Conflicting Bailiff advice

[DavidP24]

I have seen conflicting posts on this site, so I thought I would ask for some clarification.

 

One person in a thread said "you are advised not let bailiffs into your home"

 

Another talked about there being an offence of obstruction to peaceable entry.

 

My understanding is that you are best to never let them in because once you let them in they can come in whenever they want.

 

I also understand that they are no longer allowed to make entry via an open window but can via an open door, including pushing a door you have opened.

 

Can someone clarify whether I can simply not engage them, not open the door, not talk to them etc.

 

I gather that they can take a car they think I own, I drive a 20 year old car registered in Belgium, so unlikely they could prove was mine.

[dx100uk]

depends what they are there for.

 

acting upon magistrate fines etc they have a right of forced entry

 

things like CTAX debt they don't.

 

 

dx

[wilko52]

A bailiff may not enter your home without permission. If you leave your front or back doors unlocked, the bailiff may assume an implied right to enter and may legally do so. If you open the door to him and then go back into the house for some reason, then again, the bailiff can lawfully assume an implied right to enter.

 

If The Visit is for a court fine, you can still stop the bailiff entering by refusing access but there is little point because as DX says, he may return with a locksmith and force entry. This will incurrr additional charges.

 

If You are expecting a visit and don't want the bailiff to enter, the best thing to do is to write to the creditor stating that you refuse permission to enter your home and that this refusal extends to all agents working on the creditors behalf. Explain why you are refusing entry (the possibility that you will expose yourself to additional charges is reasonable).

 

Send a copy to the bailiff company. there can then be no doubt at a later stage that permission to enter had been denied. Of course, it is still necessary to remain vigilant but written refusal can never be disputed.

[Bailiff Advice]

I have seen conflicting posts on this site, so I thought I would ask for some clarification.

 

One person in a thread said "you are advised not let bailiffs into your home"

 

Another talked about there being an offence of obstruction to peaceable entry.

 

My understanding is that you are best to never let them in because once you let them in they can come in whenever they want.

 

I also understand that they are no longer allowed to make entry via an open window but can via an open door, including pushing a door you have opened.

 

Unfortunately as I have said many times, the internet is a great place for information but on the other hand, it is also rife with misinformation.

 

In almost all cases, the debtor should not allow the bailiff into the property. This advise though needs to be given with caution to anyone subject to a magistrate court fine for the reason being, that the enforcement agent does have (and frequently uses) the right to force entry into the property. There are certain steps that he must make beforehand.

 

There are some cases (and I have had three this week) where entry into the property was advised (by me) and in all three cases, we have received confirmation that the warrants are due to be returned back to the Magistrate's Court (bailiff fees will now be removed and each person has been given strict instructions on the steps that they must now make to deal with the warrant).

 

In each case, the fines were for court fines (where the right exists to force entry). In each case, it was clear that there were insufficient 'non exempt' items that could be taken into control, and as long as the enforcement agents (in two cases from Marston's and the other from Excel) can see evidence, then this is usually sufficient to enable the warrants to be returned.

 

All legislation is open to different interpretations and opinions and this exact topic is one that has recently been the subject of a 'difference of option' in the media between Mr Kruse (the countries expert on bailiff law) and the previous Chairman of the enforcement industries trade body. I am currently awaiting permission to publish copies. When this is obtained, a thread will be started in the discussion part of the forum.

[wilko52]

It is very rare for a bailiff to leave a premises without levying or attempting to obtain payment but 3 in a week? Wow! That must be some kind of record. And all for the same type of debt as well.

 

 

I personally would not recommend this action, the reasons are as follows:

 

 

1. Regardless of whether sufficient goods are available to be controlled, the bailiff will still try it on. Even if he doesn't control goods, he will pressurise the debtor into making payment. He will not simply walk away as he will loose his commission.

 

 

2. If bailiffs fail to collect the amount outstanding, an arrest warrant may be issued, meaning the debtor will be faced with paying the whole amount on the spot or face imprisonment. It is difficult to attract sympathy when you have failed to pay a fine and then laughed in the face of the law by ignoring all previous correspondence and then saying "I'm not paying and you can't do anything about it, look, I've got no goods" A court are hardly likely to let the debtor enter into a nice cosy little repayment plan and are far more likely to insist that payment is made through the bailiffs. Otherwise, every single "won't pay" in the country will simply store all their valuables next door and then invite a bailiff inside to check.

 

 

As a side issue, it is also worth noting that when the legislation was first changed, back in April 2014, bailiffs rarely sought to control goods, unless it was by way of clamping a car. This is because in contrast with pre-April 2014, there is no commission paid for levying/controlling goods. Many still don't bother but there is an increasing tendency lately to obtain CGA's. The reason for this is quite worrying. Bailiff companies are discovering there is no way of getting paid for repeat visits-UNLESS they can try to manufacture a sale visit (which many are now doing). In many cases, the subsequent sale fee is illegal. It is as important now, as it was pre-April 2014, NOT to allow a bailiff entry into your home and NOT to enter into a CGA unless there is immediate threat of removal.

[citizenB]

I would very much like to know why people don't engage immediately they realise they are going to have problems or when they are first contacted by the LA! surely that would prevent pretty much all of the distress.

 

I do understand there might be genuine cases of vulnerability. And almost certainly no end of people who are struggling to meet other essential bills especially with all the cuts. However, when you look deeper at some cases, there are people who can pay and simply haven't !

[wilko52]

I would very much like to know why people don't engage immediately they realise they are going to have problems or when they are first contacted by the LA! surely that would prevent pretty much all of the distress.

 

I do understand there might be genuine cases of vulnerability. And almost certainly no end of people who are struggling to meet other essential bills especially with all the cuts. However, when you look deeper at some cases, there are people who can pay and simply haven't !

 

 

Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. I've encountered many types of debtor but hardly any "won't pays". Many people bury their heads in the sand, others think they have more time to deal with it than they actually do. I've even encountered a drug addict who was happy to spend her council tax money on drugs, and accept that bailiffs will be calling (at additional cost) some time in the future.

 

 

There is little excuse for PCN defaulters-I find that quite often, the debtor has a chip on their shoulder and is purposely dragging repaying out. Council tax is a bit different. It is the biggest single debt in the country (in terms of numbers). In my view, this indicates something is drastically wrong with the system. We have people who were deemed too poor to pay back in 2012 who are now expected to contribute something.

 

 

Millions of LO's are issued every year. People know it is going to cost them more, yet they still allow it to happen. Do you think they choose this path? One of the problems IMO is that some prefer to focus too much on debt avoiders, won't pays, fmotl etc. Society has always had those type of people and it always will do. These people should not be yours or my concern-Nor should they be the concern of help forums. If one genuine debtor is helped, at the cost of 5 evaders getting away with it then it is a success. We can't influence the "won't pays" but we can make a positive impact on the "can't pays".

[Bailiff Advice]

I have seen conflicting posts on this site, so I thought I would ask for some clarification.

 

One person in a thread said "you are advised not let bailiffs into your home"

 

Another talked about there being an offence of obstruction to peaceable entry.

 

My understanding is that you are best to never let them in because once you let them in they can come in whenever they want.

 

I also understand that they are no longer allowed to make entry via an open window but can via an open door, including pushing a door you have opened.

 

Can someone clarify whether I can simply not engage them, not open the door, not talk to them etc.

 

I gather that they can take a car they think I own, I drive a 20 year old car registered in Belgium, so unlikely they could prove was mine.

 

David,

 

Do you actually have a case at present that is subject to bailiff enforcement or is your question a general one to ascertain what could happen if a debt were to be passed to a bailiff sometime in the future?

 

The general advice is that it is always the case that a bailiff visit can be avoided by dealing with the initial letter (Notice of Enforcement) from the enforcement company and either paying the debt in full (most likely in the majority of cases) or entering into a payment arrangement during what is called the 'compliance stage' (this is the strict period outlined in the NoE).

 

If you wish to make a payment arrangement, you have to expect to make an initial payment at the time of setting up the payment arrangement. The amount of initial payment can vary (in the case of magistrate court fines, the initial payment requested can be as much as one third or even 50% of the debt). In most cases, payment arrangements can run for approx 3 months (sometimes slightly longer). By making (and keeping) to a payment arrangement, bailiff fees will be capped at £75.

 

Failure to pay or make enter into a payment arrangement will lead to a personal visit and with it, an enforcement fee of £235. When a visit is made, the purpose of the visit is to 'take control of goods'. It is much more difficult to agree a payment arrangement at this very late stage.

 

PS: I hope that the above is of assistance to you.

[Peterbard]

Hi

If this is just a theoretical debate , shouldn't it be in the discussion area ?

 

I dont think there is anything wrong in letting a bailiff into your home. If it is to enforce a magistrates warrant, they can force entry anyway, so it is a no brainer. If for anything else, it is worth considering if it moves the matter forward, dependant on the individual circumstances.

 

As for never seeing wont payers, really, I say no more on that.

 

LOs are issued to collect debt, the enforcement action costs money, there is little option but to recover this cost from the debtor. The fact that this costs the debtor extra is an unfortunate consequence of them not paying, just reality I am afraid.

 

As said it is irrelevant what "kind of world" we live in, problems and debts included are always best addressed quickly before they get any worse.

Debts do not go away, the duck and divers of this world only put off the inevitable, and those who encourage them to do so, do them no favours.

[citizenB]

Hi

If this is just a theoretical debate , shouldn't it be in the discussion area ?

 

 

I agree, it is now in the discussion forum

[Peterbard]

A bailiff may not enter your home without permission. If you leave your front or back doors unlocked, the bailiff may assume an implied right to enter and may legally do so. If you open the door to him and then go back into the house for some reason, then again, the bailiff can lawfully assume an implied right to enter.

.

 

Since we are now on a discussion thread, i have to say that this is incorrect also. EAs do not depend on an implied right of entry, they never have, they operate under the power of the warrant or now under the power of the warrant and the TCEA.

The procedures for entry are now encapsulated in law in the act mentioned in any case.

[Peterbard]

Anyway this is old stuff for most of us, as BA says there is resent authoritative confirmation of the facts above, which should be available shortly.

 

I hope they can be viewed without undue name calling etc.

[wilko52]

Since we are now on a discussion thread, i have to say that this is incorrect also. EAs do not depend on an implied right of entry, they never have, they operate under the power of the warrant or now under the power of the warrant and the TCEA.

The procedures for entry are now encapsulated in law in the act mentioned in any case.

 

 

It is fairly irrelevant in any case. A letter revoking permission to enter will cover all aspects, including unlocked doors. I will however try to explain the situation in laymans terms, so it might be possible for you to understand it clearer.:

 

 

A bailiff may only enter a premises peaceably AND with the debtors permission. If the bailiff arrives at a premises and discovers an unlocked door, he may IMPLY right of entry. Once inside, this implication may be revoked if the debtor then asks the bailiff to leave. This is where we enter a grey area though and once inside, it will be the bailiffs word against the debtors as to what was said. This is perfectly illustrated in the JBW/Grant case last year, where contrasting accounts were given (one by the bailiff, one by Grant). I letter sent in advance refusing entry will negate any subsequent arguments. The implied right of entry is not essential but whilst writing the letter, it does no harm to add it on.

 

 

Hope this makes the situation a bit clearer.

[wilko52]

I'm not sure why there is an issue with not encountering any "won't pays"? Anyone with any hands on experience will say the same-Debtors are happy to pay the original debt, they are usually (for one reason or another) more concerned about avoiding paying the bailiff fees. Even in the two not too distant high profile Newlyn PCN cases, the arguments centred around amateurish attempts at changing ownership of vehicles, to avoid fees, rather than avoid the original debt.

 

 

I think 99% of debtors know that you cannot evade these priority debts, unless you emigrate. Changing the colour of your front will not outfox the system, sadly. I know of just one person currently who is deliberately avoiding council tax. He is conducting his campaign on YT and is fondly known as "one cell". He has recently been made bankrupt and I fully expect him to be jailed at some point.

[Peterbard]

t is perfectly clear and as wrong as when you presented it years ago.

 

The fact is that this idea has never worked, not only because it is legally incorrect but because EAs ignore it.

I suggest yo wait for the new thread before you continue.

 

"A bailiff may imply a right of entry" what does that mean, a knowing look perhaps or a wink

[wilko52]

t is perfectly clear and as wrong as when you presented it years ago.

 

The fact is that this idea has never worked, not only because it is legally incorrect but because EAs ignore it.

I suggest yo wait for the new thread before you continue.

 

"A bailiff may imply a right of entry" what does that mean, a knowing look perhaps or a wink

 

 

The first problem that you need to overcome is that of understanding the difference between the two scenarios:

 

 

I am not saying that a bailiff may not attend because his implied right of access has been revoked (as per a NOROIROA)

 

 

I am saying that a bailiff visiting a premises may imply a right of entry if he discovers the door open, or if the debtor opens the door and then leaves it unguarded for any reason. The bailiff implies this as an invitation to enter. The courts have accepted that either of these two situations (or a persons conduct) may be implied as a licence to enter. It has nothing to do with a NOROIROA.

 

 

Come back when you are able to understand the difference between the two. If you are unable to do so, then we'll just have to agree to disagree, otherwise it will be disputed indefinitely.

[Peterbard]

I'm not sure why there is an issue with not encountering any "won't pays"? Anyone with any hands on experience will say the same-Debtors are happy to pay the original debt, they are usually (for one reason or another) more concerned about avoiding paying the bailiff fees. Even in the two not too distant high profile Newlyn PCN cases, the arguments centred around amateurish attempts at changing ownership of vehicles, to avoid fees, rather than avoid the original debt.

 

 

I think 99% of debtors know that you cannot evade these priority debts, unless you emigrate. Changing the colour of your front will not outfox the system, sadly. I know of just one person currently who is deliberately avoiding council tax. He is conducting his campaign on YT and is fondly known as "one cell". He has recently been made bankrupt and I fully expect him to be jailed at some point.

 

You seem a little inconsistent as before you were saying only one out of six were genuine won't pays, that means if you have encountered one you must have encountered at leas five others as well.

I think the main reason people wish to avoid bailiff fees is because they are £310 if we are being honest. Of course this fee and the original debt are one of the same when the debt is with the bailiff, oddly the rest of your post I agree with.

 

LIke the fact that you copied my font colour analogy, hope for you yet

[mikeymack2002]

Posters are inconsistent because some don't always put all of the information in a post and need to be asked for more info. DB there is HOPE for everyone lol even you and I!!

[wilko52]

You seem a little inconsistent as before you were saying only one out of six were genuine won't pays, that means if you have encountered one you must have encountered at leas five others as well.

I think the main reason people wish to avoid bailiff fees is because they are £310 if we are being honest. Of course this fee and the original debt are one of the same when the debt is with the bailiff, oddly the rest of your post I agree with.

 

LIke the fact that you copied my font colour analogy, hope for you yet

 

 

The 1 in 6 figure was an example to make a point. It wasn't based on any facts or figures-It was hypothetical.

 

 

Yes, of course most people just want to avoid the £310 fee. I would as well in their position. Many times, it should not have been implemented in the first place though and other times legislation has not been followed.

 

 

I have no idea what you're on about regarding the font colour, do me a favour and spare me an explanation though.

[Peterbard]

The first problem that you need to overcome is that of understanding the difference between the two scenarios:

 

 

I am not saying that a bailiff may not attend because his implied right of access has been revoked (as per a NOROIROA)

 

 

I am saying that a bailiff visiting a premises may imply a right of entry if he discovers the door open, or if the debtor opens the door and then leaves it unguarded for any reason. The bailiff implies this as an invitation to enter. The courts have accepted that either of these two situations (or a persons conduct) may be implied as a licence to enter. It has nothing to do with a NOROIROA.

 

 

Come back when you are able to understand the difference between the two. If you are unable to do so, then we'll just have to agree to disagree, otherwise it will be disputed indefinitely.

 

I am not going anywhere Mark.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the implied right of entry.

The bailiff is said to employ an applied right, he down not grant it.

The implied right of entry exists to enable the paper boy deliver his paper , the milk man etc. it is an ancient right.

The bailiff according to some. uses this existing right he does not create it he invokes it.

 

"Commentary of Cambridge Law Journal on the judgment in Southam v Smout. The author wrote that “there is impliedly a licence by the householder to anyone having lawful business in a house to come in by usual entrances in a usual way."

You need to understand this Mark before you can intelligently discuss any further.

[Peterbard]

The 1 in 6 figure was an example to make a point. It wasn't based on any facts .

 

Sorry forgot who i was talking to for a moment, I am used to discussion with people who think facts are important.

[Peterbard]

 

 

Yes, of course most people just want to avoid the £310 fee. I would as well in their position. Many times, it should not have been implemented in the first place though and other times legislation has not been followed.

 

 

I have no idea what you're on about regarding the font colour, do me a favour and spare me an explanation though.

 

You should not assume that the fees are not due I would have thought and just advise as if they were, this would be wrong of course.

[wilko52]

I am not going anywhere Mark.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the implied right of entry.

The bailiff is said to employ an applied right, he down not grant it.

The implied right of entry exists to enable the paper boy deliver his paper , the milk man etc. it is an ancient right.

The bailiff according to some. uses this existing right he does not create it he invokes it.

 

"Commentary of Cambridge Law Journal on the judgment in Southam v Smout. The author wrote that “there is impliedly a licence by the householder to anyone having lawful business in a house to come in by usual entrances in a usual way."

You need to understand this Mark before you can intelligently discuss any further.

 

 

No sorry-The paper boy etc imply a right of ACCESS, not ENTRY.

 

 

Seems like it is you who has a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

 

Just to throw a spanner in the works, it was also this implied right of entry that was used to justify climbing through windows-That appears to be at loggerheads with your "Cambridge Law Journal".

[wilko52]

Sorry forgot who i was talking to for a moment, I am used to discussion with people who think facts are important.

 

 

Now you are just being infantile. What is the point of that comment?

 

 

I was using a hypothetical example to make a point to CB. How could I possibly know what the ratio of Wont pays are, compared to can't pays.

 

 

In less than 24 hours, you've posted circa 20 times on here-All aimed at taking cheap shots at me. Get a grip of yourself and post something constructive for a change, instead of this constant pettiness.

[Peterbard]

No sorry-The paper boy etc imply a right of ACCESS, not ENTRY.

 

 

Seems like it is you who has a fundamental misunderstanding.

 

 

Just to throw a spanner in the works, it was also this implied right of entry that was used to justify climbing through windows-That appears to be at loggerheads with your "Cambridge Law Journal".

 

Why would anyone want to imply an right of entry to their home mark ?

 

Bailiff enter property under a provision of the act or of the distress for rent rules previously.

 

 

"Throw a spanner in the works", how i have missed your stock phrases. not. I think it was "justified?" by associated ancient case law. Incidentally this does not aply now, why is that mark if apparently the implied rights does.