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

[Guest Herbie]

FRAUD ACT 2006.

 

Although Sections 15 and 16 of this Act came into force by Royal Assent on 8th November 2006, the important schedules referred to above only came into force on 15th January 2007, so it is perhaps too early to see any impact.

 

I can however see that many police forces may well be busy when details of this act are know to the public.

 

What this space.

[zenithpaul]

Hi Peter, Herbie and everyone,

 

Have not been on for a while but we have made progress.

 

My MP has taken up the "contradictions" - 4 differing versions of the same event - provided by the Head of Revenues at our local Council to justify the bailiff's phantom visits directly with him.

 

The actions appear to fit squarely with the Fraud Act mentioned above as the Council has provided the documentary evidence which admits to the falsifying of the records at the bailiff HQ.

 

BBC Look East have taken up the matter and I have already been interviewed for a piece to be broadcast in the near future. They have also asked questions of the Head of Revenues who admits to "problems with record keeping".

 

I'll let you know when the programme is to be aired.

 

Keep up the pressure.

 

Paul

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Excellent

[Guest Herbie]

Paul,

 

Delighted at this news....but there is of course a downside, and it is this.

 

You and I both know the amount of letters that have been sent to your local authority, letters that quite frankly were enough to prove that this matter has been dealt with very badly indeed....and yet this particular LA still appear to stand should to shoulder with the bailiff in this matter.

 

Most people would have given up and this is what the bailiff industry would like.

 

Please do keep up all informed on how this matter progresses and if I can be of help, then you only have to ask.

[The Watcher]

Great News, Paul

 

We all know the amount of corruption that goes on ... we just need small amounts of publicity to make everyone else aware too.

[Francesco]

Great News, Paul

 

We all know the amount of corruption that goes on ... we just need small amounts of publicity to make everyone else aware too.

 

Don't think so! even though I hope your right.

Sorry to be a wet blanket etc. This bill is going through, probably without amendments, unless there is a truly devestating argument/wake up call to all members in the house, it will go through 'on the nod'.

 

I am neither defeatist nor in sympathy with the aims of the bill, but I am certain when honorourable correspondents on this site use phrases like

"in my opinion" I feel we are boggered, because the nature of this sort of argument against, will not overcome the drowsy nature of a parliament that doesn't believe it's job is to Create Jerusalem in our Green and Pleasant Land, but to say, yay or nay, according to the influence of the whips.

 

I hope I am very wrong and I also hope that one of the keys to changing or stopping this proposed legislation or 'Act of Cruelty Towards The Poor' may be found within the mechanics of the process as much as the ethical arguments.

 

Responses are not just invited, but sorely needed.

 

In fellowship.

[The Watcher]

Francesco

 

You could be right .... perhaps I'm the eternal optymist?

 

I think back to the Tony Martin case, which prompted national headlines and at least a couple of newspapers "taking up the cause". The result is that now the police and the CPS have issued guidelines that are very much on the side of the householder.

 

In America, if you found someone breaking into your home you would not think twice. You would shoot first and then call the police. This is the accepted "norm". Do we really want to encourage that to develop here? There is aleady an explosion of gun crime in the UK.

 

This is ill thought out legislation, which achieves nothing. It will not produce any return for the creditor, but will line the pockets of the bailiff industry. It will make people fearful for an attack on their homes and it is only reasonable that they will do whatever they can to prevent this.

 

There is also a change in politicians too. Gordon Brown is now "listening". Many Labour MPs (and it IS Labour that are pushing this Bill through) are terrified of the next election (after losing over 800 seats at the recent elections). ALL publicity is good publicity. There is a mountain of debt in the UK, waiting to explode. This situation potentially affects far more people than many realise.

 

In the meantime all we can really do is keep up the pressure

[kennyh]

Watcher - I've followed every post you've made on this subject and agreed with your input BUT

There is also a change in politicians too. Gordon Brown is now "listening".

In this I believe there is more than a hint of forlorn hope.

Although

Many Labour MPs (and it IS Labour that are pushing this Bill through) are terrified of the next election (after losing over 800 seats at the recent elections).

that is most certainly the truth those MPs are such a craven lot (what with a new leader an'all) I don't think they'd hesitate if their 'party' says 'support'.

Believe me when I say I (and I include my family and friends in this) have signed every petition going and hectored every politician I can bring within my 'cross hairs' and endured more damned platitudes from said politicians (those in power anyway); forgive me if a degree of desparation, dispair or anger shows.

[The Watcher]

Hi kennyh

 

those MPs are such a craven lot (what with a new leader an'all) I don't think they'd hesitate if their 'party' says 'support'.

 

... and what if the public say "don't"?

 

I agree that this is a slog - but there is a tipping point - and some journalists have already run stories about this issue, so the public is becoming more aware.

 

(I'm toying with the idea of ringing my local police station and asking how I apply for a gun license ! - no intention of getting one - but when I explain my reasoning (and the fact that THEIR website says I don't have to wait to be attacked, I can take pre-emptive action if I fear an assault) I bet it'll be the talking point of the day down there !!!!)

[Peterbard]

Hi

I still have no idea when the reports meeting of the bill is due to take place.

There have been a number of items in the bill which have been discussed one of which is the information given in Schedule 12 about what can and cannot be taken by bailiffs.

A concern is that the current inability for bailiffs to take the debtors tools of his trade and therefore remove their ability to repay their debts or indeed feed their families may be rescinded.

Although ministers maintain that this will not happen ,even now, bailiffs can seize tools of the trade when enforcing non-domestic rate and VAT and I can see an argument emerging later, in which the status quo will be maintained and that tools of the trade will not be protected for non-domestic rate and VAT. In fact, I can see the possibility that they will lose their protection for fine enforcement because DCA seems intent on beefing up that as much as possible.

What we need is a definite statement to the effect of tools of the trade will be protected across all types of debt.

There has also been some discussion about the bailiff having to leave £500 on the premises; to me this sums up he credibility of the bill and the other planet that the people that devised it live on.

They are thinking about the middle class person with a few grand in the bank and making sure he has the odd £500 pocket money at home.

For the socially excluded with no bank account they will be lucky if they see £500 and if they do it will be part of their monthly pay that they would be left with to feed and house their family.

The issue about taking pets has been brought up again and I think that this could be a good way into the media (being a nation of pet owners).

I think it may be too easy for Government to overlooking the emotional impact of a bailiff taking control of a pet. Most pets have far greater sentimental value than financial worth and would pressurise debtors into rash measures to raise the money needed to ‘ransom’ the pet.”

It was suggested by Mr Hughes in debate that the earlier legislation included in the DVCV action of 04 was “widely approved across the house”, even if this where true. They thought they were bridging a loophole in the law not breaching two historic legal rights that were virtually part of the ‘British Constitution’.

The measure in the DVCV Act was introduced hurriedly, without consultation, and therefore depriving interested parties of lobbying MPs.

The question also has to be asked, how they can approve the action of the bailiffs when they still don’t know what the guidance relating to distress warrants is thanks to the DCAs’ continues failure to supply a full disclosure of Bailiffs’ guidance.

 

 

Best regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hello again

Just to inform every one that the DCA has now been taken over by the Ministry of justice under the auspices of Lord Faulkner the ministers involved in our problem are the usual suspects there is more information here http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease170507a.htm

Best Regards

Peter

[Francesco]

Greetings each!

I presume the reference to £500, means cash under that amount cannot be seized by a baliff under the new proposals.

 

1) Not very likely where a parking ticket is involved.

2) Begs the question, what is the current practice?

 

Best regards to all.

[The Watcher]

Francesco

 

The new Bill will allow bailiffs to seize cash as well as goods to satisfy a creditor, but they must not take all cash and have to leave a "reasonable" amount (which has been suggested as being £500).

 

The very idea that someone facing bailiffs would have in excess of £500 available is ridiculous !

[Francesco]

Thanks Watcher,

 

Would you, or anyone else, know what the current situation is regarding cash 'in the house' ?

I realise not letting them in is the first defence but there will be subscribers viewing who will, or have, admitted bailiffs into their home.

 

I read that bailiffs, once in, can open drawers and demand rooms be unlocked. (They didn't seem to do this in the prog 'Bailiffs' - TV presence?)

 

Sorry if I have peverted a thread, but we need to highlight any differences between current practice and what is designed for the future, the points may aid our struggle against the proposals.

[The Watcher]

I believe that bailiffs can take any cash they currently find - but cannot "search the person" - something that they would be allowed to do under the new proposals.

 

Can anyone confirm?

[Peterbard]

Hi

The main differences are the ability to use force on the debtor in order to restrain him (or her), if they get in the way of the bailiff enforcing a warrant, and the ability of the bailiff to gain entry on a civil warrant even when consent is expressly denied.

 

Previously if a bailiff had touched a debtor in the enforcement of a warrant he could have been guilty of assault. The problem with this of course, even if you ignore the basic human rights issue of the government legislating for people to be assaulted in their own home, is that the act does not give the bailiff the power to hold or imprison the debtor, so what will happen is that the debtor will then defend their belonging with more vigour which will then necessitate the bailiff to use more force and the resulting escalation is bound to result in serious injury.

 

The bill will not go into its next reading until after Whitsun June 4th I am reliably informed. Personally, I don't expect the Bill to be back until the new Ministry of Justice (DCA) can announce the preliminary findings of its consultation on a bailiff regulator.

I have been reading this thread and notice a sense of frustration amongst a lot of its contributors believe me I know how you feel.

When I first became aware of this issue I was I must admit somewhat naïve in the belief that the government had all our best interests at heart.This bill is universally unwanted except for the people in government that are pushing it not even the bailiff industry is comfortable with section 3 and its implications.

The lack of disclosure about the use of force by enforcement officers and how and when it would be applied I consider to be scandalous.

 

There is a dangerous practice of legislation being slipped in under the wire just lately that I find very disconcerting, the resent immunity for MPs on disclosure of personal expenses for instance, or the new legislation for cameras on roads to constantly record vehicles even if they are not committing an offence.The issuance of gagging orders to stop MPs of good conscience protesting these changes and the lack of public debate and underhand tactics that is illustrated by the slipping under the door of the earlier reforms to bailiff powers.

Each of these things is a piece of our rights and freedom taken away from us and there seems no way to stop it.

I sat and watched a fifteen minute piece on the news today about Paula Abdul tripping over her dog.What I wouldn’t give for just five minutes on peak time news.

The maxim “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing,” has never been truer.I will stop before I go further into ranting mode.

 

Best RegardsPeter

[Francesco]

Thanks Peter,

 

I do not regard what you said as a rant!

 

You strung together a couple of examples that confirm that our 'elected' are neither freedom fighters, nor moved by issues that impact on the freedoms of the people of our country, most of em just huff and puff,

then claim the expenses.

 

I particularly liked liked the reference to Paula Abdul and her dogs' TV exposure.

 

If I sometimes seem gloomy about the prospects of this legislation I do nonetheless realise that it's the efforts of people like yourself that offer the best hope of providing any correcting action to this bad and regressive proposal.

 

Please keep up your good work.

[ducatibabe]

I

do not regard what you said as a rant!

 

You strung together a couple of examples that confirm that our 'elected' are neither freedom fighters, nor moved by issues that impact on the freedoms of the people of our country, most of em just huff and puff,

then claim the expenses.

 

I particularly liked liked the reference to Paula Abdul and her dogs' TV exposure.

 

If I sometimes seem gloomy about the prospects of this legislation I do nonetheless realise that it's the efforts of people like yourself that offer the best hope of providing any correcting action to this bad and regressive proposal.

 

Please keep up your good work

HERE HERE !!!

 

For a very long time I have believed that this government has operated a policy of divide and separate amongst the Population of the UK in that no information is allowed "to get out" that would mean people can make an informed opinion on how the Goverment is performing and how they are wrapping us so tight in red tape and unneccesary laws, and how the country as a whole is being affected by certain issues..... this ludicris bailliff law, CSA non Payments, Id cards, Working Family Tax Credit overpayments etc etc etc, this list goes on but for the people caught up in these nightmares they feel alone and that their situation is not happening to anyone else and that they are powerless to make any real change.

 

THIS IS NOT TRUE, but if more people were aware of the REAL situation they may stand together and protest and they dont want THAT....remember the poll tax riots????

 

I also believe the Media as a whole have a HUGE part to play in this deception and after my experiences recently with bully boy bailiffs and all the wonderful people on this site I am going to start shouting from the roof tops to anyone who will listen about these injustices.

 

Sorry I shall now get off my high horse and I'm off to pen a letter to my MP (MR TONY BLAIR) before he resigns!!!!

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

That world class prat! resigned months ago

[Peterbard]

JI

I just got a PM from cagbot saying one of my postings was "un aproved" i don't seem to see the one that has been removed and there is no way i can find to contact, " cagbot" so could someone please let me know which post has been deleted and why.

 

Many Thanks

Peter

[maybelline]

Hi Peter, can you use the contact us bit at the bottom of the page?

[pugsley]

I suppose for me I noticed a change in civil liberties around the time they stopped people attending stonehenge at midsummer, it stuck in my mind and it's now virtually impossible to assemble to protest due to the terrorism laws. Right of assembly has been so seriously affected by the poll tax, miners strikes etc, Labour have only confounded this by the HRA 1998, you can't even protest outside parliament for gawd's sake. Makes me want to move to another country.

 

sorry for rambling have\ny had my first coffee yet.

[JonCris]

JI

I just got a PM from cagbot saying one of my postings was "un aproved" i don't seem to see the one that has been removed and there is no way i can find to contact, " cagbot" so could someone please let me know which post has been deleted and why.

 

Many Thanks

Peter

 

Oh my gawd peter not you now as well. What the hell is going on with this site. I'm getting really angry.

 

Your one of the most important champions of the put upon consumer there is on this site. Your very very important campaign (more so than bank charges in my opinion as its involves our civil liberties) has & is hopefully going to help people who won't even know about it.

 

If this keeps up I'm orf, as they say

[JonCris]

I suppose for me I noticed a change in civil liberties around the time they stopped people attending stonehenge at midsummer, it stuck in my mind and it's now virtually impossible to assemble to protest due to the terrorism laws. Right of assembly has been so seriously affected by the poll tax, miners strikes etc, Labour have only confounded this by the HRA 1998, you can't even protest outside parliament for gawd's sake. Makes me want to move to another country.

 

sorry for rambling have\ny had my first coffee yet.

 

The police have become purely instruments of the state

[Peterbard]

HI

This appeares on the ddca website section 24 to 34 are the ones that concern us.Have a look.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/TCEbill-policy-statement-delegated-powers.pdf

 

Best regards

 

Peter