Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access (NOROIRA)....where did these bizarre notices come from ??

[tomtubby]

I have just read the judgment in full and will respond in the morning.

[mikeymack2002]

thx tt

[BazzaS]

So what is the story behind the quote

(Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384 . per Lord Evershed M.R.)

 

MM

 

Amongst others is that the case establishes that some things that MIGHT be easements (such as permission to construct a sewer across land owned by you), (and hence, implied permission for individuals to come to your door) exist instead by a 'license'. "an oral assent could not create an easement but only a licence and the licence, being unsupported by consideration, was revocable".

 

One of the features that makes it likely to be a "gratuitous license" rather than a more enforceable agreement is the absence of 'consideration'.

If it is a gratuitous license, it is revocable, and once revoked, there can be trespass on your land.

 

If they wishes to cite "per Lord Evershed" ... do they cite which comment by His Lordship they are citing (since he heard, and commented on : both an appeal, and a cross-appeal), or at least the legal principle (I am assuming: "this is merely a license, and revocable") they wish to cite?.

 

They might equally cite (towards the base of p.402) "assuming that it was a gratuitous licence and was revocable, then at any rate by well-established principle the licensee does not become necessarily a trespasser the moment the licensor says "The licence is at an end": the alleged trespasser is allowed a reasonable time to remove or make other arrangements to discontinue the act which thereby would become a trespass."

Thus if the license is revoked the licensee doesn't have to teleport off the property, but would have to leave within a reasonable time frame, and to stay more than is reasonable would be a trespass.

 

This remains "good law" IF it is a gratuitous license. If the person on the property holds "more than a license" to be there, then "I revoke your license to be on my property" might have no effect.

 

If it is a gratuitous license, then you can choose who can come to your door. "If you are the postman, you still have permission to deliver my mail. People seeking directions and doorstep agents for DCA's: leave now."

 

Tomtubby, does that cover it?.

[brassnecked]

Seems to adequately cover door knockers.BazzaS DCA, and TVL in TVL case normally notice is served on them by post revoking their impolies right or license to come in to knock the door

[unclebulgaria67]

Seems to adequately cover door knockers.BazzaS DCA, and TVL in TVL case normally notice is served on them by post revoking their impolies right or license to come in to knock the door

 

That case is from 1959. Surely other more recent case law exists and parliament has passed legislation since ?

 

That 1959 case may apply to limited circumstances, but it is being used to try to prevent lawful approaches to someones front door.

[brassnecked]

That case is from 1959. Surely other more recent case law exists and parliament has passed legislation since ?

 

That 1959 case may apply to limited circumstances, but it is being used to try to prevent lawful approaches to someones front door.

 

There may well be but the whole thing is cloudy and murky.

As far as I am concerned TVL are ALWAYS a trespasser, I am fed up of their Capita goons fetching up at my home as they got the wrong street, and I have a TV License, I invited one to prosecute me as Mr Lawful Occupier and I told him it's all in the database, so he had no business here.

[BazzaS]

That case is from 1959. Surely other more recent case law exists and parliament has passed legislation since ?

 

That 1959 case may apply to limited circumstances, but it is being used to try to prevent lawful approaches to someones front door.

 

Westlaw (a legal database) suggests it has "positive or neutral status", so the basic premise of the case stands as "good law". (If a case is significantly affected by a new case decision, that "marker" gets adjusted)

 

The "case analysis" supplied lists cases where the basic premise at law ("ratio") has been applied, and key textbooks where it is referred to (e.g. Megarry - unfortunately the library I have access to doesn't have an online copy so I wasn't able to research it further last night).

 

Whilst age of a case might be a factor in if it remains applicable, it isn't a reliable gauge. Newer legislation can be repealed or never brought into force, while some old statutes stand to date (Regulation of Railways Act 1889 S5 [fare dodging] and Offences Against the Person Act 1861 [ABH/GBH/GBH with intent] spring to mind).

 

Similarly, old case law may have been reversed (by newer cases) or replaced by statute. Some old case law stands:

Such as Hadley v Baxendale (so, if you need your mill stone replacing urgently, and the couriers couldn't be expected to know your mill will be at a standstill without it [so there is no implied term] [and there is no express term in the contract] you need to make sure they know, or you can't sue them for a delay).

 

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

 

1854 and relates to a mill stone : but the principle stands to date even though it is an old case.

 

Got a leasehold property? Is there a restrictive covenant in the lease?. Perhaps you aren't the original lessee - are you bound by the covenant. Spencer's case from 1583 might well decide the issue ..... And so on....

 

So, the age of the case is but one factor.

 

People trying to use it to prevent lawful approaches is a different issue. Hence why it is important they look at what Evershed MR said. It doesn't prevent lawful approaches other than those by holders of a gratuitous license, who have to depart if the license is revoked.

(Postman - why revoke if you want your mail?, but DCA agents and TVL goons).

 

HCEO, with a High Court writ ..... No more effect than a mouse with a peashooter against an elephant of "removing their license to be on the property" - their lawful presence doesn't depend on them having a gratuitous license.

[brassnecked]

A good explanation BazzaS, and also bear in mind that these old cases often crop up in later judgments in a way that confirms their validity as they may form part of the cornerstone of the findings in the current case. they could also come up in obiter and may be used in that context subsequently.

[lamma]

Armstrong v Sheppard has many references in Halsbury. Amongst the volumes that reference the case I suggest the volume on Estoppel is worth a look. (Although all that use it are interesting)

[brassnecked]

Thanks lamma.

[tomtubby]

 

So what is the story behind the quote

Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384 . per Lord Evershed M.R.

 

 

Mikeymack

 

Yours is a very important question indeed and I will attempt to answer as best I can.

 

In my research into Notices of Implied Right of Access I could not find any notices that dated from earlier than 2007. The following notice (below) was one that had been adapted from a similar notice similar that had first featured on a forum for Landlords of rented properties.

 

The version below was first posted on the debt collection section of Legal seagulls in 2008 by a user with the name of Cetelco. Shortly afterwards, it was copied onto the debt collection section of the Consumer Action Group forum.

 

It is important to note that at that time the notice was NOT used by either this forum or LB for anything other than traditional debt collection purposes. Accordingly, it was not recommended for use for visits by bailiffs. As stated at the start of this thread, the earliest notice that I can locate in relation to bailiffs is the one from 2009 as outlined on the "Freeman Ireland" website.

 

 

 

Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access

 

Please note that I am only prepared to communicate with you in writing.

 

Should it be your intention to arrange a "doorstep call", please remember that there is only an implied license under English Common Law for certain people to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.)



 

Please therefore take note that, I revoke license under English Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so without my permission, you will then be liable to damages for a tort of trespass. You would also be conspiring in a trespass if you sent someone to visit me nevertheless.

[tomtubby]

The Judgment that I have is very lengthly and below is an outline of the appeal:

 

Armstrong v Sheppard and Short Ltd (1959).

 

The Plaintiff: (Mr Armstrong) was the owner and occupier of a property known as 2, Priory Close, Harrow Road, Wembley which was situated at the extreme end of Priory Close leading into Priory Avenue. At the back of the house was a small pathway that led to premises owned and occupied by the defendants, Sheppard & Short Ltd.

 

At the end of 1957 Sheppard & Short Ltd conceived the idea that it would be to their advantage to construct a drain, or sewer, from their premises, leading to the public sewer in Priory Avenue. The drain was only required to carry rain water and waste from one toilet.

 

Accordingly, Sheppard & Short Ltd made the necessary excavations and constructed the sewer. The manhole itself was situated on the little strip of land which belonged to Mr Armstrong. During the work Sheppard & Short Ltd approached Mr Armstrong to seek permission and this was given by him orally. It is important to note that at the time of giving permission he was unaware that he actually owned the small strip of land.

 

On August 20, 1958, Mr Armstrong’s solicitor wrote to the solicitors for the defendants a letter which was as follows:

 

"Our client [the plaintiff] further instructs us that he has at no time been approached by your clients for permission or been advised of their intention, and has given no permission or licence of any kind. We write on behalf of our client to require that the sewer and manhole be removed forthwith from his premises, the premises be made good, and our client compensated in damages for the trespass. Alternatively, our client will have no alternative but to take such steps as may be necessary to stop the unauthorised flow of effluent across his land."

 

He swore that he had never had any conversation with the defendants about the matter. The county court judge found, as a fact, first, that the plaintiff had orally informed the defendants that he did not object to the construction of the sewer and, secondly, that the plaintiff, when he so stated, was not aware that he was the owner of the strip of land or that he had a right to object to the construction of the sewer.

 

The judge awarded Mr Armstrong a nominal sum of 20s. for damages for the trespass up to the date of the hearing, but refused to grant an injunction. The plaintiff appealed and the defendants cross-appealed:-

 

At the cross-appeal two questions were raised; first did the defendants' works in the circumstances constitute a trespass at all; secondly, was the licence which the plaintiff granted to the defendants a revocable licence.

 

 

His appeal was DISMISSED.

 

It is worth noting that at the appeal it was stated that although the case was special it was nevertheless a very unusual one.

 

Quite how this case could ever be used as the basis for stating that a bailiff with a court order was not allowed to come to the door of a property is bizarre.

 

Also, it is vitally important to note that even if a court agreed that a trespass had occured.....the leval of damages awarded by the courts is nominal.

[unclebulgaria67]

This subject has been debated on these forums at length and without any conclusive posting, which has come up with evidence that proves the effectiveness or not of these notices. They probably do work to a certain extent, but they do not stop someone coming up your garden path to your front door. The home owner/occupier has the right whether these notices are used or not, to ask any visitor to leave their property. This is why sometimes the Police ask bailiffs to withdraw unless they have a court warrant to authorise entry, because they want to stop a breach of the peace.

 

The tresspass bit is something that is alleged, but it is not proven, unless a court agrees to it and then any compensation would be limited. For a couple of visits to someones front door to ask why council tax is not being paid, I doubt that any tresspass action would stand any chance.

[BazzaS]

 

The tresspass bit is something that is alleged, but it is not proven, unless a court agrees to it and then any compensation would be limited. For a couple of visits to someones front door to ask why council tax is not being paid, I doubt that any tresspass action would stand any chance.

 

Damages for trespass would likely be nominal.

However, if the claimant had acted reasonably & the defendant unreasonably

A) costs might follow,

B) having a judgement (albeit for nominal damages) and costs makes it easy to get an injunction in the same action.

[unclebulgaria67]

Damages for trespass would likely be nominal.

However, if the claimant had acted reasonably & the defendant unreasonably

A) costs might follow,

B) having a judgement (albeit for nominal damages) and costs makes it easy to get an injunction in the same action.

 

Is that the legal advice you give to your clients ? How many people actually pursue any court action, relating to a visit to their frontdoor they were unhappy about ?

 

I had a look on YT earlier for recent bailiff videos. There are numerous FMOTL vids, with a recent one featuring a Marstons bailiff, who appeared silly enough to make statements on camera about actions he could take, which did not appear available to him. I think he was trying to suggest using forced entry with locksmiths for a council tax debt, when there was no court authorisation for such an action. I don't think there can be any forced entry for a council tax debt. It goes back to Magistrates for them to decide on actions in light of refusal to pay, which may include prison.

[BazzaS]

Is that the legal advice you give to your clients ? How many people actually pursue any court action, relating to a visit to their frontdoor they were unhappy about ?

 

Since I'm not a lawyer (nor have I ever said I am!) : I don 't have clients.

 

Am I aware that : people have sort even nominal damages for a tort such as trespass, in order to then secure an injunction : absolutely.

I'm led to understand it is advice that has been given by lawyers to their clients

 

Usually this is done where a trespass or nuisance to property has occurred, and reasonable efforts to get the transgressor to cease have failed. You'll note I specifically highlighted that the claimant shows reasonableness, with the defendant being unreasonable.

 

How many people take an action for trespass to court for a "front door visit" they are unhappy with? Likely few.

How many do do where the nuisance continues and they want to prevent it? Likely more.

If their action is neither frivolous nor vexatious : it is a valid technique for an injunction to prevent an ongoing tort.

 

I think the FOTL "decline to be subject to the law of the land" process is twaddle.

I think citing Armstrong v Sheppard as if it is a magic amulet without understanding its limitations is twaddle.

I think knowing when Armstrong v Sheppard applies, and how it could be used : isn't twaddle. It remains "good law".

[tomtubby]

BazzaS

 

Hopefully, I have now demonstrated that citing the case of Armstrong v Sheppard in a Notice of Removal of Implied Rights of Access in relation to a visit by an enforcement agent is frankly not going to help the debtor.

 

Later today I will address the matter the other 'legal cases' that have been cobbled together in the '2013' edition of the notices that frequently appear on websites associated with the Freeman on the Land 'movement'.

 

PS: Unlike the 'authors' of these notices, who appear to have entered the word 'trespass' into a legal cases website (such as Bailii) to cobble together the Notices, I have actually obtained and read the full Judgments.

[unclebulgaria67]

Since I'm not a lawyer (nor have I ever said I am!) :

Am I aware that : people have sort even nominal damages for a tort such as trespass, in order to then secure an injunction : absolutely.

I'm led to understand it is advice that has been given by lawyers to their clients Based on the specific circumstances of the case put to the lawyers. For visits by TV licencing, bailiffs and others in relation to debts owed by people living in a household, I think any lawyer would advise that such visits were reasonable, provided the person visiting did not cause any damage or break any criminal law.

How many people take an action for trespass to court for a "front door visit" they are unhappy with? Likely few.

How many do do where the nuisance continues and they want to prevent it? Likely more. They are not likely to instigate any court action against people who would have a valid reason to visit any household, if they acted reasonably and within the law.

If their action is neither frivolous nor vexatious : it is a valid technique for an injunction to prevent an ongoing tort. Would any Judge agree to such an injuction ? I have my doubts.

 

I think knowing when Armstrong v Sheppard applies, and how it could be used : isn't twaddle. It remains "good law". Of limited use against people who have a good valid reason to visit a property, specifically a debt owed to a public body or subject to a court order.

 

Points in red.

 

I just make the point that these notices are a waste of time. They will get ignored and people who don't like it won't go near a court. If they did go to a court, how likely is it for a Judge to agree to an injunction or agree that tresspass has taken place ? Unless it goes to court, it is just a theory for which there is no evidence that they work. I suspect that TV licencing and bailiffs that do see these, who may be put off from visiting just think that the person who applied these will be a pain in the *ss, they will attempt to do their job, but they won't bother to do much. It will get reported back, so other relevant action can be taken.

[tomtubby]

Around January 2013 another 'version' of these notices appeared on a Facebook page and appeared to 'go viral' with sites associated with the Freeman on the Land and other movements. The difference with this notice is that they appeared at first glance to rely upon appropriate 'case law'. The applicable notices state the following:

 

A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance. This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223 - and 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 275

 

 

The following is an extract from the Knox v Anderton judgment:

 

 

KNOX v ANDERTON

 

 

[Divisional Court]

12 November 1982

(1983) 76 Cr. App. R. 156

Lord Justice Ackner and Mr. Justice Webster

 

November 12, 1982

 

 

3. At the end of the prosecution's evidence Mr. Peter Mercer, the solicitor acting for the defendant, submitted that there was no case to answer. He contended that the place where the incident had occurred was not a public place.

 

 

4. Mr. Kenneth Smith, the solicitor for the prosecutor, contended that the landings to the Langworthy Estate flats were a public place.

 

6. The justices were of the opinion there was no restriction on members of the general public entering the Langworthy Estate.

 

The justices were of the opinion that the place where this incident took place was a public place.

 

7. Having announced their opinion and that they therefore rejected the submission of no case to answer, the defendant changed his plea to one of guilty. After hearing about the defendant's personal circumstances they ordered that he pay a fine of £40 and £10 toward the costs of the prosecution.

 

The defendant appealed.

 

 

8. The question for the opinion of the court was were the justices right or wrong in finding that the landings to the Langworthy Estate flats in Salford were a public place.

 

M. Shorrock for the defendant.

N. M. Simmonds for the prosecutor.

 

Ackner L.J.:

I will ask Webster J. to give the judgment of the court.

Webster J.:

 

 

This is a defendant's appeal by way of case stated by Justices for the County of Greater Manchester sitting at Salford in respect of their adjudication on November 13, 1981, whereby they convicted the appellant of having, on July 27, 1981, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse with him in a public place called Langworthy Estate

 

It was not disputed before the justices that on that date the defendant, when standing on an upper landing of a block of flats on the Langworthy Estate in Salford, had a claw hammer in his hand, and that this was an offensive weapon.

 

The only issue raised before the justices, which was raised at the close of the prosecution evidence, was whether that landing was a public place within the meaning of that expression in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 .

 

The question for the opinion of this court is whether the justices' finding that the landings to the Langworthy Estate flats in Salford are a public place was wrong in law.

 

 

The facts found by the justices, so far as material, are as follows.

 

 

"There is a community centre within the estate used both by residents of the estate and by non-residents. There is nothing to prevent a member of the public from entering the estate, there is nothing to stop members of the public from entering the stairways of the blocks of flats, there is no barrier to prevent members of the public walking along the landings which give access to the individual flats, and there are no doors to the stairways or landings, which are open to the atmosphere. There are no notices to suggest that there is any restriction of access to the landings and stairways or to the whole estate except that there are notices on some of the buildings at the entrance to the estate which read “Parking of vehicles above 10 cwt. on the estate is Prohibited, Access is restricted to tenants and their visitors only.”

 

Mr. Shorrock's submission on behalf of the defendant amounted to a challenge of the justices' decision that the landing was a public place on two grounds, the first that the justices expressly misdirected themselves and the second that their decision was perverse, that is to say a decision which no reasonable justices, properly directing themselves, could reach upon the facts found by them.

 

Mr. Shorrock submitted that the justices expressly misdirected themselves in expressing the opinion “that the Estate had to be considered as a whole, with the exception of the actual dwellings.” We do not regard that as a misdirection.

 

Mr. Shorrock also, as we understand him, submitted that the justices misdirected themselves when expressing the opinion that they were entitled to have regard to the mischief at which section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is directed; but there is abundant authority to support that direction. We cannot, therefore, conclude that the justices expressly misdirected themselves.

 

The question remains whether their decision was perverse.

 

For reasons which will later become apparent in this judgment, it is clear to us that the justices in the present case decided that the landings were a public place for the first, not the second, of those two reasons, namely, because they were premises or a place to which at the material time “the public have … access.”

 

They made and purported to make no finding that the public had any implied licence or permission to go on to the landings and they made no reference to any such licence or permission in the reasons given for their decision.

 

We, therefore, reject the first of Mr. Shorrock's points in support of his contention that their decision was perverse.

 

His second point was a more broad one, namely, that it defied common sense to regard the landings as a public place; and in support of that contention he relied upon the decision in Llewellyn Edwards and Eric Roberts ( supra ) and upon a decision of Judge Nance in Heffey [1981] Crim.L.R. 111 .

 

We do not, therefore, think that either of those two decisions enable Mr. Shorrock to show that the decision of the justices in this case, on the facts before them, was one which no reasonable bench of justices properly directing themselves could have reached.

 

It seems clear that the first stage in the reasoning or fact-finding process which led to that decision was their “opinion” (which is really a finding) that there was no restriction on members of the general public entering the Langworthy Estate.”

 

That finding was, in our view, wholly consistent with the evidence as to the use of the estate by persons not residing there and as to such notices as there were purporting to restrict access to it.

 

Had the question arisen, therefore, the justices would have been perfectly entitled, in our view, to have decided that the estate itself was a public place as, by inference, they have done.

 

For all these reasons we would, slightly rewording the question for the opinion of this court, answer it by saying that the justices have not been shown to have made any error of law in finding that the landings were a public place and we, therefore, dismiss this appeal.

[tomtubby]

To further demonstrate the way in which the public have been badly misled by the authors of the '2013' notice is that they fail to disclose to the public the important comment from Lord Justice Diplock in his judgment regarding the Court of Appeal case of R v Edwards and Roberts [1978]:

 

"Persons such as the postman or milkman who have an implied licence to enter the garden do so not as members of the public but rather as lawful visitors.

 

Lastly, a further area where the author misled the public in the '2013' version was with the following quote featured on the "NOROIRA":

 

"This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223 - and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway"

 

So...did Lord Justice Donaldson really say that 'placing a notices is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway"?

 

NO....he did not. The word bailiff is not mentioned anywhere is his Judgment.

 

The 'author' of the said notices added this crucial word himself. The public have been seriously misled.

[tomtubby]

To conclude:

 

Firstly, an important point that needs to be made very clear is that to date.....apart from the legal case against Rossendales Ltd (that the debtor lost)...... there are no known legal cases involving a bailiff ignoring a implied right of access notice. Instead, there are cases involving police officers and whether a breadth test can be carried out in a private property etc.

 

Secondly, so why do debtors display such notices?

 

If it is to try to claim damages or fees then you will need to issue legal proceedings and let a District Judge decide. Such an application will not be easy given that under the new regulations (that take effect on 6th April) it is clear that an enforcement agent will not be deemed a trespasser. An enforcement company will not pay damages voluntarily.

 

If it is to prevent fees being charged to your account, don't bother because if the fees have been legally applied they will remain.

 

If it is to delay, or frustrate the enforcement agent in order to prevent him from visiting the property. This will very likely lead to the enforcement company swiftly moving to another METHOD of enforcement......an Attachement of Earnings Order (AEO). This is by far the most common route taken by local authorities and enforcement companies faced with such notices. What is more, once a Liability Order has been issued a debtor is under a legal obligation to provide (on request) full details of the employment status of both husband and wife (given that they are both jointly liable for the council tax debt).

 

In reality, the main reason why debtors display such a notice....(.or; according the some websites; 'deploy the NOROIRA') is for no other reason than:

 

Because they were told to do so by an internet site !!

[HCEOs]

If it's to delay, or frustrate the bailiff in order to prevent him from visiting the property. This will very likely lead to the enforcement company swiftly moving to another METHOD of enforcement......an Attachement of Earnings Order (AEO). This is by far the most common route taken by local authorities and enforcement companies faced with such notices.

 

Just a quick one to say that I believe most enforcement companies just ignore the notice and proceed to enforce. I do not believe they use AOE in such circumstances.

 

As mentioned before, we have been 'fined' many times over the years and have never paid a penny. And despite all the threats of court action we're still waiting.

 

tomtubby, a truly great post and one that I have read with interest. Great work.

[tomtubby]

HCEO....With regards to Attachments of Earnings...in fact, they are now being set up at an astonishing rate regarding arrears of council tax and under the 'Contracting Out' regulations bailiff companies may put the AOE's in place on behalf of the LA.

 

With regards to your last sentence....thank you very much indeed. A lot of hard work has gone into this subject and it was necessary given the huge number of enquiries that I receive weekly from people who had been assured that 'deploying the NOROIRA' would be a magic cure that would lead to a levy being deemed invalid and bailiff fees removed.

 

What the internet sites fail to tell the unsuspecting debtors is that the enforcement companies would ignore the notices and with regards to the levy and fees being removed....they would first have to issue legal proceedings and then try to convince a District Judge to find in their favour.

 

If a debtor is tempted to take legal proceedings, what I would say to them is to be very careful about taking 'legal advice' from internet sites and to make sure that they read the Judgments for themselves and not rely upon what a website 'claims' a judgment says.

[notmeguvhonest]

Your points are clear enough, but I have a query. If my neighbour has bailiffs attending, for council tax etc, am I allowed to deny the bailiff access if he wants to cross my land in order to reach the debtors house?

[brassnecked]

Your points are clear enough, but I have a query. If my neighbour has bailiffs attending, for council tax etc, am I allowed to deny the bailiff access if he wants to cross my land in order to reach the debtors house?

If he isn't calling on you and your address is not on any warrant and paperwork then unless there is an easement on your land and deeds that allows people to cross your property to access the neighbour, then imho you can ask the bailiff to leave, and call the police to remove him, or set the cat on him, not the dog as they can't prosecute you for a cat attack.

 

If he openly discusses or mentions details of the debt then it's a call to the ICO to report the bailiff for breach of DPA .

 

Oops there's another can of worms opened that might need it's own thread, rights of access across adjoining property not belonging to or part of the named debtors premises. If it was Newlyn or Bristols & Stupor, they would likely levy your car on the way across your land to the neighbour, whilst Jacobs would also clamp it..