Incorrect CT Liability Order and Bailiffs Forced to Pay it by Police

[SJC2014]

If someone would like to helpshed some light on matters in question, is this information contained in this link actually bonafide truth with any legal standing or manipulated information

 

 

[removed]

Edited October 4, 2014 by dx100uk
sri we cannot carry that link - dx

[Hacked_Off]

There are these not that would know what to do with them, everything and everyone I have dealt with upto know has not bothered.

 

A bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property (i.e. Workmen inside a house or a police officer), access by this means renders everything that follows invalid

 

A debtor can lawfully use reasonable force in removing a bailiff without a levy that has refused to leave, the bailiff resisting is the person guilty of a breach of the peace, Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308. If police are present, the bailiff is the person that police should arrest

 

If a police officer arrests a debtor after throwing a bailiff off the premises who had refused a request to leave, the officer is guilty of false arrest because no offence was committed and the bailiff was there illegally: Green v Bartram

 

Ancient case law that is no longer valid...

[SJC2014]

Ancient case law that is no longer valid...

 

Yeah gathered with anything relating to Freemans is a load of bull and to stay clear, seems to have stemed from others thinking they can go back what seem centuries. So hard deciphering what is true or manipulated. Though issue with Police i have read on websites with data stating updated within last couple of months so hoping that this info is correct in what they have written.

 

Though to me it should always be backed up with some Rules and Regulations to which you can refer and try to put into simple plain english, though trawling around the internet a lot give statements about this, that and the other, but for me they dont back it up with anything set in concrete with either some Section, Part or Regulation to use hence I don't know if true or not.

 

The only thing I do know is that if a published case in the past relates in more certain terms to my circumstances then the details held within that case can be used as my own evidence to uphold any thing I formally do from this point onwards.

 

Though the link I posted up with regards to Bailiffs and Police Relationship 2 posts above is pretty much nigh on exactly what occurred today so for me, is it true what is written and the information and instruction contained exactly the processes to follow?

 

As far as I can see my main approach is maladministration with complaints needing to be submitted to CE of Local Authority, Local MP and Managing Director of the Bailiff Company, with view to complaint being made to those that govern bailiffs regards his conduct and stating he will take items he knows he is not lawfully allowed to take.

 

The approach on this matter is what i cant fathom and whether I have to refer to any rules and Regs etc.

 

As far as Liability Order, with being in receipt of the now revised new Council tax Bill for 2013-2014 with all info corrected as previously requested that they have basically shown they made a mistake but as far as the Internet states I cannot get a Liability Order revoked, its not simple even if incorrect. Obviously if I cant ever get Liability Order revoked then how do I ever claim back and get back any payment made, especially with regards to the amount of £310 paid in fees for a bill that would never of gotten to this stage if 8 months ago they amended based on the info I submitted

[welsh1]

Occupiers liability 1984, he was trespassing therefore the op was within his rights to use "reasonable force".

 

The bailiff had entered through a closed but not locked door,which he is quite entitled to do,he was not trespassing as he had a liability order to distrain on goods at the property,The op laid hands on him,therefore the op committed common assault.

 

The occupiers liability act imposes on the occupier a duty of care on any person entering his property.

 

Please tell me how committing common assault on a person is within the bounds of the act you quote?

[SJC2014]

The bailiff had entered through a closed but not locked door,which he is quite entitled to do,he was not trespassing as he had a liability order to distrain on goods at the property,The op laid hands on him,therefore the op committed common assault.

 

The occupiers liability act imposes on the occupier a duty of care on any person entering his property.

 

Please tell me how committing common assault on a person is within the bounds of the act you quote?

 

Can i just ask, why all the upheaval regarding common assault, that is what he used in order to have police presence, obliviously pretty much straight after realising i had more upto date copies of evidence relating to what he currently held as a now verified incorrect order

 

We know the guy opened door and just walked in, i with no actual permittable force ensured he stayed in the confides of the street and my front garden and then shut the door on him. If my finger or said few fingers touched him then so be it shoot me, string me up and throw rocks at me, then how about we spend all day in town when those getting through shop doorways prefer to barge past and shove you out of the way with complete disregard to politeness or manners, wonder how many we can get done for it.

 

You spend more time jabbering about common assault than anything, you on the other hand make me wish I had lamped him one, then we can continue this discussion without going round the houses going did i or did i not in that instance yes I punched him and assaulted him, whatever the case.

It was one small thing or many small thing that led to it

 

Any relation to say police presence and them threatening possibly arrest was because not relating to what happened before is that possibly they felt they may have been something actually classed as assault nd not the petty thing you keep blabbering on about.

 

Fact of the matter, he executed what he knew and what I could prove was incorrect order, he refused tried to take what was not actually legally mine, then tried to further take what legally and lawfully he wasn't allowed to take, in mean time, I am told by police presence not to get in his way and prevent him undertaking what they state are his sworn duty or I will be in breach of peace and possibly something little more severe.

 

So all in all who cares if he yells common assault, never materialised, police brought bailiff into house from street, explained they were here to let him perform his duties and to prevent prevention, he tried to car car knowing not mine and bill of sale with actual owner not me, tried to take items solely belonging to my work and some that belong to those I work for. Police then leave no option but if I don't let him take either or, then I have to pay full amount he says I owe regardless of whether wrong as that is solely between me and the council as they let him go about his duly appointed business based on his non existent paperwork he shouldnt, couldnt, wouldnt show me and if I prevented him I would be done under breach of the Peace and arrested. Obviously what would that achieve leaving my kids unattended a bailiff in my house and police taking me away!!!!

Edited October 4, 2014 by SJC2014

[SJC2014]

When acting upon information you deem to know is incorrect, seen as in this instance those administering the error and rectifying the actual amount outstanding are his actual employers, not the local authority but Capita who administered the entire Council Tax System for my Council along with the entire Administration Side, you honestly believe that he was acting on credible information, i.e months old Enforcement Notice or basically going off his own judgement knowing what he was doing was not lawful and come next week no commission from charges.

 

Either way, he was attended knowing or not knowing the current situation, can only presume in this case but highly likely he knew. Logical reasoning suggest when stating he was acting under instruction given on Friday 04/10/2014 he was actually more than likely acting upon information that prevented any further action in this instance with amount outstanding and felt need to take action himself, hence 7am on Saturday specifically telling me when I told him I will clear this with council, that wouldnt be the case as they are closed now until Monday!!!

 

Lawful entry I do think not!

[welsh1]

Can i just ask, why all the upheaval regarding common assault, that is what he used in order to have police presence, obliviously pretty much straight after realising i had more upto date copies of evidence relating to what he currently held as a now verified incorrect order

 

We know the guy opened door and just walked in, i with no actual permittable force ensured he stayed in the confides of the street and my front garden and then shut the door on him. If my finger or said few fingers touched him then so be it shoot me, string me up and throw rocks at me, then how about we spend all day in town when those getting through shop doorways prefer to barge past and shove you out of the way with complete disregard to politeness or manners, wonder how many we can get done for it.

 

You spend more time jabbering about common assault than anything, you on the other hand make me wish I had lamped him one, then we can continue this discussion without going round the houses going did i or did i not in that instance yes I punched him and assaulted him, whatever the case. It was one small thing or many small thing that led to a

 

Any relation to say police presence and them threatening possibly arrest was because not relating to what happened before is that possibly they felt they may have been something actually classed as assault nd not the petty thing you keep blabbering on about.

 

Fact of the matter, he executed what he knew and what I could prove was incorrect order, he refused tried to take what was not actually legally mine, then tried to further take what legally and lawfully he wasn't allowed to take, in mean time, I am told by police presence not to get in his way and prevent him undertaking what they state are his sworn duty or I will be in breach of peace and possibly something little more severe.

 

So all in all who cares if he yells common assault, never materialised, police brought bailiff into house from street, explained they were here to let him perform his duties and to prevent prevention, he tried to car car knowing not mine and bill of sale with actual owner not me, tried to take items solely belonging to my work and some that belong to those I work for. Police then leave no option but if I don't let him take either or, then I have to pay full amount he says I owe regardless of whether wrong as that is solely between me and the council as they let him go about his duly appointed business based on his non existent paperwork he shouldnt, couldnt, wouldnt show me and if I prevented him I would be done under breach of the Peace and arrested. Obviously what would that achieve leaving my kids unattended a bailiff in my house and police taking me away!!!!

 

Have you not realised that the police did you a favour,

they could have arrested you but in their wisdom chose to de escalate a volatile situation

where both parties (you and the bailiff) were hot headed and probably sniping at each other.

 

 

My son who was visiting today laughed when i read your post out to him and said straight away common assault,

but he also said that the officers would be very reluctant to arrest for what was handbags at dawn between you and the bailiff,

 

 

but and this is the BIG but,

you did commit an arrestable offence namely common assault,

my son should know his Warrant card was in his pocket.

 

As to the matter of you showing your paperwork, why should the bailiff believe it?

you could have printed it yourself,

if the bailiff had new instructions i am sure the council would inform his office

,who in turn would tell him,

 

 

never forget IT WAS THE COUNCIL WHO INSTRUCTED THE BAILIFFS TO ACT .

 

Now i don't want to have a protracted argument with anyone,

and all i have done is state fact,

it was you who stated on two occasions that you laid hands on the bailiff,

and again i say that it is nothing personal just a statement of fact.

 

Your argument is with your council,

 

 

it is they who initiated the action against you

 

 

and it is they who instructed the bailiffs to enforce.

[Bailiff Advice]

Hi Folks

 

I apologise sincerely for the below but I should write out as mcuh as possible to save any questions some may have. I am after some advice, been struggling and getting nowhere for months with the council.

 

I moved into Property 05/09/2013 and did change of address form for new council tax bill at new property. Took about 7 weeks for new council tax bill to be genearted and in the meantime made equivalent to first month in October.

 

Eventually got new bill some 7 weeks after moving in and in meantime (due to decline in work and income) submitted a new Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit claim. This claim more or less coincided. Got one bill for full amount and then new bill with relevant discount. The council tax was solely in my name and not joint.

 

Everything fine and then in December we got a revised bill and the date for moving in was now amended to 3rd August. Flagged this with the council and was told to send in copy of Tenancy Agreement (again). A lady from Benefits side after speaking said she would liaise

 

Made the small weekly payments(monthly) with what we needed and awaited revised bill. January Nothing, February nothing. Flagged this up as we had outstanding bill but now stated refused to pay anymore as clearly what were being billed for was too high and not paying for a property hadn't even laid eyes with the dates stated on council tax.

 

As missed payments they sent letter saying no to monthly payments and full amount due, stating total due was £234. With all of this I refused based on incorrect info (all documented correspondence via email).

 

Then on 06/04/2014 they sent for liability order even after I told them that the amount was incorrect and needed changing Obviously I went off to work and they didn't action my letter and proceeded I didn't know about this but I didn't get back home until 2 days after court date due to issues with work. I later got letter from Council stating Liability Order granted and forcing me to pay all of it.

 

Once again gave them info to say not correct amount and I didn't owe that amount and will only pay what is actually owed. Then in August I got a Notice of Enforcement from Equita Ltd. Spoke to them and emailed conversation and made token payment of £5 explaining that I had spent the last few months trying to resolve this matter but to no avail.

 

Sent a letter of dispute to council on 25th August 2014 together with another copy of the Tenancy Agreement, a receipt from the council dated 9th September 2013 (when I had taken a copy of the tenancy agreement into the council offices), a copy of the invoice from removal Company, and copies of letters from phone company, and utility companies together with a copy of a note from my landlord.

 

In the meantime I was in email correspondence with one member of staff at the council who stated that under no circumstances would the Liability Order be revoked, no charges would be removed, no payment plan nothing. I owed what it said regardless of my dispute.

 

I refused to pay anything other than the actual amount of Council Tax I owed for the actual period of time I lived in the property. My argument being that if it was corrected 6 months ago I would of paid it off by now but that I refused to pay more in charges than the actual amount properly outstanding.

 

I then received a letter from Equita on 3rd September saying that the local authority had instructed them to put the account on hold pending my letter. I thought that this was the end of the matter. It was not.

 

On 19th September I found a hand delivered letter through my door from Equita Ltd advising that they had called that day to execute a Liability Order for outstanding balance of £544.14. This included the Liability Order amount of £234.14, Compliance Fee of £75 Fee and Enforcement Fee of £235. Bailiff did not knock on door. I stated that I refused to deal with this anymore and would seek legal advice, and go to the press and my local MP.

 

Yesterday; 3rd October i finally received a revised council tax bill for 2013-2014 with the correct dates and amounts etc though amount of bill did not have reductions for council tax benefit i was entitled to. I called the Benefits Office yesterday and I was told that I would shortly be getting another revised bill with the deductions applied and the amount payable would be approx £40. I explained about the bailiff letter and was transferred by no one answered. I thought that the situation would be resolved anyway.

 

Today (Saturday) at 6.50am a bailiff was banging on the door saying that he was executing a warrant and would not leave without full payment of £539.14. I refused point blank and told him that debt didn't exist and had new council tax bill stating this. He said that I don't care and that he had been instructed on 3rd October to pursue the debt.

 

I then told him I would give him recent bill that related to that exact amount and he can match it to his paperwork and that I need to contact Council on Monday. I shut door on him, locked it and then went to get new revised bill. When I opened the door he wouldnt take it saying he will take car. This car is my partners and is in her name and subject to finance (in her own name). I don't own a car and do not even have a driving licence. The bailiff argued that as the car is registered at this address then it can be taken. My partner runs her own business and car is actually bought through her books and on a Bill of Sale. The bailiff asked for proof. I then shut door and went off into room to print a copy of the documentation. In the meantime the bailiff opened the door and just walked in. I then pushed him towards the door and told him to get out of my property and informed him that I had not permitted him entry into my home. He then claimed that I assaulted him ( not likely as was good few inches bigger than me) and he then told me that he was calling police, which he did and reported a common assault.

 

In the meantime I told him that I would not pay as the amount owed was not correct. He said that unless I paid the full amount or handed over the car keys he will press charges for assault which could lead to 51 weeks in prison. I told him to call the police then. He then got his mate, so locked the door. Ten minutes later police arrived (2 cars and 3 officers) so I duly let them in. I explained the situation, and said that I had not assaulted the bailiff and that I was trying to prevent him moving further into my house and that I was guiding him backwards to my front door, and that I also advising him to mind the step in case he tripped over it.

 

One of the officers then went outside. He came back a few minutes later and explained he (the bailiff) was only doing his job and that regardless of what info we may have (and whether it was right or wrong) he was at my property to collect £500+ and that I could not obstruct him.

 

At this point I flipped. They stated that unless I could provide a copy of the purchase receipt for the car with partners name, they would not accept Bill of Sale and that regardless of who owes money that we (the police) are only here to prevent you obstructing. He said something about Breach of the Peace.

 

After a few words thrown he then went out outside and invited the bailiff back into the property. I approached the bailiff and told him to get out and with this the police stated they have brought him in and he is within his rights to come in if he wants and told them we were refusing to hand over keys. They gave us the option to pay £539.14 otherwise they would take goods which would incur fees in excess of £750 further.

 

I went nuts. The atmosphere was awful. The police said that if I prevented them executing the warrant in the property that I would be held under Breach of the Peace. They then proceeded to accompany the bailiff into my office and said that they were seizing everything. I am a self employed IT nut and my PC and hardware etc total £3xxx and are my only source of income. I then hit the roof. The bailiff said my goods can be taken.

 

Unfortunately by this time the police were threatening to arrest me and they told me that I should pay the amount demanded whether I believe that I owed it or not and that I would then need to sort it out with the council afterwards. With a 'gun to my head' I made payment of £539.14 via debit card. This payment has this me with little over £200 left in my account. The rent was due today, the car insurance on Tuesday and £116 payment towards SA Tax bill (this outgoing is deadly serious and cannot be missed).

 

All in all shafted well and truly, nothing I can do and then after some digging I find out Capita and Equita are same company, person speaking to via Email is employee of Capita not Council. UK law is absolute balls.

 

After being told on Friday that my bill is pennies over £40, no one to speak to on number given by Council on Friday to find out that liability order cant surely stand now you have made clerical error and I should not be liable to any excessive fees removed. I am utterly screwed after being forced by Police to hand over money, car keys or my goods for money I DO NOT OWE.

 

Bailiff left, police stayed back and one of them apologised but said they had a job to do and ensuring a peaceful situation was all they could do and hope that I can sort it out somehow next week. They said that it was in my best interest and they didn't really want to arrest me for Breach of the Peace as they could see how agitated I was getting.

 

If anyone can give me a helping hand out be much appreciated. Months wasted sorting, finally thought sorted then robbed. To find out Capita who have been posing as my Council in my emails are those who own the Bailiffs actually helps me understand a lot.

 

If the liability order is incorrect, it was from beginning and the info given to council was even sent and received long before the order was submitted to so called court, with all excess charges added. I owe just under £43 and now have lost almost £540 and now I cant pay my rent and this will now cause issues with my landlord.

 

I hope that you do not mind but your opening post was not too simple (for me at least) to understand so I have taken the liberty to rewrite some of it to to make it simpler. I hope that this is ok.

[Hacked_Off]

The bailiff had entered through a closed but not locked door,which he is quite entitled to do,he was not trespassing as he had a liability order to distrain on goods at the property,The op laid hands on him,therefore the op committed common assault.

 

The occupiers liability act imposes on the occupier a duty of care on any person entering his property.

 

Please tell me how committing common assault on a person is within the bounds of the act you quote?

 

 

Your entirely barking up the wrong tree. As stated before the act says you are allowed to use "reasonable force". The valid WAS trespassing. Liability order or no he was trespassing. Then of course there is volenti. I think your giving some very bad advise tbh...

[Hacked_Off]

Have you not realised that the police did you a favour,

they could have arrested you but in their wisdom chose to de escalate a volatile situation

where both parties (you and the bailiff) were hot headed and probably sniping at each other.

 

My son who was visiting today laughed when i read your post out to him and said straight away common assault,

but he also said that the officers would be very reluctant to arrest for what was handbags at dawn between you and the bailiff,

 

 

but and this is the BIG but,

you did commit an arrestable offence namely common assault,

my son should know his Warrant card was in his pocket.

 

As to the matter of you showing your paperwork, why should the bailiff believe it?

you could have printed it yourself,

if the bailiff had new instructions i am sure the council would inform his office

,who in turn would tell him,

 

 

never forget IT WAS THE COUNCIL WHO INSTRUCTED THE BAILIFFS TO ACT .

 

Now i don't want to have a protracted argument with anyone,

and all i have done is state fact,

it was you who stated on two occasions that you laid hands on the bailiff,

and again i say that it is nothing personal just a statement of fact.

 

Your argument is with your council,

 

 

it is they who initiated the action against you

 

 

and it is they who instructed the bailiffs to enforce.

 

You are misinterpreting fact though. I'm glad you and your son have had a good laugh at the ops expense.

[Hacked_Off]

common assault is committed when one person causes another to apprehend

or fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury.

 

 

The enforcement agent gained peaceful entry by way of opening an unlocked door and walking in,

and as you admittedly pushed him,

you are therefore guilty of the offence of common assault,

and unfortunetly also under section 68 of Schedule 12 to the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

it is an offence to intentionally obstuct a person acting lawfully as an enforcement agent.

 

 

You have this wrong aswell he wasn't high court enforcement therefore the act doesn't apply.

[welsh1]

I have not misinterpreted fact,the op stated he pushed the bailiff with his hand,this is common assault,my sons laugh was at everyone stating it was not common assault,he was not laughing at the expense of anyone .

 

And please tell me why you think the bailiff was trespassing,it is not myself giving bad advice.

[citizenB]

This thread appears to be getting out of control.

 

I am closing it until such times as it can be reviewed by a senior administrator.