Removal of Implied Right of Access and FMoTL: Debtor loses court case against Bailiffs (Thornton v Rossendales Ltd)

[Bailiff Advice]

Six years ago (in 2009) a Freeman on the Land (FMoTL) supporter by the name of Mike Dobson (Mike:of the clan Dobson) drafted a Removal of Implied Right of Access notice which he used to ‘scare off bailiffs’. He advised on the Freeman Ireland website that the notice should be put up at the boundary of the ‘private estate’ and the ‘public access way/street’ and that if a bailiff came to the door of the house they should be politley told that they would be trespassing and that they would have just 60 seconds to leave before a call would be made to the Police.

 

Due entirely to the internet, the Removal of Implied Right of Access notice drafted by Mike Dobson went 'viral' and appeared on the Freeman on the Land’s favorite media outlet; YouTube. In 2010, the notice first appeared on the popular FMoTL forum; Get out Of Debt Free. Within a short time all popular Freeman on the Land websites carried the notice with many of them making their own changes to the wording.

 

In March 2014 I researched the background to these silly notices and started a thread on this subject which to date has received over 12,000 visitors (link below):

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from

 

PS: Unfortunately, the internet sites that recommended using this notice were unaware that the notice proved to be a complete and utter failure for it’s author; Mike Dobson (see link below)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from&p=4664219&viewfull=1#post4664219

[Bailiff Advice]

The following is a copy of the original notice drafted by Mike Dobson in 2009 and his discussion concerning the drafting of the notice can be read on the Freeman Ireland website here.

 

 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACCESS

 

DATE ( 2009 )

 

I hereby give notice that the implied right of access to the property known as xxx [ postcode here ] has been removed in respect of the following:

 

Any employee, or agent or principal or any other person acting on behalf of the CORPORATE COURTS, and ( insert whatever or whomever is sending the bailiffs)

 

Any employee or agent or principal or any other person acting as third party AGENTS for/or on behalf of the CORPORATE COURTS ( or whomever) and the CORPORATION known as county court BAILIFFS, ( enter here whomever it is ) and:

 

Any POLICE OFFICER who is acting for the CORPORATE POLICE and not acting for and on behalf of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11 and her people as expressed in the oath of office of all POLICE men and women.

 

Please also take notice that the land known as England is a Common Law jurisdiction and any transgression of this notice will be dealt with according to Common Law.

 

 

By, christian name here, ( Agent)

 

( christian name here ): of the ( surname here) family

 

 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e all natural and Inalienable Rights Reseved

 

Please address all future correspondence in the matter to a direct Human Self, namely ( christian name ): of the ( surname) family, as commonly called.

 

Response to this notice should be forwarded within 3 days of receipt of this notice to the postal address known as, your address here [ postcode here]

[Bailiff Advice]

In 2013 I started a further thread (see below) concerning a debtor by the name of Mr Thornton who had taken legal proceedings against a firm of bailiffs called Rossendales Ltd after one their bailiff ignored the Removal of Implied Right of Access notice that he had sent to the company by recorded delivery.

 

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(3-Viewing)-nbsp

 

 

Despite being subjected to abusive comments from internet trolls, that particular thread has so far been viewed over 32,000 times and is evidence of the huge public interest in these daft notices.

 

Last week one internet site associated with the Freeman on the Land /Sovereign Citizen ideology stated that solicitors have been unable to locate details of the case and furthermore; that Norwich County Court had 'supposedly' stated that they could not find details of the case but most importantly, had confirmed that they had received many enquiries about the judgment. For these reasons alone, I thought that it was best to start this new thread and adjust the thread title to include the name of the parties to the proceedings (Thornton v Rossendales Ltd).

 

I wish to make clear from the outset that the case had been reported in no less than two trade journals by an expert in bailiff law following a review of the transcript of the case.

 

Thornton v Rossendales Ltd: Judgment. Norwich County Court: January 2013

 

 

 

Background:

 

In July 2012 the debtor (Mr Thornton) wrote a letter to Rossendale’s Ltd headed “Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access.” It was sent by recorded delivery. The letter purported to be a legal notice removing the bailiff’s right of access to the debtor’s property and warned that any attempt to enter the address by a bailiff of the company would be deemed as trespass.

 

The letter went on to say that a criminal complaint would be filed against any party violating the notice and that a penalty of £750 would be charged. Rossendale's responded to the letter by advising Mr Thornton that as a liability order had been obtained at the magistrate’s court and instruction had been received from the local authority to execute distress, that the bailiff was able to legally attend the property in order to enforce the debt. Subsequently, a visit was made to the debtor’s property by the bailiff. No contact was made with the debtor at this particular visit although the relevant bailiff attendance documents were left at the property by the bailiff. The next step taken by the debtor was for a claim to be lodged to the County Court for an alleged trespass by Rossendale's Ltd on his property.

 

The case was heard at Norwich County Court in January 2013 via the small claims track before District Judge Pugh.

 

Particulars of Claim:

 

The claimant (Mr Thornton) had served Rossendale's Ltd (defendant) with a Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access by recorded delivery s property.

 

The notice contained contractual terms and conditions including a penalty of £750 to be paid by Rossendale's in the event of trespass. By the bailiff subsequently attending the claimant’s property it was averred that an act of trespass was committed and the contractual term to pay the trespass fee stated in the Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access had been accepted by the defendant.

 

The bailiff had no legal right to attend the claimant’s property as he did not possess a copy of the liability order.

 

Reference was made to the case Davis v Lisle KBD 1936 in which the Court of Appeal held that a permission given to enter private property may be revoked, making the visitor a trespasser.

 

At the Hearing:

 

Rossendale's as the defendant rebuffed the claims made stating that it had authorisation from the local authority to execute distress (a copy of which was made available at the hearing), but that Regulation 45(1) Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (S.I.1992/613) provides that: "Where a liability order has been made, the Billing Authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of goods of the debtor against whom the order was made"

 

Furthermore, Regulation 45(7) says that:

 

"A distress shall not be deemed unlawful on account of any defect or want of form in the liability order, and no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser on that account"

 

and that:

 

 

“no person making a distress shall be deemed a trespasser from the beginning on account of any subsequent irregularity in making the distress, but a person sustaining special damage by reason of the subsequent irregularity may recover full satisfaction for the special damage (and no more) by proceedings in trespass or otherwise".

 

Judge Pugh questioned the legality of the claimant’s case. He said that while he had no reason to query the use of the Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access, he felt that its relevance in this particular matter was left wanting, as withdrawing consent to the right of access to the property did not override the legal right of the bailiff.

 

He agreed with Rossendales that the bailiffs had been granted powers by statute contained within the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 to levy distress and that as per Regulation 45(7) they could not be considered a trespasser.

 

The Judge went on to say that as a liability order had already been granted by the magistrates court, he had no reason to “look behind” the validity of the application and did not intend to question this further, accepting that any appeal relating to the making of the order should have been made to the magistrates court after the original liability order hearing.

 

Furthermore, the Judge said that despite what the claimant had written in the notice regarding contractual terms and conditions, it was not a contract as there was no consideration from either party involved. The claimant could not simply rely on Rossendales accepting the terms of the notice purely because they carried on with the lawful act of levying distress.

 

The Judge felt that the claimant was confusing the law of contract with the tort of trespass – which was a different element of law altogether. It was stated by Judge Pugh that it is a common misconception that trespassers can be automatically prosecuted when in fact they cannot. Instead, an aggrieved individual would have to demonstrate that there had been a loss as a result of damages caused by the defendant’s alleged trespass.

 

Despite remonstrations from the claimant, the Judge dismissed any reference to the case Davis v Lisle (1936) mentioned in the claimants application, saying that it did not bear any direct relevance to the matter before him between the claimant and Rossendales.

 

The question was put to the claimant; where was the loss in this particular instance? The claimant could not provide any evidence to support his claim.

 

Conclusion:

 

The subject of “penalty clauses” is one that is currently causing a great deal of debate in particular; with private parking companies who frequently attempt to impose a penalty charge of up to £100 ( and in some cases even more) for overstaying the stated parking time in supermarket car parks such as Lidl, Morrison, Aldi etc. PoPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) and the county courts are frequently rejecting such charges on the basis that they are not a “genuine pre-estimate” of the likely damages experienced.

 

As the Rossendale's bailiff had merely visited the property and left a notice confirming his attendance, any trespass would have been negligible and damages nominal.

 

In his final summary, the Judge made it clear to the claimant that he had been ill-advised in making his claim to the county court to try to prevent the bailiff from carrying out what he was perfectly legally entitled to do. From the claimants’ response it was clear that he had been influenced by information on the internet when preparing his case.

 

Not surprisingly, the court claim failed. Judge Pugh dismissed the penalty of £750 and ordered the claimant to pay Rossendale’s legal costs.

 

Note:

 

Despite extensive research we can find no evidence whatsoever of any case where a debtor was paid compensation by a bailiff company or local authority for ignoring a Removal of Implied Right of Access.

 

PS: A copy of the initial thread from 2013 can be read here:

 

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(3-Viewing)-nbsp

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Last week one internet site associated with the Freeman on the Land /Sovereign Citizen ideology stated that solicitors have been unable to locate details of the case and furthermore; that Norwich County Court had 'supposedly' stated that they could not find details of the case but most importantly, had confirmed that they had received many enquiries about the judgment. For these reasons alone, I thought that it was best to start this new thread and adjust the thread title to include the name of the parties to the proceedings (Thornton v Rossendales Ltd).

 

I notice that this thread has been picked up by the online news service; SCOOP. Hopefully, this will assist solicitors and anyone else who may have been having problems locating details of the case.

 

 

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

[Peterbard]

All this is still perfectly applicable, the term enforcement officer is used currently instead of bailiff. Schedule 12 procedure instead of the rules contain similar measures

 

The power is still provided by an enactment

 

"He agreed with Rossendales that the bailiffs had been granted powers by statute contained within the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 to levy distress and that as per Regulation 45(7) they could not be considered a trespasser."

Now this section just says using schedule 12 procedures.

[mikeymack2002]

So has the original transcript now been posted with the relevant case number? There still seems to be some vital information missing and only have the scantest of internet information available.

[mikeymack2002]

If someone knows someone that can access the archived listings may find out how to here http://www.thelawpages.com/court-hearings-lists/county-court-lists.php

[Bailiff Advice]

So has the original transcript now been posted with the relevant case number? There still seems to be some vital information missing and only have the scantest of internet information available.

 

What information is missing?

 

It would be for Mr Thornton or Rossendales Ltd to publish a copy of the transcript and I have no idea at all why they would want to do so. After all, the countries expert on bailiff law, Mr John Kruse wrote two excellent articles himself about the case and in so doing, he had also relied upon the transcript.

[ploddertom]

I sincerely hope we are not going to round in circles with this.

[Bailiff Advice]

So has the original transcript now been posted with the relevant case number? There still seems to be some vital information missing and only have the scantest of internet information available.

 

This afternoon I received permission from a defendant to publish details of yet another failed injunction that was heard today in Croydon County Court. Once again, another debtor has been ordered to pay significant costs to the local authority/enforcement agent.

 

The McKenzie was present and the court refused permission for him to address the court and refused his 'Professional Mc Kenzie' costs of £960.

 

The reason for publication is to once again alert the public to the dangers of seeking advice from the internet.

[Bailiff Advice]

I sincerely hope we are not going to round in circles with this.

 

I hope so too. As I have mentioned above, the only reason why this thread was necessary was because of the claims made elsewhere that solicitors cannot find details of the case and because the court have confirmed that they have received many enquiries about the case (of Thornton v Rossendales Ltd). This new thread includes the name of the legal case and given that it now appears on Google rankings, has been picked up by SCOOP. Hopefully there will be no further problems encountered in searching for details.

[wonkeydonkey]

This afternoon I received permission from a defendant to publish details of yet another failed injunction that was heard today in Croydon County Court. Once again, another debtor has been ordered to pay significant costs to the local authority/enforcement agent.

 

The McKenzie was present and the court refused permission for him to address the court and refused his 'Professional Mc Kenzie' costs of £960.

 

The reason for publication is to once again alert the public to the dangers of seeking advice from the internet.

 

Reading between the lines can we all assume this 'Professional McKenzie' is the same person that recently left two other debtors with expensive 'Contrails' of costs.

[Peterbard]

He lost the case, so who was he seeking a costs order against ?

[Bailiff Advice]

Reading between the lines can we all assume this 'Professional McKenzie' is the same person that recently left two other debtors with expensive 'Contrails' of costs.

 

I will address this matter on a separate thread and when available, I will also post up a copy of the judgment.

 

The simple answer to your question is ....yes, it is the same person.

 

Of serious concern is that I have been informed that in the documentation presented to the court (which was drafted by the McKenzie Friend) it states that the MK is a LAWYER.

[wonkeydonkey]

I will address this matter on a separate thread and when available, I will also post up a copy of the judgment.

 

The simple answer to your question is ....yes, it is the same person.

 

Of serious concern is that I have been informed that in the documentation presented to the court (which was drafted by the McKenzie Friend) it states that the MK is a LAWYER.

 

 

OMG.... we all know he can't lie straight in bed but if there is evidence to show he has also lied before a Court surely he will be made to face the consequences?

[Peterbard]

Apparently anyone can call themselves a Lawyer, yes I know barmy isn't it.

[Peterbard]

I will address this matter on a separate thread and when available, I will also post up a copy of the judgment.

 

The simple answer to your question is ....yes, it is the same person.

 

Of serious concern is that I have been informed that in the documentation presented to the court (which was drafted by the McKenzie Friend) it states that the MK is a LAWYER.

 

I wonder how many more of these are waiting to be unearthed

[Bailiff Advice]

This thread is going off topic. I will address the case in a separate thread. This case and others in the pipeline were discussed at a meeting in early April and as stated above, I have been given permission by the defendant to provide further details.

[Coughdrop]

Getting back to the topic then BA, do you actually have a copy of the elusive Thornton judgment? If so, can you post it up?

[citizenB]

This was a county court judgment wasn't it ? I would think it highly unlikely that a transcript has been posted publicly.

Edited June 23, 2015 by citizenB
removed link as it is not permitted

[Guest]

This was a county court judgment wasn't it ? I would think it highly unlikely that a transcript has been posted publicly.

 

 

I did find this pdf whilst googling though.

 

http://pilesadvice.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Thornton-v-Rossendales-Ltd-Judgment.pdf

 

link not working for me

 

is it re piles?

[Coughdrop]

I'm sure it hasn't been posted publicly. My question was if BA had a copy, and if so if it could be posted publicly.

[Peterbard]

As you say CB V unlikely it was recorded, it may be of interest to us on here, but in the scheme of things it was just someone trying to avoid tax by using some pseudo legal gibberish off the web. Hardly going to make the pages of the Gazette.

 

Entirely unremarkable in a legal sense.

[Bailiff Advice]

Getting back to the topic then BA, do you actually have a copy of the elusive Thornton judgment? If so, can you post it up?

 

No, I do not have a copy of the judgment but do have a copy of the transcript (which I was given way back in mid 2013). It is not my property to publish and there is no need to do so.

[Coughdrop]

No, I do not have a copy of the judgment but do have a copy of the transcript (which I was given way back in mid 2013). It is not my property to publish and there is no need to do so.

 

I can understand you not being able to publish a copy you have borrowed, presumably from one of the parties involved. It would be good to read it in full purely to form a personal opinion with all the information available, rather than just bits that are shared with us.