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

[Peterbard]

Indeed such cases do not create a precedent but are nevertheless persuasive.

 

A problem with cases where the argument is without any real merit is that they can never end up in a higher court.(permission to appeal would not be granted)

 

We have just had a similar situation over on the property side of the forum, where a FMOTL case was thrown out. Even thought he arguments are fundamentally flawed they still mist be considered, a terrible waste of everyone's time which unfortunately for the claimant, can be reflected in the costs awarded.

[wonkeydonkey]

At the risk of being told off again for going off topic.

 

Cases are usually reported if they have some legal relevance or are in some way unusual. However just because a case is not reported does not mean that it cannot be recorded, either party can request a transcript, and in fact I think I am right i saying that anyone can ask for details of an action brought in a public court.

 

Just going to jump in here to say Dodgeball is correct in that anyone can apply for a transcript if they have the relevent court ref etc however it is not quite as straight forward as it reads:

 

A Year ago I attended Court to speak on behalf of a friend....the end result was the Judge claimed to be unsure of certain aspects to making his order but covered his back by giving the friend 'right to appeal' his decision. Now that would have been fine as the 'confirmation' he was looking for was available so the appeal would have righted the matter.

 

Getting ready to lodge the appeal it was necessary to provide a copy of the order being appealed ( no problem with that) the friend applied to the Court for a copy of the Judges summing up (as it formed the basis of the appeal) only to be told 'there is nothing on the file in written word therefore he would need to find £300+ and request a transcript of the taped hearing'.. considering the person had been eligible for fee remission tends to suggest that finding the £300+ would be out of reach to his pocket, exploring further it seems there is no financial 'help' available in these circumstances.......needless to say the appeal could not be brought.

[Peterbard]

"Common law is repealed by statute all the time."

No, it is abolished. It cannot be repealed.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Repeal

 

Associated concepts: repeal a bylaw, repeal a law, repeal a statute, repeal by implication

Foreign phrases: Leges posteriores priores contrarias abbogant.Subsequent laws repeal prior laws that are repuggant to them. Jura eodem modo destituuntur quo constiiuuntur. Laws are abrogated by the same means by which they are enacted.

 

repeal verb abolish, abrogare, abrogate, annul, avoid, cancel, countermand, declare null and void, delete, formally withdraw, invalidate, make void, negate, nullify, obliterate, officially withdraw, override, overrule, quash, recall, render invalid, rescind, rescindere, retract, reverse, revoke, set aside, vacate, void, withdraw

Associated concepts: repeal a bylaw, repeal a law, repeal a statute, repeal by implication

[ploddertom]

Thread reopened. I have tried hard to make some sense of what has gone on and some posts have been unapproved or moved elsewhere. Apologies if you think you have been hard done by but I strongly believe that at the present time these discussion threads should only deal with the matter in hand.

[tomtubby]

Thank you Ploddertom.

 

This particular thread has received nearly 3,500 visitors and the following one 15,300 viewers !!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?392005-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-notices.....CIVEA-advises-bailiff-companies-to-IGNORE-the-notices(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

It is therefore clear that this subject (Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access) is of huge public interest and yet, almost nobody knows where these notices first originated from......their original purpose and the serious defects in the notices.

 

With the new bailiff regulations just 3 weeks away it is important that the public understand these notices and instead of confusing this thread I will start another new thread.

[The Starving Taxpayer]

May I just correct a misunderstanding. The 'Norwich case' that you refer to is the one featured in post number 1 of this thread.

 

Like all County Court Judgments it is not publicised as such but that does NOT mean that it cannot be referred to at all.

 

I have seen a copy of the transcript of the 'Norwich case' and so too had John Kruse. In my post number one I had included extracts from an article written by him after he had reviewed the transcript.

 

 

There was no misunderstanding-I knew full well what the "Norwich case" was.

 

 

Its been posted more times than anything else on various boards.

[fletch70]

TT

I am afraid you still have not answered the question

 

If one of these notices is sent and/or put up on the property what IF ANY implications financially will this have

If a Bailiff turns up and ignores the notice there will be the charge?

If a Bailiff turns up and thinks oops I can't go in how can they prove the visit and charge?

 

I realise this is about Bailiffs but this basic idea when used against doorstep debt collectors can be and is effective

[Peterbard]

TT

I am afraid you still have not answered the question

 

If one of these notices is sent and/or put up on the property what IF ANY implications financially will this have

If a Bailiff turns up and ignores the notice there will be the charge?

If a Bailiff turns up and thinks oops I can't go in how can they prove the visit and charge?

 

I realise this is about Bailiffs but this basic idea when used against doorstep debt collectors can be and is effective

 

As far as a bailiff is concerned the notice has no effect whatsoever.

 

The problem is the perception of the debtor. The danger is that the debtor will think that he does not have to deal with the debt as the bailiff cannot call once the notice is sent.

 

So instead of just having to service the debt the debtor has an extra charge for the bailiffs visit to deal with. After April this will be a significant sum.

[fletch70]

Thanks Dodge. I realise that giving false hope is of no use to anyone and dealing with these types of debts is a priority. What I was trying to establish was if I posted one to keep away unsecured debt collectors from the likes of MMF and RW would o then be financially disadvantaged to a greater extent if a bailiff came calling. It seems that I wouldn't be

I am in full agreement that in Bailiff related cases they are of no use and potentially expensive

[The Starving Taxpayer]

Thanks Dodge. I realise that giving false hope is of no use to anyone and dealing with these types of debts is a priority. What I was trying to establish was if I posted one to keep away unsecured debt collectors from the likes of MMF and RW would o then be financially disadvantaged to a greater extent if a bailiff came calling. It seems that I wouldn't be

I am in full agreement that in Bailiff related cases they are of no use and potentially expensive

 

 

Heres a quotation from a letter from the council after a notice was sent to their bailiff company:"

 

I confirm that the bailiffs are returning the debt to the council on the grounds that they cannot gain legal access to the property to remove goods"

 

It appears that the council (and indeed bailiff company) did not share the same level of confidence in the weakness of the notice that some on here do.

 

 

I would also add that for all the hot air these people are spouting, none of them are posting any examples of a notice failing-Except TT of course & her beloved Norwich case which centred around a ridiculous claim for damages.

[fletch70]

Oh dear

The Bailiff is not allowed under these circumstances to break in, so what are they supposed to do if you refuse access to your property, they may well return the debt to the council. Howeer from April there will be a bloody big bill added to it potentially.

 

Who knows that may have been a bog standard template letter from the council, I have lots of those where DCA's return accounts to the OC , doesn't mean I have won the war just a minor skirmish

[The Starving Taxpayer]

My God man-How do you manage to misunderstand so much?

 

 

Who said anything about the bailiff breaking in??? He didn't even attend because he had a notice served on him

 

 

I thought your misunderstanding of the "original credit agreement" was bad enough but this takes the biscuit.

[Peterbard]

Heres a quotation from a letter from the council after a notice was sent to their bailiff company:"

 

I confirm that the bailiffs are returning the debt to the council on the grounds that they cannot gain legal access to the property to remove goods"

 

It appears that the council (and indeed bailiff company) did not share the same level of confidence in the weakness of the notice that some on here do.

 

 

I would also add that for all the hot air these people are spouting, none of them are posting any examples of a notice failing-Except TT of course & her beloved Norwich case which centred around a ridiculous claim for damages.

 

No it is your interpretation which is flawed. A bailiff when enforcing a liability order cannot force entry to the property to seize goods, that is true, it has nothing to do with the withdrawal of implied access, it is just not within the bailiffs power to break into the property. It does not stop them knocking on your door and it will not stop them charging you for the privilege.

[The Starving Taxpayer]

Your missing the point (again)

 

 

The bailiffs did not get to the "knocking the door" stage. They returned the debt back to the council upon receipt of the notice.

 

 

PT has suggested I start a new thread regarding this case. I am quite happy to do so provided it provokes debate. I have had success with the notice & am happy to share these experiences with the board, provided it doesn't turn into a squabble & provided the hierarchy give it their blessing. Its no point if my posts are just going to get edited or deleted or the thread locked which is what usually happens.

[Peterbard]

Your missing the point (again)

 

 

The bailiffs did not get to the "knocking the door" stage. They returned the debt back to the council upon receipt of the notice.

 

 

PT has suggested I start a new thread regarding this case. I am quite happy to do so provided it provokes debate. I have had success with the notice & am happy to share these experiences with the board, provided it doesn't turn into a squabble & provided the hierarchy give it their blessing. Its no point if my posts are just going to get edited or deleted or the thread locked which is what usually happens.

 

I really do not see what there is to debate, there is no legal basis for thinking that these notices have any effect on an authorized agent serving an order of the court.

[tomtubby]

 

Thanks Dodge. I realise that giving false hope is of no use to anyone and dealing with these types of debts is a priority. What I was trying to establish was if I posted one to keep away unsecured debt collectors from the likes of MMF and RW would o then be financially disadvantaged to a greater extent if a bailiff came calling. It seems that I wouldn't be

 

 

I am in full agreement that in Bailiff related cases they are of no use and potentially expensive

 

You question confirms why it is so important to understand where these notices originated from and the purpose of them. In that way the public would be better informed before considering whether to pin such a notice outside of the property.

 

 

 

Can I made an important point.

 

There is a huge difference between 'debt collectors' and bailiffs enforcing a debt to which a court warrant applies. The position today is that if a creditor obtains a judgment against a debtor, then this may only be enforced by a County Court bailiff after a warrant of execution is issued.

 

If the CCJ is over £600 the debt may be 'transferred up' to a High Court Enforcement Officer and may enforced only after a 'Writ of Fi Fa' is issued.

 

In the case of unpaid council tax, the debt can be enforced by a bailiff but only after a Liability Order has been issued.

 

With an unpaid parking charge notice, once again the debt may only be enforced by a certificated bailiff and only after a warrant of execution is issued.

 

From 6th April, all the above 'legal authorities' will be renamed 'Warrants of Control'

 

With an unsecured debt that has not been the subject of a Judgment a 'debt collector' has no right to enter your premises at all. Accordingly, there is no need in any event to display any notice as entry is not allowed (unless of course by invite).

[The Starving Taxpayer]

I'm surprised that you think that, given the amount of input you've given on both this thread & the locked sticky. Notwithstanding the actual real life example that I've just given you of a bailiff company returning the debt to the council upon receiving a notice and of course your total lack of 1st hand experience regarding the use of the notice.

 

 

You're beginning to sound like the Emperor & his new clothes.

[Peterbard]

I have had experience of the FMOTL ideas before and I notice that you use the same methodology. You take an isolated incident which has no relevance and ignore the usual practice, which in this case is when bailiffs routinely ignore these notices and carry on with the enforcement.

[tomtubby]

 

Heres a quotation from a letter from the council after a notice was sent to their bailiff company:"

 

I confirm that the bailiffs are returning the debt to the council on the grounds that they cannot gain legal access to the property to remove goods"

 

It appears that the council (and indeed bailiff company) did not share the same level of confidence in the weakness of the notice that some on here do.

 

 

I would also add that for all the hot air these people are spouting, none of them are posting any examples of a notice failing-Except TT of course & her beloved Norwich case which centred around a ridiculous claim for damages.

 

 

.

 

As I mentioned above, over 15,000 people have viewed the 'Sticky' on this subject and another 3,500 have viewed this thread. Accordingly, there is a huge public interest element in these notices.

 

The quotation from the letter you have received (regarding your daughter) is excellent but as you know perfectly well you were ONLY able to obtain a refund in one of the case after issuing legal proceedings against B & S. If the notices worked in your case then that is excellent news but as you will know, this hardly PROVES that these notices work.

 

On 6th April new regulations take effect and what is vitally important to be aware of is Paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12. This require that a bailiff MUST (not may) do one the the following:

 

Secure goods on the premises:

 

Secure goods on the highway:

 

Remove immediately :

 

or:

 

Enter into a controlled goods agreement.

 

It is time to act responsibly and instead of encouraging debtors to 'deploy the NOROIRA' (and to pay a fee to obtain one) it is important to make sure that the debtor engages with the enforcement company (or local authority) before a visit is made so as to ensure that the debt does not increase or goods are removed.

[fletch70]

TT

I do not think I ever suggested that a bailiff was not totally different to an unsecured debt collector. I believe that you miss the point when you say a debt collector has no right to access your property. They are not banned as such from your land (but they have no right to enter your dwelling unless invited) however once you tell them that they can not visit they can not without the risk of a complaint for trespass.

 

I do have to say I am sick to death of this FMOTL rubbsih, they have been unable to provide one ounce of legally backed evidence that what they say holds any water at all.

[mikeymack2002]

Ok lets put this in to perspective everyone.

 

 

A defendant gets fined, refuses/can not pay, makes no contact, who's fault? D's

 

 

D gets official letters from said CRT D ignores

 

 

CRT orders B to get the money

 

 

B knocks on door with view to levy/remove adds fees

 

 

D ignores B

 

 

B leaves D's home adds fees

 

 

D is happy until B arrives again to do the same

 

 

This time D leaves out the notice out B takes photograph adds fees and leaves

 

 

B leaves D's home knowing the NOTICE is of no value or meaning

 

 

B reports to office then reports to CRT

 

 

CRT issues warrant for committal

 

 

D ends up in jail or back in Court for the amazing sum much greater than what was first needed to be paid!!!

 

 

Who's fault is the debt in the first place?? D

Who chose to take the wrong advise? D

Who now pays the price no goods no money left D

Who thinks they know the law better than B guess what D

 

 

The only advise D should be taking regardless of amount is to speak to the Court/Council/Creditor to make AFFORDABLE payments at the VERY 1st OPPORTUNITY BEFORE any Bailiff gets involved.

 

 

Sorry about being blunt but talking to the creditors is worth it's weight in gold when dealing with your debts especially those that involve a BAILIFF

 

 

MM

[fletch70]

MM

Yes you are right that in most cases ignoring a letter or visit is a very bad idea. But please lets not get into the blame game if how someone got there. In most cases ut us due to a series of unfortunate incidents and frankly sometimes debts are really the last thing on your mind.

What is needed is constructive adviCe on how to deal with the situation and which debts to priorities. Please also remember that many councils are less than sympathetic. In my area if you miss a payment you get a

letter. Unless you can catch that one payment up before the next one is due you will get a final notice and then a summons. You nay be only one payment behind which you can catch up within the year but you still get s£60 of fees. That is how it can escalate

[mikeymack2002]

fletch70

 

 

I know it was a harsh post but due to the way my mind works I say it as I see it, the point I was trying to make is speak before it even gets this far. D has every opportunity to get this sorted before its too late'

 

 

I sit in Court every week and see the faces of the defendants drop as they get into trouble simply for not seeking HELP as soon as it becomes apparent, this is just the beginning of the future for enforcement, much more is to come yet.

 

 

How long do you think it will be before they start on civil debts in the same way? It's not going to be long. At the end of the day the post is about the legal issue surrounding the notice, bluntly, it's worthless to a Bailiff to a DCA a different matter, that's all it is.

 

 

MM

[Crapstone]

MM

Yes you are right that in most cases ignoring a letter or visit is a very bad idea. But please lets not get into the blame game if how someone got there. In most cases ut us due to a series of unfortunate incidents and frankly sometimes debts are really the last thing on your mind.

What is needed is constructive adviCe on how to deal with the situation and which debts to priorities. Please also remember that many councils are less than sympathetic. In my area if you miss a payment you get a

letter. Unless you can catch that one payment up before the next one is due you will get a final notice and then a summons. You nay be only one payment behind which you can catch up within the year but you still get s£60 of fees. That is how it can escalate

 

CT is a priority debt and it's never too late to ask the council to take the debt back, call off the bailiffs and not apply the fees. For them to help you have to tell them and establish a named contact. The letters are automated so there isn't much you can do to stop them but you can set up a payment plan, alter dates etc. so you don't have bailiffs loading your stuff on a van or making off with your car.

 

The notices are just laughable and have no legal foundation even for a DCA. All they seem to do is confirm that the debtor is living at the address, which is what the DCA would be trying to establish by making a visit.

[tomtubby]

As mentioned earlier I will start a new thread today regarding the origins of these notice. In that way the public will be in a better position to understand the reason for displaying the notices and the reason also for their failure.

 

What is more is that today just so happens to be St Patrick' Day. The relevance to this day will become clear in the new thread !!!

 

In the meantime:

 

“Lá fhéile Pádraig sona dhuit!”