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

[Guest Herbie]

This post should be moved to start a new thread.

 

Can someone help here.

 

 

[EDIT...User has reposted his own thread....Remains removed.

Rooster]

[Peterbard]

HI Post to media

 

I would like to congratulate the media on being hoodwinked by the government yet again. In the best piece of slight of hand that has been demonstrated since Paul Daniels hung up his wig the government and in particular the ministry of justice have got the Tribunals Court and Enforcement bill through and onto the statute books unscathed.

It started in 2004 when a late night session at the commons were debating a relatively unimportant bill to do with the domestic violence act a last minute an amendment was tabled that was to” fill a gap in the rights to access regulations in bailiff law."

The MP's nodded it through it was late at night and not worth any great scrutiny, little did they know they had just given away over 800 years worth of common law rights for all English men and their rights to security in their homes. Now the government could knock down your door and take your belongings with impunity. This was however limited to agents acting on a magistrates warrant .

Yesterday the second part of the trick was masterfully pulled off by MS V Baird, as the rest of the countries attention was diverted in true Houdinian style, she pushed through the rest of the legislation and now the, "enforcement agents" can force entry, restrain and fine/ imprison anyone who protests and all for a few quid owed to the local greengrocer.

So whilst you (The media) have been giving us a diet of who is doing what to whom on big brother we have lost one of our basic rights and freedoms and no one said a thing.

People say the law is an ass I say it is as good as we make it and this is a bad one.

Thanks a bunch

Peter F Bardsley

[Guest Herbie]

SIA as the regulator of bailiffs.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In my view SIA are not the right choice as regulator.

 

There are many reasons for this, the first one being that I do not believe that they can possibly be described as "independant" .

 

The SIA is an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body

established by Parliament on 1st April 2003 under the Private Security Industry Act 2001.

 

Their 2004/5 accounts show that they received funding from the HOME OFFICE of £13 million in 2003 and £18.50 million for 2005/06.

 

Independant.......who are they kidding. !!!

[2Grumpy]

I have been reading this and feeling very uncomfortable in general.

 

Then I thought a bit more ...

 

My son is in debt to Natwest (credit card) & has made an arrangement to pay a bit each month via Intrum Justitia. He has gone back to uni after a spell at home, but IJ still have my address (son changes address quite frequently so it's the only feasible one) & phone no.

 

He isn't an excellent payer so I get a few phone calls & letters for hime that I pass on. My son hasn't asked me to give them his current address or phone no so I decline to do so when IJ ask for it.

 

If this wonderful piece of legislation comes into force & Natwest decide that they want all of their money back, is it possible that if there was a judgement (that I might not be aware of) I might be legally burgled by bailiffs?

[The Watcher]

Yes, indeed there is !

 

Bailiffs will automatically "assume" that your son lives there (in the absence of proof that he doesn't) - after all they don't care who pays - as long as they get some money !

 

If the new Bill becomes law there is a possibility that you may return home one day to find the locks have been changed (although the bailiffs will claim that they contacted you about it prior to breaking-in - just as they claim to have done so many "phantom" visits !)

[conchy_joe]

do we know when this bill is actually going to become law,or does it automatically become law when the bill is passed.

[2Grumpy]

I just hope that these newly regulated bailiffs are better at finding houses than the postman who regularly delivers mail for the same house number but the next street!

 

If this sort of thing starts happening just think of the number of sons & daughters who are in debt who might get kicked out by their parents to avoid this happening.

 

I can see IJ getting my son's address when this becomes law!

[The Watcher]

I just hope that these newly regulated bailiffs are better at finding houses than the postman who regularly delivers mail for the same house number but the next street!

 

If this sort of thing starts happening just think of the number of sons & daughters who are in debt who might get kicked out by their parents to avoid this happening.

 

I can see IJ getting my son's address when this becomes law!

 

Here's a classic example, from The Guardian newspaper - When baillifs put foot in my door | ZZZ Front | Guardian Unlimited Money

 

or bailiffs repossessing the WRONG house - THE WRONG HOUSERS - Top Stories - News - Mirror.co.uk

[The Watcher]

do we know when this bill is actually going to become law,or does it automatically become law when the bill is passed.

 

see message 686

[Peterbard]

I have been reading this and feeling very uncomfortable in general.

 

Then I thought a bit more ...

 

My son is in debt to NatWest (credit card) & has made an arrangement to pay a bit each month via Intrum Justitia. He has gone back to uni after a spell at home, but IJ still have my address (son changes address quite frequently so it's the only feasible one) & phone no.

 

He isn't an excellent payer so I get a few phone calls & letters for hime that I pass on. My son hasn't asked me to give them his current address or phone no so I decline to do so when IJ ask for it.

 

If this wonderful piece of legislation comes into force & Natwest decide that they want all of their money back, is it possible that if there was a judgement (that I might not be aware of) I might be legally burgled by bailiffs?

 

HI

 

I would find out if a judgment has been issued and if he is financially linked with you on the credit file and if there is take the appropriate steps to get it removed but do it now, most problems with bailiffs can be avoided if people act as soon as they suspect something is wrong.

 

Best regard

Peter

[seanamarts]

I have had a response from my local MP Douglas Carswell.

His reply as follows;

 

Thank you very much for contacting me recently about the bailiff industry.

 

As your member of parliament, I believe that those people who have a debt owed to them have the right to have that debt enforced, however there must be a balance between this right and fair enforcement of debts.

 

I welcome some of the new rules in relation to seizure and control of goods that are contained in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill and it is all welcome that the different rules that used to apply to different debts are being removed in favour of a single system. However, given the new powers in this Bill, and the increased powers that were contained in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victim Act 2004, I believe that it is time for a proper system of certification and we think that there should be a clear regulatory system for bailiffs.

 

I welcome the fact, that following pressure from Conservatives, the Government have agreed not to implement the powers to apply for reasonable force until the regulatory system that they have promised is in place. However, I still have great concerns about other elements of the Bill, including the changes being made to the ancient common law right of resisting entry to your home.

 

Conservatives will be pressing the Government to secure safeguards to protect vulnerable people, including single women and those with children. If these safeguards are not secured we will vote against this Bill.

 

Once again thank you for taking the time to write to me.

 

Any advice on how I should respond to this

[Francesco]

Any advice on how I should respond to this

Yes,

1) Point that as he has stated in writing his concerns for the common law rights, then it ought to influence how he and his colleagues vote.

 

2) If the goverment are unable to guarantee BEFORE it becomes law, the safeguards that are demanded, then it ought to be a nay

 

3) Maybe to late to raise this point now, but I am convinced more people will declare bankruptcy than had previously.

 

Am thinking of further points, lunch has arrived.

Best wishes to you Peter, thanks for your efforts.

[Saffronflowers]

Received a letter from Andrew Lansley this morning - he states he is sorry that I brought the matter to his attention before the ammendment reading, however, he is going to investigate and ensure that the people in his party are aware of what has happened and use my case as an illustration of what could happen without adequate safeguards.

 

I hope it is not too little too late.

 

SFx

[maybelline]

my council is threatening bailiffs again after their online payment system went wrong and only giving seven days before action, so typical, I had to get the LGO to sort them out once before!

[The Watcher]

Yesterday the second part of the trick was masterfully pulled off by MS V Baird, as the rest of the countries attention was diverted in true Houdinian style, she pushed through the rest of the legislation and now the, "enforcement agents" can force entry, restrain and fine/ imprison anyone who protests and all for a few quid owed to the local greengrocer.

 

Ms Vera Baird was sworn-in at the Royal Courts of Justice this afternoon as the UK's new Solicitor-General.

 

(Just shows what can be achieved IF you have friends in high places - and do as you are told !)

[smashedbobo]

This does not make for good reading at all. I hope she becomes unstuck somewhere along the line. It seems like the my people will speak to your people and your people will get me a really good position as solicitor general. How high would you like me to jump m'luds. Pity that instead of talking they all listened to the people who pay their wages. Oh but forgot that cant be us. We dont pay our council taxes do we. As if. so who is paying her wages. The bailiff industry. The DCAs. Sorry got the cynical head on.

[Peterbard]

Hi

Any one else notice the coincidence about the passing of the smoking ban and the enforcement bill,all those fifty pund fines,guess who is going to end up collecting the ones that don't pay up on the spot,and guess who is going to net all the fees from doing so.

I can just hear the conversation at number Ten.

 

Some time in 2003

T Blair

"We realy are going to have to do something about this smoking business we are getting continual critisism about the cost to peoples health " Gordon Brown

"But that might stop sales and what about the loss in revenue we would loose from sales tax"

VB

"We will make that back on fines "

Tb

But what about the people that won't pay remember the poll tax"

VB

"Don't worry Tony i have this peice of legislature that will do just the job."

 

Mr Bellingham (MP) touched on this in his ammendment last week when he mentioned all the new fines coming into force.

I think this is a very involved peace of chicanery that has not yet ceased to fully develop.

I think they government learned a lesson from the poll tax and the people who just refused to pay and found a way to enforce even to the point of violence to make sure it didn't happen again.

Question is what is next

Maybe transfer enforcement status to the people issuing the on the spot fines so they can forcefully extract the fines when issued.

Rediculous? maybee but after what i have seen over the last 6 months nothing would supprise me.

And after all isn't that what clampers do now.

 

Best regards

 

Peter

[The Watcher]

Well, Gordon has to make-up the shortfall from smoking taxes (apx £9.5 billion) somehow !

 

Add-in the fees for ID cards and biometric passports and the books will balance again !

[vinegarvera]

Vinegarvera subbing!!

[caledfwlch]

This will probably put bankruptcy for those who dont own their homes through the roof, once joe public clicks.

 

Option A: Bailiffs for Big Nasty Bank breaking in taking all your stuff over a ten grand loan, which will then increase dramatically with court costs and bailiff costs

 

Option B: Bankruptcy, all your goods if not brand new etc left alone, all debts gone, blow a cheery kiss to bailiffs/banks.

 

I was thinking of going to the bookies - once theya ctually start using the powers how long do we think it will be before a bailiff is killed/seriously injured after messing with the wrong person?

 

Its going to be fun watching the government wet itself at the public outrage when all bailiff visits have to be "guarded" by several policeman who should be catching criminals, in order to protect the bailiff in case of attack while visiting.

 

Any decent bailiffs out there should be looking for a new job now. They cant really complain if they stay and start getting stabbed, shot or beaten half to death, any sensible person can see this is what will happen to those using these new laws. I can see a Bailiff kicking in the door of an unknown to him suburban drug factory, for non payment of C Tax or electric bill and getting gunned down by the panicked dealers.

[The Watcher]

Its going to be fun watching the government wet itself at the public outrage when all bailiff visits have to be "guarded" by several policeman who should be catching criminals, in order to protect the bailiff in case of attack while visiting.

 

Any decent bailiffs out there should be looking for a new job now. They cant really complain if they stay and start getting stabbed, shot or beaten half to death, any sensible person can see this is what will happen to those using these new laws. I can see a Bailiff kicking in the door of an unknown to him suburban drug factory, for non payment of C Tax or electric bill and getting gunned down by the panicked dealers.

 

As the bailiffs will be able (under the new "law") to be "assisted" by "others" - ie "heavies" - (who will certainly NOT be criminally record-checked - even if the bailiff himself is !) it will be very interesting indeed.

[JonCris]

As the bailiffs will be able (under the new "law") to be "assisted" by "others" - ie "heavies" - (who will certainly NOT be criminally record-checked - even if the bailiff himself is !) it will be very interesting indeed.

 

It should be interesting to see how far the bailiffs get trying this on in 'Toxteth' or along the 'Falls Road'

 

If I was a bailiff I would either & if not already, stick to frightening little old ladies (which is what they'll probably do) or seek another career in what otherwise could be a short life

[The Watcher]

I can see a business opportunity here !

I'm going to set-up a breeding kennel for rottweillers .... as I think demand for them is going to escalate very soon !

[Francesco]

Caledfwich wrote,

"I can see a Bailiff kicking in the door of an unknown to him suburban drug factory, for non payment of C Tax or electric bill"

 

The only chance is if the dealer is very sloppy with paperwork or personal admin, they and other criminals, politicians and general jack the laddery are the ones most likely to have sufficient funds to pay extortionate tithes and utility bills.

 

It's the meek who are going to be doing the suffering, inheriting even more of the earth, so to speak.

[seanamarts]

this is interesting I found

 

not sure if any one has seen this yet but some may find it an interesting read.

Just shows what people are up against if they take on the bailiffs