Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A South Korean court sentenced Lee Jae Yong to two and a half years in prison. View the full article
    • To add to the weight of evidence this is fraud, do you have (or can you get) proof of what the cost of the Special Delivery was?. If they paid for the weight of an envelope containing a piece of paper, they won't have paid for the cost of sending a laptop (given it is much heavier) ...... You should also contact ActionFraud.
    • @dx100uk, I'm afraid you've got this wrong. My fear of compromising my defence wasn't with regards my response to DCB Legal's initial letter per se. It was more in reference to any subsequent advice posted on this thread by other forum members and I was only being wary due to the numerous instances when some have cautioned about parking companies and their legal reps trawling these pages to stay a step ahead.   As I did also state however, I'm happy to provide full details of that initial reply to DCB Legal and have therefore reproduced it below. Thanks.    
    • China's economy grew at 2.3% for the year, making it the only major economy to see growth last year. View the full article
    • more: extend the contract line by....   contract exists between the claimant and the landowner which assigns the claimant the right to enter contracts with the public and make claims in their own name. I put the claimant to strict proof that such a contract exists.   1st few lines like this:   1.I am the defendant in this matter.   Any documentary evidence relied upon by me in this, my statement will be referred to and produced as exhibits RSS1, exhibit RSS2 and so on, and are labelled and attached accordingly.   All exhibits are listed below List of Exhibits    2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, unless indicated otherwise.   3. I am the registered of the vehicle, xxxxxx   4. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.   just sign and date at the end no statement of truth is needed sorry.   dx        
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Debtor hits bailiff with a cricket bat....loses appeal and given suspended jail sentence.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2224 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

A MAN who hit a bailiff with a cricket bat, then challenged his sentence for it, has been given a suspended jail term.

 

Richard Burton, 35, attacked the bailiff David Knight when he went to his house in Phipps Road, Oxford, on March 5 last year.

 

He was convicted of assault by beating at Oxford Magistrates’ Court on October 14 and was given a 12-month conditional discharge.

 

He was also told to pay £100 compensation, a £15 victim surcharge and £200 costs.

 

But Burton appealed against his sentence at Oxford Crown Court on Tuesday.

 

The court heard Mr Knight told Burton he was a bailiff as he went into the house.

Judge Zoe Smith said Burton went into the kitchen and first picked up a knife, then put it down and picked up a cricket bat instead.

 

He raised it above his head and brought it down, hitting Mr Knight’s left hand, causing bruising and swelling.

 

Dismissing the appeal, Judge Smith warned Burton that bailiffs played an essential role in the criminal justice system.

 

She said: “People employed to carry out the duties of bailiff must have the protection of the courts and it is only right people who harm them should expect imprisonment.

 

“The job this gentleman was undertaking was essential.”

 

She gave Burton a three-month prison sentence but suspended it for 12 months saying: “We were impressed by the character witness you put before us.”

 

Burton was also ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work and pay Mr Knight £150 compensation and the Crown Prosecution Service’s full costs of £526.

 

Judge Smith warned him: “If you do not undertake this unpaid work to the best of your abilities, you will have to serve the prison sentence.”

 

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/11657762.Man_hit_bailiff_with_cricket_bat/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! It's hard to believe someone would be so stupid, and as Coniff says it's good to see someone getting what I consider quite a light sentence.

 

However, I've just had a Google and found this advice on one supposedly specialist bailiff website:

 

 

Putting that all together, the law says a debtor displaying a notice of removed implied right of access can legally use an axe on a bailiff refusing to leave the premises. It can also result in a claim for damages against the police force for wrongful arrest and vexatious prosecution.

 

 

With information like that out there, it is hardly surprising that this sort of thing happens. It's pretty much encouraging violence and is disgraceful advice.

 

Well done Oxford Crown Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow! It's hard to believe someone would be so stupid, and as Coniff says it's good to see someone getting what I consider quite a light sentence.

 

However, I've just had a Google and found this advice on one supposedly specialist bailiff website:

 

 

 

With information like that out there, it is hardly surprising that this sort of thing happens. It's pretty much encouraging violence and is disgraceful advice.

 

Well done Oxford Crown Court.

 

In fact CIVEA issued a press release regarding an 'axe attack' on a bailiff in 2013.

 

http://www.civea.co.uk/news-22.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that forum now seems to think that this "advice" is justified in some way because it was issued after the axe event, odd kind of logic, to me anyone who condones this kind of behaviour and holds themselves up as giving advice should be held vicariously liable.

I fully understand how seeing an individual in your house without your consent can make anyone's hackles rise, this is one reason why many of us fought on here to stop the forced entry provisions in 07, but the bailiff is legally there(in most cases) and you cannot resort to violence, if you think that he is exceeding the authority of his warrant then you call the police.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that certain parties are still pushing the mistaken idea that bailiffs rely on an implied right of access, this is untrue the warrant gives the right to knock on the door and make peaceful(or forced in some cases) entry.

 

For those who do not know, the implied right of entry is the one used by the postal service and suchlike.

 

This has nothing to do with the bailiff powers, for instance a bailiff can clamp a car on your property, if you park on a neighbors drive he cannot, if he only relied on implied rights he would be able to, the same way the post man can post in both letter boxes, if the bailiff tried it he could be sued for trespass to goods. He has a warrant from the court to enter the debtors property only.

It is a dangerous misconception because it leads the debtor to think that he can pursue the bailiff for trespass and even force-ably eject them from his property when he displays one of those daft notices, he most certainly cannot.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's interesting that despite my mistake (I don't think the extract I saw was dated, but can't be sure) all except one continue to try to justify the advice and, of course, resort to personal insults - it wouldn't be the same without a few personal digs thrown in for good measure. It's almost surprising they didn't have a go at the judge for making such a judgment.

 

I still applaud the judge for making the judgment (I'll resist the temptation to make the cheap dig they would about them naming the wrong court - kind of similar to me getting the wrong date lol!). At the end of the day, if the debtor felt aggrieved, the police are only one phone call away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I notice that certain parties are still pushing the mistaken idea that bailiffs rely on an implied right of access, this is untrue the warrant gives the right to knock on the door and make peaceful(or forced in some cases) entry.

 

For those who do not know, the implied right of entry is the one used by the postal service and suchlike.

 

It is a dangerous misconception because it leads the debtor to think that he can pursue the bailiff for trespass and even force-ably eject them from his property when he displays one of those daft notices, he most certainly cannot.

 

The warrant grants the bailiff the power to seize goods from within the debtors property (or put another way...the warrant gives the bailiff an 'implied right of access into the debtors property to seize goods).

 

Bailiffs have been around for centuries and in all that time one rule is paramount....they can only gain entry into a debtors property by 'peaceful' means'. In simple terms he can gain entry into the house by walking through an unlocked door or more commonly, by getting permission from the debtor.

 

To reiterate....if a bailiff wants to come into the property for the purpose of identifying items that could be put under a Controlled Goods Agreement then, unless the door is already open he needs the permission of the debtor to actually enter the property.

 

The debtor can simply advise the bailiff that she will not allow him entry into the property. This is perfectly legal and my own personal opinion is that in almost all cases debtors should not allow the bailiff into the home (the reason for me saying so will be outlined in another post).

 

About 10 years the Freeman on the Land movement gained prominence in Canada and the US and with the popularity of the internet the movement quickly spread to Ireland and the UK in around 2008.

 

In 2009 a Freeman on the Land follower devised a notice for debtors to use when confronted by bailiffs and suggested that it be posted on the debtors door or gate. This notice was entitled Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access and was to advise the bailiff in writing that the debtor would not allow the bailiff into their home. The notice was posted on the FMoTL website (fmotl.com) and on You Tube and went ‘viral’ and was quickly picked up by all other Freeman on the Land (and other such movements).

 

Since 2012 these notices have become very common and all bailiff companies are aware of their origin and naturally posting such a document outside of the home will be a good indication to the enforcement companies that the debtor may well be a Freeman on the Land supporter.

 

As mentioned above, the bailiff has the legal right to attend the debtors property and gain entry ‘by peaceful means’. The debtor can simply tell the bailiff that she will not allow him entry into the home. This is perfectly legal. Also, the statutory regulations state very clearly that a bailiff will not be considered a trespasser.

 

Accordingly, there is simply no reason whatsoever for debtors to display such silly notices and they are universally ignored by all bailiff companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[ATTACH=CONFIG]54910[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]54910[/ATTACH]xs

 

 

In 2009 a Freeman on the Land follower devised a notice for debtors to use when confronted by bailiffs and suggested that it be posted on the debtors door or gate. This notice was entitled Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access and was to advise the bailiff in writing that the debtor would not allow the bailiff into their home.

 

 

A copy of the notice referred to can be seen above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed.

Currently i agree that the debtor should refuse access to the bailiff, it has to be said that this is not as imperative as before last April in my view, as the fees inured will be the same now irrespective of the bailiffs presence in the home. I should mention of course that the bailiff would have a right to use reasonable force to re-enter if the bailiff gains peaceful entry in the first instance.

 

I would like to see this situation change, and i have read various pieces from informed sources who think the same, if we have to have Enforcement Officers, and it looks like we do, then they should be able to negotiate with the the debtor rather than just demand immediate payment , this sounds obvious but in practice it would demand a complete change of emphasis and I suspect, mind set from bailiffs debtors and debt advisers.

 

The fee structure particularly at enforcement stage seems to suggest that some time should be spent with the debtor and an examination of repayment ability balanced with the requirements of the creditor, this will demand a far more complex skill set than most EA currently possess(i suspect).

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
[ATTACH=CONFIG]54910[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]54910[/ATTACH]xs

 

 

A copy of the notice referred to can be seen above.

 

 

I had not really taken the time to examine one of the notices before, they really are nonsense aren't they in every sense.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes indeed.

Currently i agree that the debtor should refuse access to the bailiff, it has to be said that this is not as imperative as before last April in my view, as the fees inured will be the same now irrespective of the bailiffs presence in the home. I should mention of course that the bailiff would have a right to use reasonable force to re-enter if the bailiff gains peaceful entry in the first instance.

 

I would like to see this situation change, and i have read various pieces from informed sources who think the same, if we have to have Enforcement Officers, and it looks like we do, then they should be able to negotiate with the the debtor rather than just demand immediate payment , this sounds obvious but in practice it would demand a complete change of emphasis and I suspect, mind set from bailiffs debtors and debt advisers.

 

The fee structure particularly at enforcement stage seems to suggest that some time should be spent with the debtor and an examination of repayment ability balanced with the requirements of the creditor, this will demand a far more complex skill set than most EA currently possess(i suspect).

 

I have to agree, and the sort of bailiffs we hear about on here, would never accept that need to change emphasis, indeed there are one or two who "get off" on intimidating debtors, them boast about it on Facebook. Those bailiffs should be in jail. There is no place for their sort within the Enforcement industry.

 

As it stands I have to concur and agree with yourself and BA, that it is a very bad idea indeed to let a bailiff/EA etc into your home.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to info off wikipedia, people in the usa who take this approach are treated as terrorists by the fbi

None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought a bailiff COULD force entry (drill locks, etc) in certain circumstances (Magistrate fine, etc)?

 

Indeed he can. Sadly the right to force entry was inserted into section 4A of the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act 2004 and accordingly, the bailiff does not need to even obtain prior permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
According to info off wikipedia, people in the usa who take this approach are treated as terrorists by the fbi

 

Difference is in the USA if I a hillbilly, could have an arsenal and keep them at bay for days if necessary.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed he can. Sadly the right to force entry was inserted into section 4A of the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act 2004 and accordingly, the bailiff does not need to even obtain prior permission.

That is for magistrates fines only though and wasn't it slipped in quietly then when the implications brought up all protests ignored? Mr McG loves that one does he not?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
According to info off wikipedia, people in the usa who take this approach are treated as terrorists by the fbi

 

Not only are you correct but....the 'original notice' from 2009 that I have displayed above from a 'link' to the Terrorism Act 2000 !!! I will provide evidence later on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wasn't it slipped in quietly then when the implications brought up all protests ignored?

 

Schedule 4A was introduced into legislation on the very last day of Parliament by Baroness Ashton. The amendment had not been noticed for a week or so until it appeared on Hansard....by which time, Parliament was in recess and MP's and Lord's could not raise any PQ's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Schedule 4A was amended on the very last day of Parliament by Baroness Ashton and had not been noticed for a week or so until it appeared on Hansard. By which time, Parliament was in recess and MP's and Lord's could not raise any PQ's.

 

If the right to 'force entry' is considered dreadful then debtors should consider themselves very fortunate indeed because; in 2007 when the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Bill (as it was called at the time) was being debated the government were intent on bringing into the legislation the right for bailiffs to use force against the debtor. Such a provision was planned for enforcement of all debts.

 

The link below is to a copy of a press article from 2007 outlining the proposal:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-440314/State-sponsored-daylight-robbery.html

 

 

At that time (2007) the Consumer Action Group and Money Saving Expert had been set up to challenge bank charges and both websites had significant membership and, in the case of this forum, also had a very popular Bailiff & High Court Enforcement section.

 

In order to stop bailiffs being given the right to 'use force' against the debtor, one individual on this forum took it upon himself to set up a petition to get as many people as possible to register their opposition to this proposed clause.

 

With the support and assistance of this forum almost ONE MILLION people had visited the various threads on here in 2007 and many many thousands of individuals registered their names on the official GOV petition to oppose the clause (to use force against an individual).

 

With the incredible support from the public for the removal of this clause, that individual then pursued each and every MP and Lord to seek their support to vote against the amendment. His incredible hard work paid off and the clause was removed.

 

The individual in question (who I have known for a long time) is aware that I am writing this but he does not want to be publicly named. His satisfaction is knowing that bailiffs cannot use force against an individual.

 

PS: The main thread from 2007 is no longer available on the web but the following is one of several smaller threads from that time to demonstrate what the petition was about.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?65926-Do-you-want-bailiffs-forcing-entry-to-YOUR-HOME.-If-not

Link to post
Share on other sites

[ATTACH=CONFIG]54912[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]54910[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]54910[/ATTACH]xs

 

 

A copy of the notice referred to can be seen above.

 

In February 2013 (4 years after these odd Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access letters started appearing on the internet, another equally bizarre notice (copy exhibited above) was posted on You Tube and all the popular Freeman on the Land websites. The difference with this notice is that it provides brief details of approx 40 legal cases that 'supposedly' assist debtors to determine whether the bailiff was committing 'trespass'. For example the opening sentence from this new notice states that:

 

"Placing such a notices 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)"

In fact, what unsuspecting debtors will not know is that in neither of the legal cases referred to (Lambert v Roberts or Knox v Anderton) does it even mention the word 'bailiff' at all !!!. This is a complete fabrication from the author. In other words, the public are being seriously misled.

 

PS: Equally bizarre is that this 'newer version' has been commonly referred to on the internet by its initial (NOROIRA)....

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ BA post# 22, if that had been passed into law a thuggish bailiff may well have killed a vulnerable debtor by now.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
[ATTACH=CONFIG]54912[/ATTACH]

 

In February 2013 (4 years after these odd Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access letters started appearing on the internet, another equally bizarre notice (copy exhibited above) was posted on You Tube and all the popular Freeman on the Land websites. The difference with this notice is that it provides brief details of approx 40 legal cases that 'supposedly' assist debtors to determine whether the bailiff was committing 'trespass'. For example the opening sentence from this new notice states that:

"Placing such a notices 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)"

In fact, what unsuspecting debtors will not know is that in neither of the legal cases referred to (Lambert v Roberts or Knox v Anderton) does it even mention the word 'bailiff' at all !!!. This is a complete fabrication from the author. In other words, the public are being seriously misled.

 

PS: Equally bizarre is that this 'newer version' has been commonly referred to on the internet by its initial (NOROIRA)....

 

There is now an even more laughable version of the ' NOROIRA' being peddled, it's titled The Notice to Produce and Notice to Leave, or "NTPNTL" I would be interested to see the success rate for this bit of useless advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...