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

[The Watcher]

what about LIBERTY or CHILD POVERTY ACTION GROUP?? are there any big organisations out there listening?

 

Since WHEN did this government ever listen to LIBERTY (or anyone else that spoke sense)?

[maybelline]

scary but true:(

[CSA Time for change]

Well I never thought I would turn my back on Labour. The Poll Tax left deep scars but this is gonna leave deeper ones!

[The Watcher]

Well I never thought I would turn my back on Labour. The Poll Tax left deep scars but this is gonna leave deeper ones!

 

As I said before, as this new "law" is being brought in by the back door (as so many New Labour attacks on our liberty have been) most people will not even be aware of what is happening until it's too late.

[CSA Time for change]

Why don't the Conservatives realize this and do something about it? Can you imagine how many peoples views of the Conservative Party would change if they were seen to be doing something about it!

 

My views of the Conservative Party was of a Party for the rich and not giving a damn about the poor. They could change all that.:-?

[The Watcher]

Why don't the Conservatives realize this and do something about it? Can you imagine how many peoples views of the Conservative Party would change if they were seen to be doing something about it!

 

My views of the Conservative Party was of a Party for the rich and not giving a damn about the poor. They could change all that.:-?

 

I think you could be right ... but remember the very unhealthy majority that Labour has had during most of its time in power has meant that they could "drive through" almost any legislation that they wanted to - even in the face of huge rebellions by their own party!

[maybelline]

well just watched the Adam Curtis programme The Trap, explains a lot about the eradication of freedom and the models we are subjected to!

 

sorry if this appears off topic but maybe it is not that far off

[The Watcher]

well just watched the Adam Curtis programme The Trap, explains a lot about the eradication of freedom and the models we are subjected to!

 

sorry if this appears off topic but maybe it is not that far off

 

It isn't off-subject ... this government has taken away many freedoms and is intent on taking any even more. Labour has always (secretly) wanted a nanny state, and it's doing it's best to create a (secret) police state.

[Spandavia]

Hi everyone,

 

Sorry to have been so out of contact. This bailiff issue has so consumed our lives recently that I really think both my husband and I are on the verge of a nervous breakdown. We've now exchanged a total of 21 letters with the council in a three week period and we have proved to them beyond a doubt that we don't owe them money - in fact they owe us money. But all it has served to do is increase the harrassment and we have received another letter from the bailiffs today. Will post in more detail later the things the council have put in writing that could be helpful to this cause. In the mean time best wishes to all.

Span

[The Watcher]

Hi everyone,

 

Sorry to have been so out of contact. This bailiff issue has so consumed our lives recently that I really think both my husband and I are on the verge of a nervous breakdown. We've now exchanged a total of 21 letters with the council in a three week period and we have proved to them beyond a doubt that we don't owe them money - in fact they owe us money. But all it has served to do is increase the harrassment and we have received another letter from the bailiffs today. Will post in more detail later the things the council have put in writing that could be helpful to this cause. In the mean time best wishes to all.

Span

 

Don't let the B******s grind you down ! Thats all part of their plan.

Keep your spirits up.

[dolly]

This is something that has just happened to me this morning, and one of the reasons I signed the agreement before.

 

10.30am, knock at the door. I opened it, man stood there.

 

Man: 'Can I speak to Mr Dolly'

Me: He is not here.

Man - When is he back

Me - Next week (this is true, he is away in China)

Man - Well I am from * Bailiffs, I have a warrant for an unpaid speeding ticket.

Me - Can I see the warrant

Man - (Hands it over, looks fine).

Me - £345? You are joking.

Man - No, sorry.....it is from Nov 2006, we are last call so charges mount up.

Me - Hold on, this was paid.

Man - Sorry love, that's what they all say. Now I need full payment today or I will remove your goods.

Me - I don't think so. Wait there.

 

I then go inside, leave him on the path and log onto online banking where I know the payment was made in December last year by debit card. Print out page with DCA company payment details on (as it was done over the phone) and hand it back to him.

 

Me - There. Paid, like I said.

Man - Well according to them, it hasn't.

 

This went on for a while until he rang the company who, after about 10 minutes found it had been paid but had never done something on their systems to clear off the debt. Man went away.....he was quite nice really as well (although it did concern me that his badge had a different Bailiff company name on from than who he was collecting for).

 

If that bill gets passed then instances like this - of which I am sure is not isolated - will become the norm. They will enter your property when they have no right to, due to their incompetence. This is wrong. It should never happen.

[The Watcher]

You are absolutely right - it will become an almost daily occurance that some innocent person has their home broken into and their property removed because the bailiff had called at the wrong house / the person had moved elsewhere / or the fine had already been paid etc !

 

It used to be "innocent until proved guilty" in this country (for more than 1000 years), but in Blair's Britain it now seems to be "guilty UNLESS you can prove your innocence" !

[maybelline]

This is something that has just happened to me this morning, and one of the reasons I signed the agreement before.

 

10.30am, knock at the door. I opened it, man stood there.

 

Man: 'Can I speak to Mr Dolly'

Me: He is not here.

Man - When is he back

Me - Next week (this is true, he is away in China)

Man - Well I am from * Bailiffs, I have a warrant for an unpaid speeding ticket.

Me - Can I see the warrant

Man - (Hands it over, looks fine).

Me - £345? You are joking.

Man - No, sorry.....it is from Nov 2006, we are last call so charges mount up.

Me - Hold on, this was paid.

Man - Sorry love, that's what they all say. Now I need full payment today or I will remove your goods.

Me - I don't think so. Wait there.

 

I then go inside, leave him on the path and log onto online banking where I know the payment was made in December last year by debit card. Print out page with DCA company payment details on (as it was done over the phone) and hand it back to him.

 

Me - There. Paid, like I said.

Man - Well according to them, it hasn't.

 

This went on for a while until he rang the company who, after about 10 minutes found it had been paid but had never done something on their systems to clear off the debt. Man went away.....he was quite nice really as well (although it did concern me that his badge had a different Bailiff company name on from than who he was collecting for).

 

If that bill gets passed then instances like this - of which I am sure is not isolated - will become the norm. They will enter your property when they have no right to, due to their incompetence. This is wrong. It should never happen.

 

you left him on the path and went inside?? he would have been able to just walk in through the open door? or did you close the door, sorry to hear of your trouble, i have filled in the dept for constitutional affairs questionaire on another site and expressed my views!

Abuse of powers by bailiffs set to get much worse, Citizens Advice warns

[dolly]

Oh no, I closed and locked the door...I've read too much on this site to not do that!

[maybelline]

phew, - I have heard of bailiffs accusing the people they have assaulted of assaulting them! (naming no names)

[Somecamel]

Just a quick one, if you want to let your MP know your feelings Ive found a good little site thats worth a look. WriteToThem.com - Email or fax your Councillor, MP, MEP, MSP or Welsh, NI, London Assembly Member for free . lets you fax him/her over the internet.

[Spandavia]

Hi everyone,

 

 

I have copied these two very important quotes from yesterdays Hansard. This is Tony Blair's legacy to the British people. 750 years of 'An Englishman's home is his castle' has gone out of the window.

 

 

 

Bellingham, Mr. Henry /(North-West Norfolk)/ (Con)

 

The case most often cited in relation to the rule that an Englishman’s home is his castle is Semayne’s case. That laid down very clearly that an individual householder has every right to deny entry to a bailiff or agent of the Crown. There have been many famous comments on the case, but none are as well known as that from William Pitt the Elder, first Earl of Chatham. It is a classic passage that sums up why it is so important to preserve that part of common law. In Southam /v./ Smout in 1964, Lord Denning quoted Pitt, who said:

 

“*The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement”*.

Baird, Vera /(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs)/ *: *I* am not implying anything. I am telling the hon. Gentleman that a power in the 2004 Act will now exist in the Bill. The power to enforce a fine by entry using reasonable force has been in existence since 2004. It has been that long since the Englishman’s castle crumbled around his ears. (Hansard 20/03/2007 - Committee stage TC&E Bill ).

 

Best wishes

Span

[maybelline]

did anyone else hear the reference to the bill being watered down on channel four news?

[Guest Herbie]

Maybelline

 

I cant find any reference to this. I have looked at Channel 4's website and it merely shows details from the day before the second reading in the House of Lords which is quite some time ago.

[davefirewalker]

Yes I heard it.... something about requiring a court order first....I think

 

Dave

[maybelline]

it was just before the break, only an announcement that the govt had decided to 'water down' this was the term used the changes to the enforcement bill, but I also remember thinking that it wasnt a change because what they described about going to court first is what they propose anyway? we all know that the courts will find it hard to distinguish wont pays from cant pays and too many courts do get these things wrong even with the best will, I too have looked on their website and cannot find it, but a call to the channel might prove useful.

[Peterbard]

HI Span

I am having trouble with my link to the Hansard committee meeting on the 20th could you put up a link.

 

Cheers

Peter

[Spandavia]

Hi Peter,

 

Sorry for the delay - here's the link:

House of Commons General Committee a

 

I sent the Vera Baird quote to a few journalists and I had a couple of

replies. One from Henry Porter at the Observer to say he thought it

was atrocious and one from Boris Johnson just to say Thanks.

 

Best

span

[Peterbard]

Hi Peter,

 

Sorry for the delay - here's the link:

House of Commons General Committee a

 

I sent the Vera Baird quote to a few journalists and I had a couple of

replies. One from Henry Porter at the Observer to say he thought it

was atrocious and one from Boris Johnson just to say Thanks.

 

Best

span

Well done span

 

Keep up the good work

 

Peter

[The Watcher]

Have I read (and understood) this correctly?

 

Is this a victory and the Bill has been watered-down to protect our rights?

 

‘Preservation of common law rights restricting entry by force

 

16A This Act expressly preserves all common law rights restricting entry by force to a private dwelling by a civil enforcement agent.’.

Amendment No. 100, in schedule 12, page 211, line 30, leave out paragraph 24 and insert—

‘24 (1) Nothing in this Act shall permit the entry by force to a dwelling house by a civil enforcement agent where—

(a) the door is locked or secured against entry;

(b) a householder has indicated to a civil enforcement officer or enforcement agent that such entry is refused; or

© where a dwelling is occupied or appears to be occupied by a person or persons under 16 or by a person lacking the mental capacity to understand the consequences of entry.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall allow a civil enforcement officer pursuing a fine recoverable as a civil debt to—

(a) search a person without their consent;

(b) search a person of the opposite sex;

© remove items of clothing or jewellery or other wearing apparel;

(d) remove a person from a dwelling who has sole care of children resident in that dwelling whether the children are physically present at that time or not.

(3) Nothing under this Act permits a civil enforcement officer or agent enforcing any other civil order or judgment of the court to—

(a) use force against an occupier or person present in the dwelling save in as is permitted at common law or under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58);

(b) conduct a search of a person in a dwelling;

© remove any item of clothing, jewellery or wearing apparel or other object from a person.’.

Column number: 114 >>>