Baliff petition;Stop them getting a legal right to forced entry;Peter Bard

[JonCris]

It already IS law it just needs the government to implement it. Something which I think at this moment is unlikely after all it's only meant to apply to the feckless init & what with the credit crunch etc it could mean it effecting the better orf

[pugsley]

Bailiffs get power to use force on debtors - Times Online

 

you may want to comment on this, seems to have surprised lots of people

[postggj]

i dont want to go off topic,

this thread was started by peter bard as the seasoned members will know, peter is dynamite when it comes to agreements and it was him who sorted out my major problem over a hp agreement.

i know he has been ill, and he has not posted for a long time.

can the site team tell me is he all right and is there a chance of passing a get well to him as its christmas.

 

once again, sorry for off topic

[seanamarts]

Bailiffs get power to use force on debtors - Times Online

 

you may want to comment on this, seems to have surprised lots of people

 

whats going to happen now if some one makes a mistake, another innocent victim gets assaulted by these lawless thugs, who actually get a kick out of hurting people. Why are we not protesting about this?? and I dont mean a petition because they dont work. Mistakes are made and people get hurt who is going to pick up the pieces when that happens ?? its sickening and very scary.

As frail as I am I would rather attack any one from coming into my home univited for what ever reason then have them dictating to me what I can and cant do. I would make sure I would get at least one good swing in with the base ball bat that sits by my front before they pin me down. I just hope the government have a lot of space in their prisons because they are going to need it. I cant see many people just opening their homes up only to be emptied by these villians. Whats this country become:mad:

[JonCris]

In totalitarian countries they control thought & deed by force or fear if necessary. They also place as many of their citizens as possible on the public payroll both government & civil thereby making it a client state which will ensure constant support............. Sound familiar

 

At the present time about 165 Labour MP's are on the government payroll & that's on top of their MP salary........... it's known as the payroll vote for obvious reasons

[Francesco]

Bailiffs get power to use force on debtors - Times Online

 

you may want to comment on this, seems to have surprised lots of people

 

I read this at the time of publication, they close the "comments" at 185 on all items, though very few reach that number, they are moderated, or censored to be more precise, I posted a comment soon after it appeared, there were then perhaps fifteen responses from the public, my comment was I believe well informed, based a great deal on what I have gleaned from this site and also wry, my comment was excluded.

 

Two days later when the comments had reached 185 (heavily subscribed and filled up quickly) I had a quick perusal of them, I noted also the "suprised" element and just how unaware the posting public is on what's coming to them from a county court close to their locality, the upside is that at least 90% of the published comments were indignant and closely matched the anger felt in this forum, including the ever popular threats to leave the UK and promises of violence.

 

I couldn't resist sending another comment asking where my previous comment had gone to and asked if it was ignored because they were too busy working on a piece about press censorship and news manipulation in forieign countries.

I have no great expectations of any new comments I send to the paper to be included in the future.

 

In fact I regret not posting the link on this site when it first appeared, some of our hell hounds would've told The Times what's what.

I do worry now though why The Times picked up on it, could it be there are vibes from goverment departments, that they want it to go ahead soon and I can't remember if it went through the Lords yet, I presume it has to.

[arith]

If this doe's become law I can see one big rebellion happening on a scale that hasn't been seen since the Poll Tax in 1991.As the lord said "An Englishman's home is his castle".If I ever have to defend my home and pocessions from intruders and break the law then so be it.

 

I have been looking for my rights against forced entry by bailiffs.

 

Several years ago I put up my son who was thrown out by his mother; he had a strange habit of borrowing his friends cars and looking for a policeman to arrest him disregarded any fines he received.

 

He doesn't live here and hasn't done so for years but I received a 'Distress Warrant' that seemed to imply they could use force to remove my possessions.

 

After contacting the bailiff they say they will remove my address from their details; but what would have happened if I didn't accidently open the warrant but returned it with details of last known whereabouts, and what if I wasn't even in, and what if another bailiff buys the debt???

 

After being cleaned out by burglars twice and suffering from clinical depression I do not relish the idea of being cleaned out again, and now live in fear of leaving my home for any length of time.

[Joa]

Bailiffs’ Powers

The Sunday Times of 21 December 2008 and The Times of 22 December 2008 carried articles,as shown in above posts, about the powers that bailiffs allegedly now have to force entry to properties and restrain or pin down householders. According to these articles, the government wants to give bailiffs the right to push debtors from their doorways, drag them off their televisions and ease their grip on their children's dolls houses. These articles have caused panic amongst my debt clients.

 

Bailiffs do currently have the power, under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, to force entry for the purpose of executing a warrant of distress issued under section 76 of Magistrates Courts Act 1980 for default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction, but this power may be exercised only to the extent that it is reasonably required for that purpose only. At present, bailiffs have no powers to force entry in order to execute warrants for any other debts.

 

The government has proposed an extension of bailiffs’ powers but no regulations have yet been drafted. Whilst the regulations, if they are ever created, are expected to provide bailiffs with a power of forced entry, this will only be permissible with a separate court order. The court will closely control the extent of such power and, where appropriate, place constraints on the level of force to be used.

 

In the meantime, the rights of entry are as they currently exist

[Francesco]

Quote Joa

"At present, bailiffs have no powers to force entry in order to execute warrants for any other debts".

"The government has proposed an extension of bailiffs’ powers but no regulations have yet been drafted." Quote Joa.

 

 

What then were the proceedings going through parliament we all watched on television last year ?

[Joa]

I am sorry Francesco, I have no idea but I know how the situation is at present and any changes are barely a twinkle in father's eye.

 

I have a feeling that what you watched could have been governmental proposal to change the bailiff law - that's all. A lot of noise, nothing more. The lawmakers have not yet considered it properly and, a I understand, are at loath to do so.

[JonCris]

Although the government have yet to enact it it's already on the statute books.

 

It was passed by the HoC on the day Tony Blair left office so it wouldn't be noticed by the media which of course it wasn't

[Joa]

Jon- what exactly are you talking about? And if you already explained it here, can you link me to your post, please.

[JonCris]

Joa to understand start by going to the beginning of this thread. Sit down (with a decent bottle of plonk) & spend the next few hours (or days) reading through

 

Also if you read again the heading of this thread you will note we had petitions & all sorts including questions in both Houses of Parliament trying to stop this pernicious law being passed all to no avail

[Francesco]

Joa to understand start by going to the beginning of this thread. Sit down (with a decent bottle of plonk) & spend the next few hours (or days) reading through

 

Also if you read again the heading of this thread you will note we had petitions & all sorts including questions in both Houses of Parliament trying to stop this pernicious law being passed all to no avail

 

What he said.

It's essential reading Joa, speed read or skip those posts expressing indignation and outrage at the proposal, valid though they are and focus on those posts leading up to and including the passage of the bill into Parliament especially the posts by Peter Bard (blessings upon him).

 

I will be particularly delighted if you reach an imformed conclusion that the bill is some kind of weapon, permanently sheathed and desined to stay on a drawing board gathering dust in Westminster vaults, if that becomes the case, please share it with us urgently, but I actually think the true situation will be revealed to you.

 

Sincere regards,

F.

[Oh Boy!]

Joa

 

You have your comments down to a T.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen of this forum please do not panick, I am a Court Bailiff, and as I have said here on many occassions, County Court Bailiffs are accountable to the courts, the courts are an executive agency of the Ministry Of Justice, I have spoken to the Chief Bailiff (Judge) and it is the opinion of the Judge(s) that these forced entry warrants will not be issued like confetti if at all.

 

Before forced entry warrants even considered it will need to be proven before the court, I have never had a forced entry warrant granted by any judge, and even so, the claimant will always need to indemnify the court against costs.

 

If your talking about the private bailiff accountable only to himself then god help the general public. Then again it will be difficult for them to get a forced entry warrant, they will need to show that the debtor still resides at the address given, can you imagine what would happen if they forced entry to a home with new occupiers.

 

Suffice to say, will the last person leaving the UK please turn the lights off

[JonCris]

Oh Boy If only all of us had your faith in the system.

 

What may have been forgotten once given this power it will abused also don't forget that unlike your class of bailiff the County Court registered bailiffs already have serious form for such abuse.

 

There is little doubt whilst application are now rare when it introduced there will be a huge increase in such applications to the court

 

Do you really think they care too much if they get the wrong address or even wrong person. Almost daily we hear about such mistakes & that's only the ones that make the press. Also they consider such mistakes as simply an occupational hazard & carry on regardless

[Francesco]

Ladies and Gentlemen of this forum please do not panick, I am a Court Bailiff, and as I have said here on many occassions, County Court Bailiffs are accountable to the courts, the courts are an executive agency of the Ministry Of Justice, I have spoken to the Chief Bailiff (Judge) and it is the opinion of the Judge(s) that these forced entry warrants will not be issued like confetti if at all.

 

Before forced entry warrants even considered it will need to be proven before the court, I have never had a forced entry warrant granted by any judge, and even so, the claimant will always need to indemnify the court against costs.

 

If your talking about the private bailiff accountable only to himself then god help the general public. Then again it will be difficult for them to get a forced entry warrant, they will need to show that the debtor still resides at the address given, can you imagine what would happen if they forced entry to a home with new occupiers.

 

Oh Boy thanks for posting, don't think I am being impolite, but I'm not sure you have grasped the recent conversation.

Your comments confirm precisely what has been said to Joa, (who is wrong, not 'spot on' as your comment states) that it will be legally possible soon to obtain forced entry for creditors such as Barclaycard as a result of extending the 2004 Domestic Violence provisions. (citation needed)(Wiki spoof, don't try to click on it).

 

We are not panicing but are concerned about private bailiffs (amongst many things) seeking a warrant on the back of a CCJ.

Showing that a debtor is still residing at an address is not thought to become a major stumbling block, in fact I suspect as the custom becomes more widespread, which I believe it will, the entry in the electoral roll or confirmation by a utility may suffice.

 

We are not concerned about an unreal situation, for instance, zombies walking the streets of our cities desperate for human blood, but we are concerned with the now very real situation that zombies will walk the streets of our cities, armed with court warrants in their top pockets.

 

"then god help the general public"

 

F.

PS. Just seen JonCris's post who beat me to it. Memo to self - learn to type faster.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Francesco

[simon the poet]

HI

It seems that in spite of the governments “Best efforts" to stop creditors from pulling the carpet out on the customers who cannot afford to pay their mortgages.

The banks ,who some might say were responsible for the whole mess in the first place have in some cases completely ignored the new banking code and the FSA guidelines and instead are searching for ways to circumvent these bodies.

 

In the high court in October a bank successfully reclaimed a property from a debtor who was just one month behind in their mortgage repayment. This sets a precedent for other banks and totally ignores all the current government measures to protect the public.

The bank in question used section 101 of the Law of property Act which says;

1)A mortgagee, where the mortgage is made by deed, shall, by virtue of this Act, have the following powers, to the like extent as if they had been in terms conferred by the mortgage deed, but not further (namely):

(i)A power, when the mortgage money has become due, to sell, or to concur with any other person in selling, the mortgaged property, or any part thereof***f"

 

This means in most cases that, if in the event of a missed payment the mortgage becomes due, then the creditor can sell your property and make you a trespasser. They are fully within the law to do this without warrant and there is no legal defence.

I can see that this practice will spread like wildfire amongst the sub prime lenders out there, and needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

On the 3rd of Feb. this year a bill was introduced in the commons to try to plug this loophole and is due for its second reading, I believe in June.

There has been little or no publicity about this and I believe that it would be a good idea if people wrote to their M P’s and raise the profile of this issue before to many people loose their homes.

The bill is on the government website here:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2008-09/homerepossessionprotection.html

Simon

Edited February 15, 2009 by simon the poet

[JonCris]

The banks may spout with the platitudes about fulfilling Browns demands but in reality they don't give a toss. Look at all of the empty breast beating by the politicians all to no avail.

 

The banks run the country & they are not going to give that power up. Brown & friends on all sides of the house can scream all they like the banks are in power & that's it

[JonCris]

Simon the case you quote was a right to buy property where the 'owner' had not kept up the payments.

 

Had the occupants been owner occupiers then the court would not have readily granted possession

[simon the poet]

Hi

John

 

sorry to say they were and they did and the owners got thrown out pleas read the MPs remarks.

"In the meantime, however, in a case involving Horsham Properties, the High Court ruled at the beginning of October last year that lenders—banks, building societies and investment companies—were entitled to sell properties, including people’s family homes, without having first to go to court for an order, following just a single default on a mortgage payment. That objective has been achieved as a consequence of the mortgage small print—according to the judge, “conveyancing shorthand”—that is in practically every mortgage deed, in combination with section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925"

To further illustrate that this applies to occupoers the minister goes on to say;

 

"The purchaser of the property who is the new owner—very likely another faceless, compassionless investment company—is then entitled to a summary possession order against the borrower, the householder. The householder is now considered by the law to be a trespasser in his or her own home, which they no longer

3 Feb 2009 : Column 703

own. There is no defence in law against that claim. The new pre-action protocol and all the other forms of support that I have mentioned are therefore easily circumvented by unscrupulous lenders who invoke their power to sell the property in this way, without first having to go to court."

 

Simon

Edited February 16, 2009 by simon the poet
spelling

[simon the poet]

HI

Can't over stress the importance of this

It means that if you miss a payment on your mortgage the creditor can lawfully come around to your house and put a for sale sign up in your garden and sell your home from under your feet.

You wil then be a tresspasser in someone elses house.

 

Simon

[Francesco]

Simon, the imformation and views you provide are of considerable interest to many forum members.

 

Why not create your own thread on the topic ?

This thread that you have posted in is concerned with something else, namely the impending ability of baliffs to force entry into peoples' homes for civil debt.

 

F.

[simon the poet]

Hi F

Will do, but the information might be of use to people who are depending on the court system to give them time to pay before the ballifs come in and find that the whole system has been short curcuited.

Maybee the link is a bit tenuous keep up the good work.

 

Simon

[Francesco]

Thanks Simon, part of my motive was that you will get wider coverage, ie more readership, with your own thread on the very important topic that you raised, rather than this fag end of a nearly exhausted topic.

 

We are now pretty much just waiting for the horror stories to start coming in.

 

F.