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

[SuperVillain]

This is absolutely fascinating... I've been doing debt collection work for 3 years now and a regular viewer and occasional poster on these boards. I've only come across this Freeman thing on here, and only then in the last 3 weeks or so...

 

No debtor I've come across in 3 years has ever tried to use any of it's ideas to avoid paying...

[brassnecked]

This is absolutely fascinating... I've been doing debt collection work for 3 years now and a regular viewer and occasional poster on these boards. I've only come across this Freeman thing on here, and only then in the last 3 weeks or so...

 

No debtor I've come across in 3 years has ever tried to use any of it's ideas to avoid paying...

Well one day soon you just might.Ask that TVL goon you may meet on your knocking.

[SuperVillain]

TVL?

 

Been reading more about it in the last hour....

 

Would be interesting if a debtor did try to use any of those arguments.... one to have some fun with I expect...

[renegadeimp]

TVL - Tv licencing.

[SuperVillain]

TVL - Tv licencing.

 

Oh ok... Cheers

 

I had one at my door once at Uni... let him in and everything.

[Crapstone]

Where's the new thread? Surely you need a court order to prevent a 'visit' and a valid reason for doing it? Can you say you owe a company/council money so therefore you object to them being on your land and would like an injunction? A notice would not suffice. The law is pretty clear on what a DCA can and can't do and just asking them to leave is enough. So that just leaves you with bailiffs and again they are not going to take a blind bit of notice to something that has no legal implications.

[tomtubby]

Where's the new thread? Surely you need a court order to prevent a 'visit' and a valid reason for doing it? Can you say you owe a company/council money so therefore you object to them being on your land and would like an injunction? A notice would not suffice. The law is pretty clear on what a DCA can and can't do and just asking them to leave is enough. So that just leaves you with bailiffs and again they are not going to take a blind bit of notice to something that has no legal implications.

 

.

.

 

I have been busy trying to 'get my head around' yet another Statutory instrument released by the Ministry of Justice regarding the new bailiff regulations. I will be starting the new thread sometime later today. I promise.

[brassnecked]

.

.

 

I have been busy trying to 'get my head around' yet another Statutory instrument released by the Ministry of Justice regarding the new bailiff regulations. I will be starting the new thread sometime later today. I promise.

 

The MOJ reality black hole is growing deeper, have the draughtsmen been sucked into the singularity from whence nothing can escape? Are they in the style of Arfur Daley " 'avin a larf"?

 

A fortnight to go and they are still putting details out to digest and interpret.

 

It would be insulting a muppet to compare the MOJ to Kermit & Co

 

 

All required information and Q & A sessions along with any training should have been months ago.

[Crapstone]

.

.

 

I have been busy trying to 'get my head around' yet another Statutory instrument released by the Ministry of Justice regarding the new bailiff regulations. I will be starting the new thread sometime later today. I promise.

 

Do you happen to be a politician? They tend to make promises....

[brassnecked]

The MOJ are spewing out further information on this rushed botched introduction of the new bailiff Regulatory framework constantly in a race against time, and maybe they will or already have taken steps to outlaw NOIROA to allow everyone including the 7th Day Adventists and other Door Knockers like Snotcall, Muck Hall and every DCA under the sun the right to knock a door.

 

It's Ok I am joking???????

[tomtubby]

By the way tomtubby , I have been reading some interesting things about you on that site, apparently you are one of them and varios other allegations about who owns Cag etc. It just makes me want to scream

 

.

Fletch..I do apologise. I only noticed this post of yours a few moments ago.

 

The untrue claims are well known and of course are completely untrue.

 

Sadly they originate from a "Walter Mitty' character (he claims to have been a professional diver in oil and gas exploration for BP with academic qualifications in marine geology before changing career to become a commercial pilot for a middle-eastern airline).

 

PS: I have no doubt however that he is being entirely honest with his claim that in his spare time he travels the UK holiday park circuit with a touring magic show playing ‘swirrly background music’ on a keyboard.

 

I will not comment further.

[brassnecked]

.

Fletch..I do apologise. I only noticed this post of yours a few moments ago.

 

The untrue claims are well known and of course are completely untrue.

 

Sadly they originate from a "Walter Mitty' character (he claims to have been a professional diver in oil and gas exploration for BP with academic qualifications in marine geology before changing career to become a commercial pilot for a middle-eastern airline).

 

PS: I have no doubt however that he is being entirely honest with his claim that in his spare time he travels the UK holiday park circuit with a touring magic show playing ‘swirrly background music’ on a keyboard.

 

I will not comment further.

 

 

Merry Entrails does not need the oxygen of publicity to be a complete berk unfortunately.

[fletch70]

TT

You know that my comments were all tongue in cheek!

[tomtubby]

 

TT You know that my comments were all tongue in cheek!

 

.

 

Fletch....I do indeed and thank you for your confirmation.

[itchynuts]

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

[Bailiff Advice]

 

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

 

I hope that you do not mind but I have put your question into easy to read sentences. In that way I can try to address each part. Secondly, the notice that you refer to is still 'doing the rounds' on popular Freeman on the Land sites although it's popularity has diminished considerably since the new bailiff regulations came into effect last April.

 

In relation to the legal case of Lambert v Roberts and the reference that:

 

"placing a notice is akin to a close door but it also prevents

a bailiff

entering the garden or driveway".

 

Sadly, the author of this notice has misled the public. The judgment in the cases referred to does not mention the word bailiff at all (I have read all the judgments referred to in that notice).

 

The reference to the Human Rights Act is important and in this respect, the ECHR will have been taken into consideration when the relevant Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument was implemented. If an individual's personal possessions were unable to be taken then bailiff enforcement would cease forthwith.

 

Bailiffs very rarely take computers (in fact bailiffs are known to only actually remove goods from a debtor's home in less then 1% of cases). In fact, computer are now considered an 'exempt' item if it is required by the individual for business, self employment or education use.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

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 relevant regulation that you refer to are The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992 but most importantly, regulation 45.7 does not I'm afraid have the same wording that you have written above (ie: a bailiff levying a distress may not commit an act of trespass the execute the levy).

 

PS: I am shocked to see today that this thread that I started back in 2013 has been viewed 15,700 times !!!

[Bailiff Advice]

Duplicate post

[Bailiff Advice]

The relevant regulation that you refer to are The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement Regulations 1992 but most importantly regulation 45.7 does not I'm afraid have the same wording that you have written above (ie: a bailiff levying a distress may not commit an act of trespass the execute the levy).

 

 

The truth of the matter is that section 45.7 really said the following:

 

(7) A distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order, and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser on that account;

 

and

 

no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser

from the beginning on account of any subsequent irregularity in making the distress.

[Bailiff Advice]

It is important to mention that regulation 45 (entitled Distress) of the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992 was amended in April 2014 when the new bailiff laws were introduced.

 

The amended clause provides that if a liability order has been made that payment may be enforced by using the Schedule 12 'procedure' of the TCE Act 2007.

 

Of significance is Regulation 66 of Schedule 12 which applies where either an enforcement agent:

 

(a) breaches a provision of Schedule 12

or:

 

(b) enforces the debt when either the writ, warrant or liability order is defective.

 

Regulation 66.2 confirms that in either case:

 

'The 'breach or defect"

does not

make the enforcement agent, or a person he is acting for, a trespasser"

 

PS: Regulation 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 applies to all debts types, (council tax, road traffic debts and magistrate court fines).

[Peterbard]

(7) A distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order, and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser on that account; and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser from the beginning on account of any subsequent irregularity in making the distress.

 

Yes this section is now no longer with us in any case, it was withdrawn by the TCE in the consequential amendment regulations. It was reinserted in the source legislation in section 66(2) of schedule 12 of the act.

 

Much of the case law mentioned is wildly misinterpreted in order to support a theory, which is par for the course for the FMOTL , if you try and search for the actual judgments you end up on one of their sites. I have found it difficult to see the actual"evidence", when I have found it , it says nothing like what they claim.

 

The interesting part about section 45.7(66.2) is that it says that the bailiff should not be a trespasser on any defect of the order,(it extends the rights available in a compliant order) so this would indicate that a compliant order gave an actual right of entry(not an implied one). This is why these removal of implied rights notices would never be of any use against a bailiff or an officer of a court enforcing a warrant.

 

In the case of civil debts like council tax etc, you can refuse entry to the home of the debtor this is a different thing entirely and is a result of common law which has been in force for centuries and never overturned by statute(unlike the rights of forced entry to enforce a fine, which was repealed in 2004 by the DVCVA).

The same requirements are still binding on the actions of bailiffs today even after the introduction of the TCE, this act repealed much common law but not this (although adjustments were made to modes of entry etc.).

[Bailiff Advice]

What Regulation 66 of Schedule 12 has done is to clarify the position more strongly, more clearly ..and most importantly...in one place.....that a bailiff (or anyone that he is acting for) will not be considered a trespasser if there is any defect in the warrant, the writ or the liability order and furthermore, that the neither the bailiff (or anyone that he his acting for) will be considered a trespasser if he breaches any provision at all in Schedule 12

 

A final point as well here that needs mentioning is that Removal of Implied Right of Access notices are ignored by all enforcement companies, the bailiffs they employ and the local authorities and courts that issue the liability orders or warrants.

[josephbloggs]

May as well just stick a banner on your house

I OWE MONEY AND HAVE NO INTENTION OF PAYING IT

[Coughdrop]

There is a 4 year old FOI request here on this subject:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/removal_of_implied_right_of_acce

 

This is, I think, STILL awaiting an internal review.

 

It does seem the official bodies are not very keen to answer the question. In fact, one comment, made by a Mr Neil Gilliat, states he has noticed that many of the FOI reponses seem to be replied to by what he believes to be pseudonyms.

 

Does anyone know for sure if this internal review has happened yet or not?

[Peterbard]

There is a 4 year old FOI request here on this subject:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/removal_of_implied_right_of_acce

 

This is, I think, STILL awaiting an internal review.

 

It does seem the official bodies are not very keen to answer the question. In fact, one comment, made by a Mr Neil Gilliat, states he has noticed that many of the FOI reponses seem to be replied to by what he believes to be pseudonyms.

 

Does anyone know for sure if this internal review has happened yet or not?

 

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.