can a bailiff force entry are controlled goods signed

[queensclose]

quick question

can a bailiff force entry after peaceful entry and control of goods signed are failed to make payments under agreement

[ploddertom]

You'll be better off in the Bailiff Forum for this. I'll move you now.

[Coughdrop]

If the bailiff has already taken control of your belongings and has returned to take them away, or wants to take control of more items, they're not generally allowed to use force to get in, unless they were allowed to force their way in the first time.

 

If you've broken the terms of a controlled goods agreement and have had a notice telling you that the bailiff will be returning to take away belongings, the bailiff is allowed to use force to get in. The notice is called a notice of intention to re-enter premises, and must keep to a certain format to be valid.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

As coughdrop has rightly pointed out, you should be given(given meaning sent by email, fax, by hand etc) a form 6 notice of intention to re-enter. This document is a prescribed document and must include certain information. It also gives you 2 CLEAR days to either comply, if new terms have been asked, or to make payment in full. If served on a monday, it allows you tuesday and wednesday to sort the matter and the bailiff may attend from 6am onwards on the thursday to enforce. He may utilize a locksmith to gain entry. Costs of which will be added to the debt. You may also be charged a sale stage fee on the visit.

 

Do you have a little more info as we may be of more help if we know some circumstances.

How much?

What type of debt?

What company chasing?

What arrangement?

Are you in default?

What has been seized to date under a CGA?

Who signed the CGA?

Are we talking about commercial or residential?

And any other info you may feel we might want to know.

[josephbloggs]

This very same subject is being "discussed" on the facebook group beat the bailiffs and the banks, you want read some of the replies, bloody awful!!

Ps great answers above

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I can guess.

[lookinforinfo]

If the bailiff has already taken control of your belongings and has returned to take them away, or wants to take control of more items, .

 

Coughdrop, I was under the impression that EAs couldn't get a second bite of the cherry as it were, so they cannot come back and add more goods to the list.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Old Distress for rent rules forbid second bites at the cherry save for certain circumstance like pound breach etc. New regs do not stop a re-attendance to secure on further goods. Well, as far as im aware they dont anyhow, and when i have a few minutes, ill have a look at the regs and see if i can find the wording.

[Coughdrop]

Coughdrop, I was under the impression that EAs couldn't get a second bite of the cherry as it were, so they cannot come back and add more goods to the list.

 

This right is given under TCGR 24(2)(a) where a bailiff believes that since the previous visit, further goods which were not taken control of have been taken into the premises and could now be taken into control. ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/regulation/24/made )

[Bailiff Advice]

If I may say so.....excellent responses from everyone.....

[brassnecked]

This very same subject is being "discussed" on the facebook group beat the bailiffs and the banks, you want read some of the replies, bloody awful!!

Ps great answers above

 

Yes they are JB

 

You do know oldbill is trying to moderate that group? So we can hope.

 

In the meantime aren't some Estate and letting agents in doo doo for tying tenants into high tariffs with Spark Energy in the small print and getting a kickback?

 

These tenants could end up with a bailiff visit if they can't afford Sparks bill.

[Bailiff Advice]

Yes they are JB

 

You do know oldbill is trying to moderate that group? So we can hope.

 

 

Frankly, it will not be easy trying to moderate such a site.

 

I note yesterday that another video was posted on YouTube regarding a debtor who filmed a visit from Marston Group regarding two Magistrate Court fines and where he too believed the advice given to him by Beat the Bailiffs and the Banks that paying the amount only of the court fine to the court (minus bailiff fees) will clear the warrant (which of course it does not).

 

The debtor tried to say that he had not taken advice from BTBATB but was silenced when the bailiff advised him that he (the bailiff) had been reading the debtors posts and pictures on the site !!!!

 

PS: As with all these video's you never get to see a film of the follow up visits !!!!

 

Because of the public interest in this subject I will be writing more about this subject later today.

[brassnecked]

Agreed BA, Facvebook is not the best place for certain types of advice advice, and the seeker can so easily undermine their own case on there.

[Bailiff Advice]

Agreed BA, Facvebook is not the best place for certain types of advice advice, and the seeker can so easily undermine their own case on there.

 

Facebook can be fine depending on what it is to be used for. As an example, Bailiff Advice opened a Facebook page a week or so ago and it is very surprising indeed the level of enquiries generated in that very short period of time.

 

The difference with the BTBATB facebook page is that they allow questions to be posted live for everyone to see (which I would NEVER do) and this in itself is a massive problem given that anyone may respond and many times those replying can have very strong Freeman on the Land views (almost all of which are irrelevant to the enforcement of a Liability Order or court fine etc). It must be extremely difficult to police /monitor such a site and this is becoming apparent.

 

For instance, if you had a forum individuals would need to join as a member...choose a user name.....and then post a question. The forum administrators could ban posters if they wished. Facebook is different. Firstly......(and this is a major problem), most people use their personal facebook account to post a question (meaning that bailiffs know the identity of the poster...and can even look back at that person's facebook account to find background information on the debtor !!!!

 

It is also a fact that many bailiffs managed to join the BTBATB in the early days and are monitoring posts made by debtors....in particular the ones who foolishly post copies of letters that they have received from a bailiff.....without hiding personal information....(not that it matters too much anyway given that the poster has already by this time posted under their real name with a picture included !!!!).

 

Another problem that is now happening is that there are now so many different 'groups' setting up and they all seem to have the same common problem......a lack of any knowledge of the new bailiff regulations.

 

The idea is a good one but the moderators have a uphill struggle to monitor the pages and ensure that posters are given the correct advice.

 

PS: Sorry to go off topic for a moment.

[josephbloggs]

Hoping someone sees this from .......... and copies and pastes the info below here.

 

 

Was going to post on another thread but it's been closed.

 

There is so much much bad information banded about on that group and all it will do is make peoples situations worse.

 

 

Here is a brief selection of things I have seen just scrolling back a few hours worth of posts

 

1. the term “Abandoned levy” - there is no such thing as a levy it is now called taking control of goods, and a method of taking control is CLAMPING a vehicle. Therefore if the enforcement agent leaves, it is not abandoned it is taken control of, and therefore legally belongs to them.

2. The term “Excessive levy” - only applies if the enforcement agent takes goods when other goods are available SO if 1 car is the only thing available and they take control of it, IT IS NOT excessive

3. removal of implied right of access – means nothing to an enforcement agent collecting council tax, non domestic rates, parking fines, magistrates court fines or high court writs

4. cutting a clamp off – a criminal offence, interfering with controlled goods without lawful excuse, criminal damage & potentially theft of a clamp and theft of controlled goods

5. turning up in numbers to intimidate – potentially a public order offence and obstructing a person acting lawfully as an enforcement agent.

6. Forced entry & use of locksmiths for magistrates fines - perfectly lawful, does NOT need a seperate warrant, warrant of control allows for it, does not require an audience with a magistrate.

7. avoiding fees for debts – irrespective of whether the bailiff is paid or the council/court, the £75 fee is paid first, and the remainder split pro-rata therefore until the last penny is paid the warrant or liabilty order is still enforceable.

8. three letter process - sending the letters provided by freeman on the land sites has never led in and of itself to a debt being written off. It's true that some debts are not pursued after a certain point. The sum may be too small to justify the cost of litigation, or the debtor may be too difficult to find or have no money or assets. So if a debt isn't litigated it's because it was never going to be. Saying that it's because of template letters is like saying that your cold was cured by crystal healing: you were going to get better anyway, with or without the magical intervention.

9. ahmeds videos on youtube “fraud” - the top video when you type bailiffs in on youtube is wesley ahmed talking about jacobs. News for anyone reading this, it isnt fraud to request payment of a due debt, and the letter he refers to as a self made liability order is a notice of enforcement, the pre visit letter.

10. freemen on the land - has no legal standing in law. For an excellent article on how it originated and how silly their beliefs are click this link :- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

11. signatures on warrants or liability orders - there is no requirement for a wet signature on a warrant. This is set out in the magistrates court rules 1981. this states the rules only require signatures of any sort on forms prescribed. Even if it were, rule 109(3) states “where a signature is required on a form or warrant other than arrest, remand or commitment warrant, an electronic signature incorporated into the document will satisfy the requirement.” thus a pre printed signature on the form will suffice

12. chargebacks – give a bailiff your card to pay a debt to a bailiff and then try doing a chargeback, you would have to lie on a chargeback form and then you commit perjury which is defined as swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding

13. putting a stamp on a bank giro slip and it's paid – self explanatory what a load of absolute rubbish

14. A bailiff can only visit 3 times – WRONG – a bailiff can attend as many times as they like to collect payment of a due debt

 

I'm sure theres loads more but they are the main points for now.

 

Oh yeah, and for anyone on there who thinks the bailiffs are running scared of your group, trust me they are all having a good old laugh at your expense. They don't take you seriously and certain posts are a subject of ridicule!!

[Bailiff Advice]

Hoping someone sees this from beat the bailiffs and the banks and copies and pastes the info below here. Was going to post on another thread but it's been closed.

 

There is so much much bad information banded about on that group and all it will do is make peoples situations worse. Here is a brief selection of things I have seen just scrolling back a few hours worth of posts

 

Oh yeah, and for anyone on there who thinks the bailiffs are running scared of your group, trust me they are all having a good old laugh at your expense. They don't take you seriously and certain posts are a subject of ridicule!!

 

JB.....Are you saying that the 14 points that you have highlighted above are featured on the BTBATB facebook page? Slightly confused.

[colin11]

I believe the 14 points made by JB, have all been covered on there today alone

 

You should really take a look

Edited February 20, 2015 by colin11
added line

[josephbloggs]

JB.....Are you saying that the 14 points that you have highlighted above are featured on the BTBATB facebook page? Slightly confused.

 

Pretty much - Either as posts or replies. Not a shred of proper advice. And when there is and it goes against the grain, BOOM! Banned or bullied into leaving the group

[Bailiff Advice]

I believe the 14 points made by JB, have all been covered on there today alone

 

You should really take a look

 

The 'penny has dropped'. I had thought at first glance that the 14 points are copies of the actual advice that is featured on BTBATB. I was impressed.

[colin11]

The best bit of advice i see over and over again, it is legal to smash a glass milk bottle on a bailiffs head

[josephbloggs]

he he yeah, it's like saying - it is perfectly legal to commit a criminal offence

[ploddertom]

Another thread that has gone off track. Whilst there are some that trawl for advice taking on board what hey want to hear or evading fees then that is up to them and sadly you have to leave them to their own devices. Hopefully when it all goes pear shaped they will look elsewhere. Can we get back to the subject in hand please

[colin11]

If you see this Bailiff Advice, your mailbox is full so you cant receive messages

[Bailiff Advice]

If you see this Bailiff Advice, your mailbox is full so you cant receive messages

 

Thats the second time in two days. Empty again.

 

Goodnight everyone.