Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • And incidentally, the really important part of this is that when you go to court, you are totally thorough and fluent not only with the facts – but with the effect of the legal points you are arguing. The facts are broadly not in dispute but the legal effect for instance of either having insurance or not having insurance. Of requiring insurance – these are the things you need to understand fully. Preparing your court bundle and eventually refining it bit by bit is terrific revision for you and will put you in control but also understanding its content fully and being fluent with its pages in the position of every point you are making is also essential.
    • Skeleton argument/witness statement – it's just a matter of terminology and we don't need to make an issue of it. Actually the three-page document that you have posted first of all and which you have called skeleton argument – is a witness statement which would be attached to the bundle which would be part of your indexed court bundle. I haven't looked at it in detail get or how it supports your claim or how it addresses any of the points made in the defence. I'll have to do that in the next two or three days. But for the moment, it looks fine. You have posted a second document which you are describing as an anonymized witness statement and as far as I can see, I agree with Cagger @jk2054 that much of your circle witness statement is a bit of a waffle and contains irrelevant information that you haven't remedied it in your final version which you say is chopped up. Also, you have received a suggestion of a template from Cagger @jk2054 and although this is going to be confusing for you, I don't think you should bother to use it. It is far too formal. You are a litigant in person and you need the flexibility of fully informing but informal documents which is what we are providing you with. We are suggesting models which we have been using over many cases and they all succeed in some them have been, complemented by the judge for the effectiveness and their clarity. You are litigant in person and one of the things you need to do is you need to have the judge on your side and helping you if necessary and this means that you don't want to start acting or talking or writing as if you are some kind of lawyer – you aren't. Being a litigant personage a certain sort of leverage and you should exploit that. The templates that we are suggesting to you are still not the templates that a completely un-advised person would use but they are still thorough. Stick to them. I suggest that you follow the advice given by the site team here and avoid confusion by switching horses. So for the moment I would suggest that you stick to your original skeleton argument – which follows the format that we have been using on this forum. We do like to see the fully prepared bundle please. I think there should be a next step. Have you got hearing date? Have you got a date for filing your bundle? In fact I have just looked back and I see that your filing date is 8 July. That's fine
    • First of all – as has already been pointed out to you, this is not a defect in the usual way that we understand and so that means that you don't need to rely on your 30 day and six months rights to reject. You can get MOT test done and it turns out to be an MOT failure for any reason then you have the added weight that they have is sold you an unroadworthy vehicle. Who did the existing MOT? I have a sense that it was big motoring world themselves in which case this would give you even greater leverage that if you have an MOT fail and it seems fairly clear that the reason for the failure is something which existed for some time that that would also cast doubt over the MOT provided by big motoring world and this would be even more serious. In any event, the vehicle is not as described and I think that this is an immediate ground for cancelling the policy and even better than that I think it would be a good ground for resisting any deduction made for mileage used – although we will have to deal with as it comes. I have read on Facebook that big motoring world tend to insist on quite a big deduction per mile and I have a sense that they do this because they know they can get away with it because they know their customers are really just happy to get rid of the vehicle any cost. You have told us you've got to a position where they seem to have agreed that you have now drawn a blank and they are being obstructive. Maybe you can lay out a bullet point chronology of exactly what has happened so far – point by point. I don't think you've told us how much you pay for the vehicle and also we want to know a list of the other expenses to which you been put including insurance et cetera and if you cancel the insurance how much you are likely to lose. How long is it not been driven? Why is it not been driven by your son? Didn't you planned for the more expensive insurance premium before you bought it? I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe you bought it and then was surprised at how expensive it was and are now finding a reason to return it. Please be completely level with us and tell us if this forms part of your reason for wanting to return it. We need to know everything – straight dealing – so we can help you in the best way possible. Otherwise we will have surprises sprung on us and we will all be embarrassed and you may lose. In fact I see that we don't know anything about the current all – make, model, mileage, or price paid which have already asked you about. Any reason that we don't have these very basic and obvious details without having to ask for them? You refer to the two new runflat tyres – why? Are these new ones which came with the car or these new ones which you had to buy and if so why did you have to buy them and how much they cost. It will be nice not to have to cross-examine your every detail. It will save a lot of time. Please have a look at this post carefully, discern the questions and address each one please.
    • I've now chopped the original statement as attached. I haven't included 'the law' as I assumed that was fully covered in my skeleton arguement, which I also assumed would be a supporting document in my bundle. Or should the two be merged? 22Jun24 anonymised completed WX statement @ 1843.pdf
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access - EU Law perspective


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3255 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

p3t3r wrote:

 

 

The Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access - this is a perfectly valid notice, - my opinion of this is backed up by the ruling from Judge Pugh which is shown earlier in this thread.

The notice is akin to 'No Cold Callers' notices which are supplied by various police forces, councils etc.

 

In relation to bailiffs, the notice is not considered to be valid. Firstly, there is no implied right of access for a bailiff since it is an explicit right. The bailiff has the right to attend the property and as such ignore the notices.

 

IMPORTANT: Anyone relying on this notice to get rid of the bailiff is more likely to suffer financially since they are presumably under the illusion that such a notice would simply get rid of the bailiff. In this instance, the notice is absolutely useless because the bailiff does not have an implied right whatsoever, the bailiff has an explicit right - which is backed up by UK legislation which affords such right to the bailiff. Again, this is backed up by Judge Pugh.

 

So, whilst the notices are akin to 'no cold callers' notices and apply to the vast majority of people, the notices do not apply to people who have a legal right to attend your home. The bailiff has a legal right in UK law to attend a debtors home.

 

The reliance on such notices by individuals can lead to a dangerous scenario since the individual is under the false illusion purported by FMOTL that the notices are valid. Again, to put it simply, the notices are not valid to anyone who has a legal right to attend a home - and this includes bailiffs who are given the legal right to attend a home.

 

Now, turning to a possibility as to how the notice is valid against bailiffs. EU law, ECHR, human rights... Lets take an example of council tax. If a debtor can not pay council tax, then their ability to pay should be assessed by a court. My opinion: If the person does not have an ability to pay, then allowances should be made by the court. In no circumstance should a liability order be granted on a person who does not have an ability to pay their council tax since as this is perverse! There is absolutely no point in instructing bailiffs to attend a debtors home and therefore significantly increase the debt by adding on bailiff fees.

However, in the case of a debtor who can afford to pay but does not pay, then bailiffs should attend. IMO, bailiffs should be used as a last resort against the debtor who refuses to pay where all other possibilities have been exhausted such as deductions from benefits, salary deductions etc.

 

There are IMO various EU laws which would help with the validity of the Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access.

Firstly, the right to a fair trial. There is absolutely no fair trial in the scenario of council tax where liability orders are processed almost automatically, 'rubber stamped' by the Judges. This goes against ECHR article 6, the right to a fair trial.

 

If the debtor has not had a right to a fair trial as defined by ECHR article 6, then the bailiff should be informed of this in conjunction with ECHR article 8, the right of respect for his home, family etc.

 

The debtor should make their case known to the bailiff and the bailiffs client.

 

If the bailiff does not leave the property after being informed of ECHR article 6 and article 8, then it could be argued that the bailiff is in violation of those applicable laws. This is my opinion and until someone actually tests the legality of this in a court, then it is just that, an opinion.

 

A (BBC?) report which can be seen from one of my links in this thread from a few years ago states that the use of bailiffs should decrease since the human rights act. Unfortunately, I feel the reverse has happened in the fact that liability orders are rubber stamped and as such bailiff use has increased rather than decreased.

 

Again,I reiterate that use of such notices are ineffective against bailiffs and other people who have a legal right under UK legislation to attend the home of a debtor. However, as Judge Pugh has outlined, the notices are valid toward those people who do not have a legal right to be at the property.

 

Usage of such notices used in conjunction with that of various EU laws and human rights should IMHO prevent the bailiff from attending the property until such time that a FAIR TRIAL (article 6 ECHR) has occurred. The debtor should then escalate their case using ECHR and EU law in order to provide remedy.

 

Summary: Notice of implied right of access is perfectly valid, but not valid against people (bailiffs) who have an explicit legal right to attend. However, such right should be examined under EU law since I feel that more often than not, article 6 has been violated (fair trial) which would then lead to article 8 violated.

 

EU law / ECHR - This trumps UK law! Whilst people may have an explicit right under UK law to attend a debtors home, this is not necessarily so using EU law.

 

Discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Above post relates to this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?406801-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access......debtor-loses-in-court-and-ordered-to-pay-bailiff-companies-legal-costs/page10

 

I am unsure why 2 threads are needed and don't know why someone joined this site today purely to create a new thread from the original thread with their first post!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited: it is very strange :/

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unsure why 2 threads are needed and don't know why someone joined this site today purely to create a new thread from the original thread with their first post!

 

To see if Dodgeball really does want to discuss it. It can't go 'off-topic' now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

wun hung lo, ok, lol, thanks for your explanation... but speaking about a thread title in conjunction with something else is surely not off topic!

 

anyway, i've pretty much said all i have to say about this in the other thread. would be interested in other peoples opinions though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't liability orders issued after a hearing in a magistrates court? For example, debtor receives a summons in the post to appear on a certain date/time to defend the application for a liability order, if they fail to turn up, then the liability order is issued.

 

Therefore in the interests of the Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR, the right to a fair trail and no punishment without law is effectively adhered to as the debtor has a chance to defend themselves in a court of law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debtor has a right to legal aid if they can not afford to pay a solicitor themselves.

 

My understanding of council tax cases is that they are completed within just a few minutes, no assessment as to the affordability of the debtor is taken into consideration, - most cases are simply 'rubber stamped'.

 

I have read a lot of information concerning this, some information is coming from 'dubious' site I have learnt of through CAG, but that site seems to suggest that liability orders for council tax are granted even before the debtor arrives in court.

 

ECHR - right of a fair trial - There is no fair trial in the case of council tax since there is no legal aid for this (despite ECHR stating otherwise).

Link to post
Share on other sites

For Council Tax issues? Are you sure about that?

 

yes... from what i've read, council tax is criminal and ECHR says a solicitor should be provided for criminal cases if the defendant can not afford a solicitor themselves.

 

ive also read legal aid is possible for ECHR cases.

 

i have been reading a lot, ill post links when i find them, but i seem to remember reading that one on CAB website

 

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/hrr_article_6.pdf that link shows solicitor should be provided for a fair trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes... from what i've read, council tax is criminal and ECHR says a solicitor should be provided for criminal cases if the defendant can not afford a solicitor themselves.

 

ive also read legal aid is possible for ECHR cases.

 

i have been reading a lot, ill post links when i find them, but i seem to remember reading that one on CAB website

 

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/humanrights/hrr_article_6.pdf that link shows solicitor should be provided for a fair trial.

 

Just because CTX hearings are in a magistrates court does not make them criminal. Mags can also sit in a civil capacity.

 

I don't think Legal Aid is available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's unfair about the liability order process exactly?

 

For what's worth, in over a decade in being involved with council tax disputes, I've never come across a single legal aid funded case.

 

There are reminders and a summons sent to a debtor. If they fail to dispute it or attend then judgment is effectively given in default.

 

Not sure why that's unfair either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because CTX hearings are in a magistrates court does not make them criminal. Mags can also sit in a civil capacity.

 

I don't think Legal Aid is available.

 

It's an offence not to pay but the enforcement isn't the same as for Magistrates' Court fines and suchlike. It's rather niche and peculiar.

 

I don't think Legal Aid is available either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's unfair about the liability order process exactly?

 

For what's worth, in over a decade in being involved with council tax disputes, I've never come across a single legal aid funded case.

 

Interesting! That seems to suggest that quite a lot of unfair trials over the last 10 years.

 

The unfairness is that there is no legal representation (which you say). ECHR right to a fair trial states that a solicitor should be appointed if the person can not afford a solicitor.

 

Other unfairness i believe is that there is no valid assessment of the persons ability to pay.

 

Some people refuse to pay council tax (despite them being able to do so) - Other people can simply not pay council tax. Therein lies the unfairness in the fact that the people who can not pay and are struggling to pay are then faced with bailiff action and their debt is significantly increased.

 

Other unfairness is that I have read that all council tax liability orders are rubber stamped. Also, that these liability orders are even made before the defendant arrives in court.

 

--- I am not sure about the last one because i've read a few sites, and one site is FMOTL which i learnt about from CAG. That site is flawed (IMHO), and it is quite possible that I read there that liability orders are made before the defendant arrives in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Liability orders are only "rubber stamped" in the sense that they are awarded in default if the debtor decides not to attend or dispute them.

 

The debtor is warned and then summonsed.

 

By your logic, legal aid should be available for speeding or drink driving etc offences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal aid is restricted and only available in very few cases these days.

 

CTX not being one of them.

 

Yes.. Under UK legislation.

 

But ECHR dictates otherwise. As I said, easily googleable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here is the leading legal case in relation to legal aid and the ECHR...

 

 

Airey v. Ireland, Judgment of October 9, 1979

 

Applying and expanding upon the right to access to the courts established in its decision in Golder, the Court found that Article 6 (1) also implies the right to free legal assistance in certain civil cases. The Court ruled that the right applies in civil cases when such assistance proves indispensable for effective access to the courts, either because legal representation is mandatory under domestic law or because of the complexity of the procedure or the type of case. Here, the applicant had requested free legal assistance to bring an action for judicial separation because of the unwillingness of her abusive spouse to sign a voluntary separation agreement. Relevant factors included the complexity of the procedure, the complexity of the issues of law, the need to establish facts through use of expert evidence and examination of witnesses, and the fact that the case concerned a marital dispute entailing emotional involvement incompatible with the level of objectivity required by advocacy in court. The Court noted, however, that the right to access to a court is not absolute and may be subject to legitimate restrictions. These include the imposition of financial contributions and that the case be well-founded and not vexatious or frivolous.

 

"26. . . . It would be erroneous to generalize the conclusion that the possibility to appear in person before the High Court does not provide Mrs. Airey with an effective right of access; that conclusion does not hold good for all cases concerning ‘civil rights and obligations' or for everyone involved therein. In certain eventualities, the possibility of appearing before a court in person, even without a lawyer's assistance, will meet the requirements of Article 6 (1); there may be occasions when such a possibility secures adequate access even to the High Court. Indeed, much must depend on the particular circumstances.

 

". . . whilst Article 6 (1) guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their ‘civil rights and obligations,' it leaves to the state a free choice of the means to be used towards this end. The institution of a legal aid scheme-which Ireland now envisages in family law-constitutes one of those means but there are others such as, for example, a simplification of procedure. In any event, it is not the Court's function to indicate, let alone dictate, which measures should be taken; all that the Convention requires is that an individual should enjoy his effective right of access to the courts in conditions not at variance with Article 6 (1).

 

". . . Article 6 (1) may sometimes compel the state to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable for an effective access to court either because legal representation is rendered compulsory, as is done by the domestic law of certain Contracting States for various types of litigation, or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual position is that a Liability Order will alway be issued unless the person named on the summons can prove that the debt is not owed. For the avoidance of doubt arrears of council tax is a civil debt.

 

If a bailiff is unable to 'take control of goods' and the debt is returned to the local authority then the LA may enforce the debt by way of attachment of earnings or attachment against benefits or by way of a charging order. Only after all of these enforcement functions have been attempted can the local authority consider a custodial sentence. It is at this stage ......and not before.....that the matter progresses to criminal proceedings and the debtor must be given legal assistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it from me, you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't need Google. I've spent years studying EU law.

 

If a person cannot afford legal representation, this can undermine their right to a fair trial, a right which is protected under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act. The right of access to a court must be meaningful and practical, not theoretical. The issue of legal aid provision is a continuous source of conflict between the Government and those who represent some of the most marginalised groups in society.

Quoted from: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/justice-and-fair-trials/legal-aid

 

 

Right to a fair hearing

Article 6(1) of the ECHR guarantees that every individual shall be entitled to a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations. Article 6 does not grant an automatic entitlement to legal aid in civil cases.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-aid-exceptional-circumstances/70195.fullarticle

 

Council tax non payment is criminal, not civil. ???? I am assuming it is criminal, otherwise there would not be people sent to prison for non payment of their council tax?

 

Article 6 expressly provides for legal assistance in criminal matters

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/constitutional_law/fundamental_rights/500299.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quoted from: https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/justice-and-fair-trials/legal-aid

 

 

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-aid-exceptional-circumstances/70195.fullarticle

 

Council tax non payment is criminal, not civil. ???? I am assuming it is criminal, otherwise there would not be people sent to prison for non payment of their council tax?

 

 

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/constitutional_law/fundamental_rights/500299.html

 

From your own link...

 

"The ECHR has, however, made it clear that there is no absolute right to legal aid."

Link to post
Share on other sites

From your own link...

 

"The ECHR has, however, made it clear that there is no absolute right to legal aid."

- in civil cases

 

 

Remaining articles above describe there is possibly a right to legal aid.

 

If someone can not afford to pay council tax, then surely the court should recognise that fact and act accordingly instead of rubber stamping a liability order.

 

If someone who can afford to pay council tax and decide not to pay it, then i believe they should go to prison as it is unfair on the rest of society.

 

Non payment of council tax is criminal? I read that criminal cases require legal aid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3255 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...