Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
  • 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

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3275 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 296
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but until the ECtHR rules along the same lines it doesn't count for much as the UK Court won't consider your opinion as relevant.

 

If ECHR is buoght into a UK court, then the Judge has to consider it and its implications, based upon proportionality.

 

The Judge can not simply ignore EU law. However, the Judge does not have to consider EU law unless the claimant or defendant relies upon it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If ECHR is buoght into a UK court, then the Judge has to consider it and its implications, based upon proportionality.

 

The Judge can not simply ignore EU law. However, the Judge does not have to consider EU law unless the claimant or defendant relies upon it.

 

Hello p3t3r. Do you have a source for this please?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi honeybee,

 

It has often been suggested that judges are somehow able to ‘overrule’ legislation, for example if, exercising the power given to them by the Human Rights Act 1998, they declare that a particular law is incompatible with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is often framed in terms of ‘ what right do these unelected judges have to overturn the laws set out by elected representatives in Parliament? ”. It is right to suggest that judges are able to rule that the acts of public bodies are unlawful and to decide against the Government in a particular case. Indeed, this is a powerful check on the power of the State against the individual. Many of the examples seen in the media, or commented on by politicians, tend to focus on criminal matters or on Human Rights

Quoted from: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/judges-and-parliament/

 

 

judges rely on UK statute alone (since it is assumed that the statutory legislation is in compliance with EU law). If the claimant or defendant brings into question EU law, then the Judge has to consider this and interpret the UK legislation to be in accordance with EU law.

 

But the Judge is not going to automatically apply EU law, unless this is argued by the defendant or claimant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the process has been in place for over two decades. I'm sure any realistic challenges have already been tried. It's not a new system by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I can't find any details as to where someone has tried to use EU law (rights of a fair trial, right to private family home, possessions,) in relation to council tax or bailiffs. I have searched for it but can't find, that is reason I suggested it here to see what other peoples views are.

 

But I guess the only definitive view would be that from a court, whether UK or EU, - to which I can not find any info!

 

Maybe someone will decide to pursue this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodgeball... you fail to answer questions. You know I do not know what TCE is, you fail to explain that to me also.

 

.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing ECHR with law passed by the EU. There is a massive difference.

As has been quoted above we refused to give the vote to prisoners even though ECHR said we should. Now if the EU law (completely different thing) had said that we had to give the vote to prisoners then we would have had two choices, leave the EU or comply.

 

France was heavily fined for not allowing UK beef into the country although by the time it was sorted they had lifted the embargo.

 

You need to remember that the EHCR is a CONVENTION and not a law

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

. You need to remember that the EHCR is a CONVENTION and not a law

 

Yes. A convention that has a direct influence on how law in EU countries is interpreted.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jan/29/uk-broke-law-european-human-rights-cases-2014 That article states that UK broke the law in relation to ECHR less than 1% of all applications lodged with ECHR in 2014.

 

I think the same article points out that should the UK leave EU, then there will be over 2 million illegal immigrants from UK living outside UK in EU!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. A convention that has a direct influence on how law in EU countries is interpreted.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jan/29/uk-broke-law-european-human-rights-cases-2014 That article states that UK broke the law in relation to ECHR less than 1% of all applications lodged with ECHR in 2014.

 

I think the same article points out that should the UK leave EU, then there will be over 2 million illegal immigrants from UK living outside UK in EU!

 

That really means very little, so we broke the rules of the EU convention less than Russia..hold the front page! . All it tells you is that either a) our justice system is fair and proportionate or b) people in this country really do not use the European court of Human rights . You are i think misinterpreting the link between the two. So where does it tell you what happened after the ECHR ruling?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/03/european-human-rights-protocol-15

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite simple really

 

You claim that a ruling from ECHR trumps UK statute law ( wrong IMO)

These cases have been won in the ECHR

 

So...what are the consequences ? Has UK law been changed? Was the UK government penalised for the difference ? I cite the case of prisoners and the vote

 

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05941.pdf

 

As you will see the original ruling was in 2005 and as far as I am aware nothing has been changed

 

I am not saying what my own personal opinions are , nor am I saying what the moral course of action may be but what the de jure situation is .

 

Please also do not confuse the council of Europe with the EU which is what many people do http://en.strasbourg-europe.eu/member-states,44987,en.html

Edited by fletch70

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

dodgeball, thank you!

 

though i have probably 100 or so browser windows open at moment! will read it later, thanks again for explanation.

 

Yes this is the legislative procedure which governs the," taking control of goods to recover money owed".

It is the legal conduit which conveys the power of warrant or order of the court and provides legislative authority for the charging of fees and all other related activities (including attendance).

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it worth keeping this thread going round in circles ?

 

Remember that all courts are generally there to serve the interests of creditors or to protect the interests of state. ECHR makes rulings which can be inconvenient to governments, but they very rarely hand down judgements that make a massive difference. Even with prisoner voting, the ECHR did not say that the UK had to enable voting rights for prisoners. They said that the UK parliament should consider how they can enable prisoner voting. The could just make arrangements for prisoners towards the end of their sentences to register to vote, so when they got out they could vote. The UK has not been fined for not doing enough on this, as far as I know.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfectly good and helpful thread about the silly Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access has been completely overshadowed by the ECHR argument and as important as the subject is, it should have been posted as a separate thread altogether.

 

The fact of the matter is that the case of Thornton v Rossendales is the only case that has ever been made to court. It was taken under UK law and the debtor lost his case and was ordered to pay Rossendale's legal costs.

 

There is little point guessing what the outcome would have been if the case had been taken under ECHR (EU Law) as this would be just guesswork. An entirely separate thread should have been started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfectly good and helpful thread about the silly Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access has been completely overshadowed by the ECHR argument and as important as the subject is, it should have been contained in a separate thread altogether.

 

The fact of the matter is that the case of Thornton v Rossendales is the only case that has ever been made to court. It was taken under UK law and the debtor lost his case and was ordered to pay Rossendale's legal costs. There is little point guessing what the outcome would have been if the case had been taken under ECHR (EU Law) as this would be just guesswork. An entirely separate thread should have been started.

 

I couldn't agree more....this thread was started to show people posting notices to remove implied rights of access were seen to be ineffective, it has never been suggested they were UNLAWFUL to use, so why take the subject matter of track?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone wants to discuss the implications of ECHR on bailiff issues then please start a separate thread. Any further posts on it will be removed.

 

It would help the site team and the thread if any such off topic posts were reported without comment on the thread.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem I did mention this repeatedly about thirty or so posts back. Anyway nice to be back on track.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't always follow all threads at all times DB, but as you say.....

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfectly good and helpful thread about the silly Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access has been completely overshadowed by the ECHR argument and as important as the subject is, it should have been contained in a separate thread altogether.

 

The fact of the matter is that the case of Thornton v Rossendales is the only case that has ever been made to court. It was taken under UK law and the debtor lost his case and was ordered to pay Rossendale's legal costs. There is little point guessing what the outcome would have been if the case had been taken under ECHR (EU Law) as this would be just guesswork. An entirely separate thread should have been started.

 

The notice of "Implied Right Of Access" is not silly! This is shown in Judge Pugh ruling where it was stated that the Judge had no reason to query the use of such a notice. Such notice is akin to that of "no cold callers" notice.

 

What is silly is that some people seem to believe that such notices apply to bailiffs. Bailiffs have the legal right to attend the property, as such, they ignore such notices.

 

I apologise for writing about EU law / ECHR in relation to the notices and bailiffs on this thread and not starting a new thread. I can not see how discussing the subject of this thread in relation to law is taking the thread off topic, though apologise for that. Someone else has started a new thread in relation to this thread to include the ECHR perspective. Though, going by the logic shown here, if someone within the new thread then discusses UK law and not EU law, then that too would be off topic! Sure, I am a little confused as to why the discussion I added here is off topic, though as many people have said it is off topic, then I guess I am wrong in my thoughts, again, I apologise for that!

 

So, to get this thread back on topic, people are perfectly able to use such notices, (shown by Judge Pugh ruling) but in doing so they must be aware that such notices have no effects in stopping a bailiff attending (again, shown by Judge Pugh ruling). They should also be aware that this may add additional fees to the debt, because, in using such notices in the expectation that it would stop a baliff attending, they are trying to evade paying their debt.

 

Basically, the notice of implied rights of access is just an over elaborated "no cold callers" notice. It does not apply to bailiffs or anyone else who have a legal right to be at the property.

 

I have this week read some information from what I believe to be flawed logic and dubious website which purport the usage of such notices will instantly stop bailiffs. It is my opinon that such websites are extremely dangerous since they seem to encourage false thinking, illogical logic, - people who rely on such false information are a danger to themselves if they actually believe such notices will stop bailiffs!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The notice of "Implied Right Of Access" is not silly! This is shown in Judge Pugh ruling where it was stated that the Judge had no reason to query the use of such a notice. Such notice is akin to that of "no cold callers" notice.

 

What is silly is that some people seem to believe that such notices apply to bailiffs. Bailiffs have the legal right to attend the property, as such, they ignore such notices.

 

So, to get this thread back on topic, people are perfectly able to use such notices, (shown by Judge Pugh ruling) but in doing so they must be aware that such notices have no effects in stopping a bailiff attending (again, shown by Judge Pugh ruling). They should also be aware that this may add additional fees to the debt, because, in using such notices in the expectation that it would stop a baliff attending, they are trying to evade paying their debt.

 

Basically, the notice of implied rights of access is just an over elaborated "no cold callers" notice. It does not apply to bailiffs or anyone else who have a legal right to be at the property.

 

I have this week read some information from what I believe to be flawed logic and dubious website which purport the usage of such notices will instantly stop bailiffs. It is my opinon that such websites are extremely dangerous since they seem to encourage false thinking, illogical logic, - people who rely on such false information are a danger to themselves if they actually believe such notices will stop bailiffs!

 

I still maintain that it would have been far better for you to start a new thread but I have to be honest here by saying that your above post is excellent and entirely accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry BA. Not that I want the last word, but things keep developing.

The newest daft idea seems to be that these notices will only apply to council tax bailiffs, because he is just a debt collecror, I just want to nip it in the bud.

 

 

DB, I do apologise for failing to respond to this post. The idea is too silly to even waste precious time on.

 

The main point to consider is that it is the writ/warrant/liability order that provides the power to the bailiff to enforce the debt .....and when it comes to actual enforcement (of the writ/warrant/liability order) the law states that the bailiff must use the procedure outlined in Schedule 12.

 

The enforcement agent must of course abide by the wording on the writ/warrant of control/liability order.

 

In the case of a Writ of Control (relevant for judgements over £600 passed to the High Court) the wording specifically
'commands'
the Enforcement Agent to enforce the writ.

 

In the case of a Warrant of Control (relevant for road traffic debts) similar wording is given.

 

In the case of a Liability Order (relevant for arrears of council tax) the order itself specifically contains the following words:

 

"It is
ordered
that the amount be enforced in the manner mentioned" etc

An 'order' or a 'command' is simple to understand and again would provide a reason why the bailiff enforcing council tax cannot be a debt collector and also why bailiffs may simply ignore a Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes BA you could spend a lifetime debunking half baked ideas for certain websites. in this case power contained in the various orders are subject to section 62 of the TCE which says;

 

62Enforcement by taking control of goods

(1)Schedule 12 applies where an enactment, writ or warrant confers power to use the procedure in that Schedule (taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money).

(2)The power conferred by a writ or warrant of control to recover a sum of money, and any power conferred by a writ or warrant of possession or delivery to take control of goods and sell them to recover a sum of money, is exercisable only by using that procedure.

 

Of course it is the same procedure in all cases, and the same right to attend and take control of goods.

 

(I should just clarify, since there are those who will pick at irrelevancies, by the same procedure I mean of course the TCE 2007 shed 12, of course within that procedure there are different enforcment methods available to the EA dependent on the type of debt, use of force etc)

 

I think all the source legislation has been altered from the earlier to levy distress just to "use schedule 12 procedure".

 

In Judge Pugh's case the procedure was contained in the regulation as he said there is no reason to go behind this, now of course it is contained in the TCE

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3275 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...