Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the legal position regarding "clamping" of a vehicle.

[welsh1]

 

 

Dodgy Dave and his band of Degenerate Desperados have realised the British people have found out what is going on and are desperately trying to collapse the country as fast as they can, hence the reason why they are rushing things through. However, they have seriously underestimated the strength of spirit, intelligence and resolve of the British people and this is what will bring them down. The biggest mistakes they have made are bullying the legal profession, the police and the armed forces. No government with an ounce of commonsense treats these groups with the contempt this present shower has.

 

They are doing such a good job of "desperately trying to collapse the country as fast as they can"that the country has now passed it's pre-recession peak and is showing a slow but steady upward trend of further recovery.

[old bill]

Welsh1,

 

I have to say that you surprise me with your statement. Have you not realised that the PPI compensation now being paid out by the banks is filtering into the economy? Have you not also realised there is a housing bubble that is going to burst? People can see through the spin the mainstream media is pumping out and don't believe a word they or the government is spouting. And the government knows it.

[unclebulgaria67]

They are doing such a good job of "desperately trying to collapse the country as fast as they can"that the country has now passed it's pre-recession peak and is showing a slow but steady upward trend of further recovery.

 

I have to agree with old bill here to a certain extent. It is only the service sector that has exceeded where it was pre crash. The banks have started to issue more loans and credit cards, which people are taking advantage of. There are also people who are taking advantage of low mortgage rates, if they had rate tracker mortgages. Locally I have seen many people take advantage of low rates to borrow money to have extensions built, taken out loans for conservatories etc. A local builder told me has never been so busy, as people are doing up their houses, while interest rates are low. When the rates increase back to normal, the current growth will be choked off.

 

The government are using austerity cuts as a reason to make changes, which they say are about saving money, but in actual fact are really designed to take a way peoples fundamental rights as citizens.

[welsh1]

I have to agree with old bill here to a certain extent. It is only the service sector that has exceeded where it was pre crash. The banks have started to issue more loans and credit cards, which people are taking advantage of. There are also people who are taking advantage of low mortgage rates, if they had rate tracker mortgages. Locally I have seen many people take advantage of low rates to borrow money to have extensions built, taken out loans for conservatories etc. A local builder told me has never been so busy, as people are doing up their houses, while interest rates are low. When the rates increase back to normal, the current growth will be choked off.

 

The government are using austerity cuts as a reason to make changes, which they say are about saving money, but in actual fact are really designed to take a way peoples fundamental rights as citizens.

 

What fundamental rights?

Austerity cuts in the government sector are needed as under labour they grossly inflated the public sector by creating jobs within ,thus hiding the true extent of the unemployed figures,if labour had carried on we would be in even more trouble than we are now,a spend spend policy cannot be sustained if there is less coming in than going out, i would have thought that this was obvious to the public, especially those on here advising on debt.

[unclebulgaria67]

What fundamental rights?

Austerity cuts in the government sector are needed as under labour they grossly inflated the public sector by creating jobs within ,thus hiding the true extent of the unemployed figures,if labour had carried on we would be in even more trouble than we are now,a spend spend policy cannot be sustained if there is less coming in than going out, i would have thought that this was obvious to the public, especially those on here advising on debt.

 

Like not being able to go to a court for hearing because the government have decided to implement administrative justice, where you are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent, if you can do this via an admin appeals process. This is what is going to happen from later this year for some offences.

 

I have no problem cutting jobs in the public sector which are not needed. I am not that bothered by outsourcing to the private sector. What I don't like is any government trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes. For example when the government got rid of PCT's within the NHS, it cost them £1.3 billion in redundancies and within a year most of these people are back working within the NHS. So not much money saved there and the government could have achieved it changes giving GP's more control over budgets in another way.

 

You really have to be careful what information you are told to believe. Government and opposition tend to be selective with information. Check some of the House of commons select committee reports, particularly the Public Accounts committee, were you will find better information. While some of the select committees have government party majorities on them, they base their reports on the facts, even if it is not convenient to the government.

[welsh1]

Like not being able to go to a court for hearing because the government have decided to implement administrative justice, where you are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent, if you can do this via an admin appeals process. This is what is going to happen from later this year for some offences.

 

I have no problem cutting jobs in the public sector which are not needed. I am not that bothered by outsourcing to the private sector. What I don't like is any government trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes. For example when the government got rid of PCT's within the NHS, it cost them £1.3 billion in redundancies and within a year most of these people are back working within the NHS. So not much money saved there and the government could have achieved it changes giving GP's more control over budgets in another way.

 

You really have to be careful what information you are told to believe. Government and opposition tend to be selective with information. Check some of the House of commons select committee reports, particularly the Public Accounts committee, were you will find better information. While some of the select committees have government party majorities on them, they base their reports on the facts, even if it is not convenient to the government.

 

A lot of the nhs problems stem from a labour government implementing a target driven structure,this in turn led to a managerial glut to enforce and control these policies,unfortunately the people who implemented them are still in charge and will continue in the same vein,re hiring their cronies time and time again, the whole nhs system needs dramatic reform,but this will not happen because of a few things,the nhs is a behemoth that changes direction very slowly,the people in the system are happy with what they have(comfortable) and will resist change by all means including striking, which in turn will only damage the nhs further.

 

As for the court process coming into force,sadly we let again the labour government of the past have their way,the day the lisbon treaty was signed was the beginning of the end of british innocent until proven guilty,and eventually we will have corpus juris the same as the rest of our continental cousins,it is unavoidable unless we leave the eu as we are part of the eu system and bit by bit we will be incorporated as one of it's states.

If you think i am wrong,look at what is happening to the system now,coincidence or implementation of policy to eventually align our system with europe.

[caledfwlch]

As far as I can see, presumption of innocence is protected by various EU Statutes especially the ECHR (France is held up along with the Code Napoleon as not having Innocent until proven guilty, however that right Is protected by constitution law since 1789!)

 

Sweden for example adopted part of the Code Napoleon but as in germany presumption of innocence is protected, it is the actual Trial setup and procedure that is very alien to us who live in common law democracies.

 

There is no Jury Trial - in Sweden and I believe Germany a Trial is held before 3+ professional criminal Judges who must stick to statute law to find guilty.

 

It is a system that is totally rigid, but in its defence it means the judges have no flexibility of interpretation, they cannot twist criminal statute to issue a conviction, they can only assess the evidence according to statute and I believe it means that clever barristers on either side have little or no room to twist things, not to mention they have no civilian jury to twist facts and interpretation to, and to use complex legal jargon to confuse witnesses and jury alike to alter the perception of evidence.

 

I could well see the use of presumed guilty until proven innocent will come a nasty cropper in court.

 

This does not sound like a creeping attempt to implement the Code Napoleon in Britain but a typical Tory arrogance to increase profit

 

I would have thought to make these changes would require very major and serious rewritting of all sorts of laws major and small some dating back centuries. If so then this really will come a cropper if done in a hurry.

 

Doesn't magna carta remain in force and guarentees a fair trial (not giving a trial at all would thus breech)

A lot of the nhs problems stem from a labour government implementing a target driven structure,this in turn led to a managerial glut to enforce and control these policies,unfortunately the people who implemented them are still in charge and will continue in the same vein,re hiring their cronies time and time again, the whole nhs system needs dramatic reform,but this will not happen because of a few things,the nhs is a behemoth that changes direction very slowly,the people in the system are happy with what they have(comfortable) and will resist change by all means including striking, which in turn will only damage the nhs further.

 

As for the court process coming into force,sadly we let again the labour government of the past have their way,the day the lisbon treaty was signed was the beginning of the end of british innocent until proven guilty,and eventually we will have corpus juris the same as the rest of our continental cousins,it is unavoidable unless we leave the eu as we are part of the eu system and bit by bit we will be incorporated as one of it's states.

If you think i am wrong,look at what is happening to the system now,coincidence or implementation of policy to eventually align our system with europe.

[tomtubby]

When I start the new thread about these significant changes to court fines we can at least guarantee a healthy debate !!!

[welsh1]

As far as I can see, presumption of innocence is protected by various EU Statutes especially the ECHR (France is held up along with the Code Napoleon as not having Innocent until proven guilty, however that right Is protected by constitution law since 1789!)

 

Sweden for example adopted part of the Code Napoleon but as in germany presumption of innocence is protected, it is the actual Trial setup and procedure that is very alien to us who live in common law democracies.

 

There is no Jury Trial - in Sweden and I believe Germany a Trial is held before 3+ professional criminal Judges who must stick to statute law to find guilty.

 

It is a system that is totally rigid, but in its defence it means the judges have no flexibility of interpretation, they cannot twist criminal statute to issue a conviction, they can only assess the evidence according to statute and I believe it means that clever barristers on either side have little or no room to twist things, not to mention they have no civilian jury to twist facts and interpretation to, and to use complex legal jargon to confuse witnesses and jury alike to alter the perception of evidence.

 

I could well see the use of presumed guilty until proven innocent will come a nasty cropper in court.

 

This does not sound like a creeping attempt to implement the Code Napoleon in Britain but a typical Tory arrogance to increase profit

 

I would have thought to make these changes would require very major and serious rewritting of all sorts of laws major and small some dating back centuries. If so then this really will come a cropper if done in a hurry.

 

Doesn't magna carta remain in force and guarentees a fair trial (not giving a trial at all would thus breech)

 

The Magna Carta is more of a symbol of our democracy and freedom,there were originally 63 clauses but the majority of these have been amended removed or ignored there are only 3 left ,freedom of the church,the ancient liberties of the city of london,and the one we all refer to,a right to due process "No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land."

 

But if the other clauses could be removed, there is no reason for the last 3 to go,unfortunately the british never fought to keep their rights and have let them be eroded over time

[unclebulgaria67]

When I start the new thread about these significant changes to court fines we can at least guarantee a healthy debate !!!

 

The new offence of breathing too much air will cause a lot of protests form asthmatics. Marathon runners will have to pay a penalty tax with their entry fees !

[caledfwlch]

It is perfectly clear nowadays that the Bailiff system is kept in place for personal debts purely to profit the private Bailiff companies.

 

For Council Tax Debt, it would be extremely easy to put an alternate system in place and a lot cheaper especially for the debtors.

 

My scenario would be:

 

Liability Order arrives in the post, giving 14 days to pay. (In this there is no making a weekly/monthly payment request to the council for the arears)

 

After 14 days the debt has not been paid. So the Council have 2 options: if they don't already have the employment details of debtor they contact HMRC and get that info. They then automatically put in place an attachment of earnings but based on a fair repayment rate say for min wage 5-10 quid a week and so on.

 

If the debtor is on benefits then the aoe is placed onto their benefit at the current rate of 3 quid.

 

No Bailiffs, no thuggery, no aggression no fees plunging people into further poverty. Instead of the hit and miss of Bailiff collection a regular weekly/monthly revenue stream is guaranteed. All Council tax debt becomes 100 percent collectible so even the Heroes in their own mind who refuse to pay even to go to prison cannot wriggle out!

 

It would cost hardly anything to run - the councils will no longer need all their debt collection admin staff just 4 ot 5 people if that to administer the system. Not to mention a cut down and thus saving in the amount of paperwork needing to be issued.

 

And if you combined that with a council tax system along the lines of the poll tax everybody especially workers would be much better off! And again it would cut down the concil tax admin costs as there would no longer be a need to run and administer a council tax benefit team - if your on benefits you simply aren't eligible to pay the dwp would inform the council of your status.

 

I believe the SNP calculated a fixed payment for everybody would mean council tax could be as low as a fiver a week or between 5-10 quid. Most working households of a working couple would either be paying less or no more than the current system. I never understood the poll tax resistence unless it was going to be more expensive.

 

Even better would be to make the new one size council tax taken direct before wages are paid as a local tax which keeps costs down even further. The result is councils get 100 percent payment from all eligible residents.

 

I believe one argument is if 4 people live together and work why should they all individually pay - well if there's 4 of you, then that's 4 people using council services, that's putting a heavier drain on the services than the working couple next door, 4 people wil produce more rubbish for collection etc.

 

 

 

 

The new offence of breathing too much air will cause a lot of protests form asthmatics. Marathon runners will have to pay a penalty tax with their entry fees !

[brassnecked]

Great in principle Caled, problem is the Council and Public Service unions would have a hissy fit, and call the binmen and all the Council administartors out on strike at the prospect of all the redundancies, Capita and Equita and Ross 'n Robbers et al would be lobbying to keep bailiffs as they would otherwise have to go on JSA..

[caledfwlch]

Aye and that shows how the UK is not remotely a real democracy or even a pretend one.

 

You do not have democracy when rich business people are able to buy legislation and privilaged access to MP's.

 

Lobbying needs to be outlawed except where all meetings are recorded and held in front of a cross party committee. Holding personal meetings with people who have a dog in the race for particular legislation criminalised.

[unclebulgaria67]

Why is it that after every election, the next government becomes even more authoritarian ? No wonder FMOTL attracts many people to believe in what they are saying, as it sounds really good.

[caledfwlch]

I am a firm believer of 2 tenets:

 

When Injustice becomes Law, Resistence becomes duty

 

And

 

When Government becomes Tyranny it is the duty of the people to overthrow it even by force.

 

Government should be by and for the people, and we in the UK have nothing like that.

 

 

Why is it that after every election, the next government becomes even more authoritarian ? No wonder FMOTL attracts many people to believe in what they are saying, as it sounds really good.

[brassnecked]

I am a firm believer of 2 tenets:

 

When Injustice becomes Law, Resistence becomes duty

 

And

 

When Government becomes Tyranny it is the duty of the people to overthrow it even by force.

 

Government should be by and for the people, and we in the UK have nothing like that.

 

 

I would tend to agree with you, why do you think Boris bought those water cannon? It is because politicos are afraid of us.

[caledfwlch]

Could anyone confirm whether a particular impression I have gotten from the control of goods act is right or wrong?

 

It appears to me that iperhaps n an attempt to stop Debtors selling their assets to friends/family and that person then does an SD the new act now prohibts doing the above between a liability order being granted and yon bailiff turning up at the door!

 

The bit that has me thinking the above was some blurb about a debtors goods are the property of court even without a levy being made, and attempting to dispose of your goods even before bailiff arrives is thus a criminal offence, theft at the very least.

 

 

Of course iit makes no real difference to anyone. An SD does not usually mention the dates the leviable contents of a debtors house was bought only the date the new owner was forced to get an sd to protect their goods from bailiffs and for that matter the Court.

 

"I knew a liability order was coming Your Corpulence so I disposed of my assets before it was granted"

[old bill]

I would tend to agree with you, why do you think Boris bought those water cannon? It is because politicos are afraid of us.

 

Water his garden?

[brassnecked]

Water his garden?

 

The ones in Tower Hamlets?

[old bill]

Could anyone confirm whether a particular impression I have gotten from the control of goods act is right or wrong?

 

It appears to me that iperhaps n an attempt to stop Debtors selling their assets to friends/family and that person then does an SD the new act now prohibts doing the above between a liability order being granted and yon bailiff turning up at the door!

 

The bit that has me thinking the above was some blurb about a debtors goods are the property of court even without a levy being made, and attempting to dispose of your goods even before bailiff arrives is thus a criminal offence, theft at the very least.

 

 

Of course iit makes no real difference to anyone. An SD does not usually mention the dates the leviable contents of a debtors house was bought only the date the new owner was forced to get an sd to protect their goods from bailiffs and for that matter the Court.

 

"I knew a liability order was coming Your Corpulence so I disposed of my assets before it was granted"

 

All a Liability Order does is formally state you owe money to a local authority. What you are describing may well contravene the Human Rights Act 1998. The government enact legislation and claim it complies with the Act. However, when compatibility with Convention rights is tested, a lot of legislation falls down before it reaches the first hurdle.

 

Remember this saying -

 

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Abraham Lincoln

 

Any government that fails to heed Abraham Lincoln's words are not only fools, but fools who will surely fail to reach their goal. We are governed by fools.

[tomtubby]

Old Bill,

A very 'common' situation (and a very worrying one) is that because of advice on the internet so many people are swearing a Statutory Declaration in the knowledge that what they are stating is untrue. This is becoming a major problem and I have lost count of the number of people who have contacted us in the past few months who have been subject to serious reprimands from the courts.

 

The same is happening with Out of Time witness statements. This is making it harder then ever for genuine debtors.

[old bill]

Old Bill,

A very 'common' situation (and a very worrying one) is that because of advice on the internet so many people are swearing a Statutory Declaration in the knowledge that what they are stating is untrue. This is becoming a major problem and I have lost count of the number of people who have contacted us in the past few months who have been subject to serious reprimands from the courts.

 

The same is happening with Out of Time witness statements. This is making it harder then ever for genuine debtors.

 

Knowingly making a false statement under oath is Perjury, which carries a maximum penalty of up to six months' imprisonment. If people are going into court as the result of taking advice from certain sites on the internet and making false statements under oath, they are damn lucky they are only receiving serious reprimands from the court.

 

However, such conduct does have a knock-on effect. If you do go back into court at any point in the future and the Courts and Tribunals Service has a record of your attempt to mislead the court, you are likely to be deemed an unreliable witness. The other risk that is run, if the SD is in connection with a civil matter, is that of Vexatious Litigant. If a person is placed on the Vexatious Litigants List, they are not allowed to take any form of legal action without first submitting the case papers to the High Court for scrutiny at a cost of around £2,000 - and that is just to look at the papers. Bodies Corporate as well as individuals can be placed on the Vexatious Litigants List.

[caledfwlch]

How on earth can a court ever know if an SD is false when people use it to bailiff proof assets?

 

 

I would always advise making the asset transfer cia a signed reciept and a nominal couple of quid

 

Unless the law has changed with the new act hiding goods from bailiffs is legal prior to levy, otherwise the old ghost of bailiffs having the right to restrain and search wallet for cash rises again as cash of course is an asset

 

How are bailiffs challenging and proving sds are they turning up at commital to prison hearings after nul bono?

Knowingly making a false statement under oath is Perjury, which carries a maximum penalty of up to six months' imprisonment. If people are going into court as the result of taking advice from certain sites on the internet and making false statements under oath, they are damn lucky they are only receiving serious reprimands from the court.

 

However, such conduct does have a knock-on effect. If you do go back into court at any point in the future and the Courts and Tribunals Service has a record of your attempt to mislead the court, you are likely to be deemed an unreliable witness. The other risk that is run, if the SD is in connection with a civil matter, is that of Vexatious Litigant. If a person is placed on the Vexatious Litigants List, they are not allowed to take any form of legal action without first submitting the case papers to the High Court for scrutiny at a cost of around £2,000 - and that is just to look at the papers. Bodies Corporate as well as individuals can be placed on the Vexatious Litigants List.