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

[davefirewalker]

stupid question.......

 

what would stop the more informed from selling all their goods ( to a friend or to their own ltd company ) and renting them back?.........therfore no liquidatable assets? bailiffs are not allowed to take items that are under hire purchase or rented

 

any ideas

 

Dave

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Dave

Not allowed to!!

 

Since when did the rules/law stop them - never.

 

They frequently take goods/property not belonging to the debtor

 

Not when you hear about them doing such things as clamping motobility vehicles & the police refusing help claiming "it's a civil matter sir"

 

The DCA's are peopled by ****

[Peterbard]

stupid question.......

 

what would stop the more informed from selling all their goods ( to a friend or to their own ltd company ) and renting them back?.........therfore no liquidatable assets? bailiffs are not allowed to take items that are under hire purchase or rented

 

any ideas

 

Dave

 

 

HI

There is no law sto say you cannot remove goods from your house before they get there

 

 

peter

[conchy_joe]

hi peter, good to see you back again.although we all need your help we all want you to get well first..best wishes..cj. .

[kennyh]

For a year I've been considering leaving this (government created) wreck of a country. Why? friends ask; I just send them this website address - they've all had it now.

The 'considering' phase has finished - reccy begins. I KNOW the grass isn't totally greener elsewhere-but it bloody well will be in a year or two.

[Peterbard]

hI

Yes there i an inescapable worying trend to the revokation of rights and liberties that have been taken for granted for so long.

Perhaps that is the problem we do take them for granted ,trying to get people to realise the far reachng effect off Wednesdays bill has taught me that.

The stop and search ,the ability for people to leagally enter your home and use force, are just two of many. The next thing will for them to use the phrase,"If you have nothing to hide then what have you to loose",

The answer of course is our freedom. Then we are in real trouble

 

Best regards

 

Peter

 

Best regards

Peter

[conchy_joe]

hi peter,At what point should i consider going to court re' dca's not supplying the cca.Next friday will mark the end of the 7/30 day time period for creditors to comply and so far nothing from them, not even a blank copy.It occurred to me that the reason for silence from B.O.S and LDC could be that they are preparing for a request for bailiff action.Even though according to the act they cannot pursue a debt whilst in default.These people seem to ignore this act when it suits them because the DTI and OFT etc don't enforce the (s77-s79) act.

[davefirewalker]

I think you have it wrong there.....it's 12 working days then 1 month

 

they are in default after 12 working days and cannot pursue any action while in default. After a further month they have committed an offence.

 

this discussion would be better in the cca threads

 

rgds

 

Dave

[Peterbard]

Hi

Back to the problem in hand below is a letter from Phil Evans with a few additions of my own to give some ideas it is hoped, that it will stimulate a new camaign to e-mail your MP'suporting Austins Ammendments,

When the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill was first published in July 2006, the limited consultation was timed to prevent scrutiny by a Parliamentary Committee and to limit responses from stakeholders. An e-mail from officials explained they would not hold meetings or enter into correspondence to discuss concerns and that no significant changes would be made to the Bill. Since the Bill began to go through Parliament in November, Government Ministers have taken very little notice of stakeholders’ concerns. On Wednesday (27 June) the Bill is expected to become law. This is the last chance anybody has to prevent what most people think is bad law.

 

Over the past year I have heard the proposed new law condemned by advice agencies, creditor groups and bailiff associations but the Government has stonewalled all of them.

It seems to me that if the Bill is to be stopped, all the interest groups must target the most vulnerable part. I think this is the bailiffs’ powers of entry and re-entry for bailiffs in Schedule 12, paragraphs 14-30. These paragraphs are ‘gobbledygook’: legalise that is so hard to understand that even people who agree with the intention think they should be redrafted. The Plain English Campaign thinks the paragraphs have a good chance of winning its annual Golden Bull Award later this year.

The paragraphs affirm the existing right of forced entry to people’s homes created by the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 and create a new procedure for bailiffs to force entry to premises in all other cases. The paragraphs also curtail an existing right of re-entry for bailiffs in a way that makes it more likely that bailiffs will remove goods earlier than is usually the case now.

Austin Mitchell MP, a senior backbench Labour MP has tabled an amendment to the offending paragraphs that is worded more logically and clearly. Crucially, the amendment prevents all forced entry to people’s homes. If Parliament were to support this, I believe it would delay the Bill and create an opportunity to try to get other important changes.

If you agree, you should rally support by contacting your own MP and asking him or her to support Austin Mitchell’s amendment.

A couple of days ago, the Government responded to an E Petition on the Prime Minister’s website calling for the provisions for forced entry and custodial offence for obstructing a bailiff to be removed from the Bill. The response is a smokescreen: it explains only on the new procedure for forced entry and conveniently ignores the existing power of forced entry created by the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 (which the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill affirms). I do not believe that it is candid about the impact the Bill will have on ordinary people.

Wednesday is the last opportunity to hinder the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill. If you think that worth the effort, please contact your MP and ask him or her to vote for Austin Mitchell’s amendment.

Many thanks again to Phil

Best

Regards

Peter

[davefirewalker]

Just sent mine to George Howarth (Sefton and Knowsley)

Hope he can help.......

 

Dave

[elsinore]

...and mine's gone to Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire)!

 

Els

[Peterbard]

Hi

Great

Mines gone off to my MP James Purnel lets keep it going

 

Many thanks

Peter

[conchy_joe]

hi peter, as the deadline is so close do you recommend emailing our mp's or contact by letter.In any event could you give us an idea of the wording...regards..cj.

[conchy_joe]

thanks dave,you're right, this should be on the dca thread,got carried away because the bailiff action could be directly aimed at disrupting the default/offence period-12days/1 month.

[kennyh]

It's time to be naive.

On TV yesterday Harriet Harmon was described as having made her name (?) as a 'fearless fighter for human rights and civil liberties'!!

Has the cat changed its spots d'yer think?

[Peterbard]

HI Here is a draft letter pleas e-mail to your MP if you agree WE ONLY HAVE UNTIL WEDNESDAY

 

Name and address of sender]

 

[Name of MP]

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

 

[Date]

 

 

Dear …

 

TRIBUNALS, COURTS & ENFORCEMENT BILL : BAILIFFS’ POWERS

 

I am writing to ask you to support an amendment to the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill tabled by Austin Mitchell MP. The amendment will set out bailiffs’ powers of entry and re-entry in a much clearer way than that what’s in Schedule 12, paragraphs 14-30. The amendment also omits any power for forced entry to people’s homes.

 

Please consider the following.

 

The powers of entry and re-entry in the Bill are gobbledygook and the Plain English Campaign thinks they're a front-runner for its annual Golden Bull Award. All attempts in the Lords and Commons to substitute a clear version were rebuffed and the Minister, Vera Baird, defended the paragraphs as ‘good statutory language’.

 

Bailiffs aren’t going to be sufficiently regulated to ensure these powers will be used properly. The Government’s promise to implement additional powers of forced entry only when the Security Industry Authority regulates bailiffs is unrealistic. SIA regulation will be less effective than what we have now. At the moment, someone can complain about a bailiff, and get redress, even if what the bailiff did wrong isn’t so bad that he or she should lose his certificate. As the Government’s own consultation paper makes clear, under the SIA a debtor won’t get any redress even if the bailiff loses his licence!

 

At the moment, Government departments fail to ensure that local councils use only certificated bailiffs to enforce council tax, business rates and parking penalties. The Government’s own estimate of 1,482 certificated bailiffs and 1,200 un-certificated indicates that perhaps half of bailiffs are allowed to act unlawfully. Why should we believe this would change?

 

Government Ministers have failed to act on their own criticisms of un-certificated bailiffs. They don’t acknowledging that only the Ministry of Justice and HM Revenue & Customs can contract un-certificated bailiffs to enforce income tax, vat and fines. The criticisms are, in fact, a smokescreen of unfair generalisations but the Government’s failure to do what it thinks is right is all too evident.

 

Government has no incentive to regulate bailiffs. Bailiffs collect £billions of Government revenue. Across central and local Government, and among the police and judiciary, there is instutionalised complacency about the behaviour of bailiffs. In spite of the rhetoric, nobody wants to rock the boat because the money is too important.

 

Government does little or nothing to monitor the forced entry power it created in the Domestic Violence Crime & Victims Act 2004. The statistics produced at the Second Reading, and in response to a subsequent PQ, expose poor control - and the very wide gap between what Ministers think is happening on the streets and what is actually happening. With this track record, why should we believe things would improve if bailiffs were given still tougher powers?

 

When the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act was going through Parliament, the Government did not make clear the magnitude of the change it was making to English law. The power of forced entry was a last minute amendment to a Bill that had nothing to do with bailiffs and the Minister responsible told MPs that it was to close a loophole in the law. As there was no consultation, the advice agencies and bailiff associations didn’t know what was happening and so couldn’t point out that the change was breaching two fundamental principles of English law. There is now doubt that the Government is being entirely candid about the impact of the new powers in the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Bill.

 

Government has created so many new fines and penalties that it has warped our sense of what is ‘criminal’. When Ministers defend the need to force entry to homes on the basis that the defaulter has been found guilty of a crime, many will in fact have had only fixed penalty notices. Without wishing to condone rowdy drunks, litterbugs or people who ride bikes on pavements, their behaviour shouldn’t mean that they and their families lose their right to the privacy of their homes when bailiffs break in.

 

Money has become so divisive in our society, and there is such incentive to use it recklessly, that there should be limits on how debt is enforced. I realise that many people are in debt through no fault of their own. And irresponsible marketing by banks and credit companies, plus TV portals of a ‘normal’ way of life, create unprecedented pressure on others to borrow and spend. There must be better solution to the UK’s overindebtedness problems than letting bailiffs break into people’s homes.

 

When the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill was first published in July 2006, the limited consultation was timed to prevent scrutiny by a Parliamentary Committee. An e-mail from officials explained they would not hold meetings or enter into correspondence with stakeholders and that no major changes would be made to the Bill. Contrary to what the Government claims, the bailiff provisions in the Bill are not based squarely on the findings of its enforcement review and so the new bailiff law has been criticised by bailiff associations as well as advice agencies and creditor groups. Since the Bill began to go through Parliament in November, Government Ministers have taken very little notice of stakeholders’ concerns.

 

For these reasons, please support Mr Mitchell’s amendment.

 

Yours sincerely…

 

 

 

[Name of sender]

 

NOTE

This is a draft excellently prepared at my request by Phil Evans it took him about 20 mins ,(Amazing)

I probably could have done something half as good but it would have taken me three days.

Wouldn''t wan't anyone thinking i was taking credit for other peoples work the main thing is to get it out there.

[seanamarts]

Thanks for this Ive sent it to my MP.

[Guest Herbie]

Thank you Peter for posting the draft letter from Philip.

 

 

I would like to explain just what can happen if this Bill passes on WEDNESDAY without Austin Mitchell's amendments. Remember Wednesday is the day that Tony Blair leaves office, and is a "good day" to bury bad news.

 

This bill, in it's present state, is bad news.

 

As we know, at present, a bailiff is ONLY allowed to enter into homes by "peaceful means". By that, he can enter through an open door etc, or by being invited in. He CANNOT force entry unless enforcing fines or income tax arrears. If allowed to pass, this Bill will change this......and more.

 

The Bill proposes that a bailiff can, with prior judicial permission, FORCE ENTRY into your domestic premises to take your goods to sell.

 

If this is not bad enough, under the Bill, it will be an offence for any person who intentionally obstructs the bailiff, and you can be liable on summary conviction to IMPRISONMENT for a maximum of 51 WEEKS or a FINE not exceeding £2,500 or BOTH.

 

This will not only apply to unpaid council tax, business rates, parking charge notices etc, but to County Court Judgments which can cover a variety of civil debts.

 

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.

[Saffronflowers]

You can email the letter via here

 

WriteToThem.com - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free

[ICY]

MP emailed

[conchy_joe]

Peter,my email to richard burden has been sent.

[maybelline]

I have contacted my MP also, put into my own words and much briefer but sentiment is same:)

[Peterbard]

HI

 

 

Good for you m and all of you lets hope someone is listening.

 

Regards

 

Peter

[Guest Herbie]

Thank you Peter,

 

I spoke last night with both Philip Evans and Recycler who like myself and Peter Bardsley,have been working behind the scenes to gain support for changes to this dreadful Part 3 of the Tribunals Court & Enforcement Bill. In addition we have the wonderful support of Austin Mitchell MP who has introduced amendements to the Bill.

 

For those of you who have been following this post, Austin Mitchell bacame interested in this Bill after his daughter's car was clamped by bailiffs in January and she found herself having to pay £707 for it be be released. We are helping her now to pursue a refund.

 

Having personally spent the past 3 days speaking with as many MP's and journalists that we can, there is now nothing more that we can do but wait.

 

The Bill has it's 3rd Reading & Report Stage in the House of Commons today. This is the FINAL stage and the Bill will then become law. It will then be up to the government when to ACTUALLY introduce it. We are assured that this WILL NOT happen until all bailifs are certificated and a regulator is in place. This COULD happen as soon as November, but personally I think it will become law around April next year.

 

For those interested, the debate on the bill will be starting at around 11am and will continue all day, very likely into the early evening. It will be on the Parliament TV Channel.It is the ONLY bill being debated today.

 

I would personally like to say a big thank you to Peter for all the work that you have done to bring this Bill to at attention of the forum and for the hard work in arranging the petition. Thank You.

 

I will keep you all posted on how this develops today.

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

Yes i will be glued to the TV .

Lets not forget that whatever happens today that it doesn't have to be the end of the story. English history even recent examples are full of bad law being overturned.

Sometimes it takes a taste of what happens when these laws are passed to wake people up; unfortunately all the talk in the world can not have the same impact as when reality hits you.

The Petition is still going Petition to: Restore the ancient rights of British citizens to refuse the forced entry of bailiffs. until October and is well worth pursuing it,if things go badly today and the bill goes through unabated then i think we will have plenty of amunition unfortunately at the cost of the British public.

If the ammendments are successful then we will have more time to build support before the next reading.

 

Keep fighting

 

best regards

Peter