die with the g

HDD. Licence is tied to the software and can only be used on one system at a time. So anyone can install the software but only one system can legally use it at a time.