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

[Peterbard]

Hi Just thought i would post this link as it is not on this page

 

CAG Forum documents

[stan5131]

There is now an online petition on the other Bailiff thread. Please sign everyone.

[scouser9]

Hi

 

Where is the thread located, do not seem to have any joy finding it.

 

Mikey

[stan5131]

Signed it already, just checked only 40 on there at the moment, c'mon guys and gals start linking and signing :grin:

 

 

Do you want bailiffs forcing entry to YOUR HOME. If not

[steven4064]

Signed it - and sent link to most of the people in my address book.

 

Steven

[Peterbard]

Peter - another complication - Paul

 

Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:42 PM

Subject: TCE BILL

 

 

 

It has been pointed out to me by Philip Evans that the following paragraphs in the Bill might refer to forcible restraint against persons by bailiffs. Having read them as a layman it is by no means clear to me that they are; they are another example of a possible breach of Human Rights due to their lack of clarity. As he says there might be others. If so then it would be neccessary to leave the paragraphs in letter below in the Bill and risk the implementation of the regulations about forcible restraint of persons by bailiffs without consultation or debate in Parliament at some future date - the alternative is remove every reference to force against persons by bailiffs from the Bill. We prefer and urge the latter course.

 

Philip Evans writes - Schedule 12, para 17 this does not limit the use of force to gaining entry; para 20(2) includes the use of force to do anything for which entry is authorised and not just to enter; similarly para 21 (2); para 24(1) has the power to enter and the power to use force as separate; para 27(2) includes the use of force for other than entry; para 31(1) can't mean force to gain entry and so the force referred to must be of another sort; para 31(4) is more than force to enter.

 

With best wishes,

 

Paul Nicolson

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

Paul Nicolson

To:

BEAUMONT, Lord

;

Ralph Lucas

;

TRUE, James

;

Philip Evans

;

HANNA, Elizabeth

;

Smales, Dominic

;

[email protected]

Cc:

[email protected]

Sent:

Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:39 PM

Subject:

TCE BILL

 

 

I have to day posted the following letter to Lady Ashton with hard copies of it and the attachments to you all.

 

A return to the common law position on both forced entry and forcible restrain of debtors by bailiffs remains the policy of Z2K

 

With best wishes,

 

Paul Nicolson

 

Z2K

 

 

Zacchaeus 2000 Trust

Registered Charity Number 1110841

 

From the Rev. Paul Nicolson

 

 

 

Baroness Ashton of Upholland, 15th February 2007

Department for Constitutional Affairs

4 Abbey Orchard Street

London

SW1P 2BS

 

 

Dear Lady Ashton,

 

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement BIll

First may I thank you for so kindly mentioning our robust meeting in your office during the last debate on the Bill. You were very generous and I am grateful.

It was progress to hear that you are reviewing the problem set out in

Schedule 12, paragraph 24(2) and paragraph 31(5). “A power to use force does not include a power to use force against persons, except to the extent that regulations provide that it does”.

While your suggestion that the regulations do not need to be implemented is welcome, we now believe that violence could best be avoided in the homes of children and vulnerable people if the two sections are completely deleted and, as the Enforcement Law Reform Group has agreed, both bailiffs and debtors rely on the general right of self defense.

You mentioned that the High Court Enforcement Officers are in favour of restraining debtors. They, of course, will never enforce TV license, truancy, motoring, or fare dodging fines imposed against poverty incomes by the Magistrates.

Meanwhile I am enclosing a legal opinion about the blacked out pages in the Magistrates’ Courts Guidance – Search and Entry Powers - Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004l. It raises the question as to whether the Act or the new Bill are Human Rights compliant, particularly when they are implemented with secret guidance. Also enclosed is the text of a petition that is being circulated ready to be read, if necessary, in the House of Commons when the Bill gets there.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul Nicolson.

 

Cc Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Lord Lucas, Lord Thomas of Gresford

[Peterbard]

HI Just to complicate matters i have just recieved an email to sy that my pettition has been excepted it is at

 

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Restore the ancient rights of British citizens to refuse the forced entry of bailiffs.

 

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Restore the

ancient rights of British citizens to refuse the forced entry

of bailiffs.

 

On the 06 July 2004 Standing Committee E considering the

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, the Parliamentary

Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs did not

tell the Committee that they were abolishing the rights of

citizens to refuse entry to bailiffs established in around

1300, confirmed in Semayne’s case in 1604, and upheld by the

courts ever since. The Committee was not informed that it was

abolishing centuries of common law. Neither was the measure

introduced or debated on the floor of the House of Commons. We

demand this fundamental right to freedom from the threat of

violence in our own homes be reinstated, and safeguarded for

the protection of future generations.

 

 

I was not aware untill just now of another petition being created on here howecer i believe that this is different in that it demands for powers for forceable restraint and entry already given to bailiffs behind our backs to be removed.

Peter

[Peterbard]

HI

Please read this on yet another thread

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs/64470-do-you-want-see.html#post566099

[Peterbard]

Hi All Ihave just posted this on the other thread by mistake so please forgive me for repeating myself.

There has been a few developments on this not he least of which is that there is another petition also on the site. Please sign both if you can the last thing that we want to happen is to create a race between the two petitions and split the support.

Also there is going to be an amendment tabled by Lord Lucas on the 20th .He wrote to me about it last week asking for support. The amendments he proposes include appointing an officer of the court to regulate Bailiff Action and handle complaints. I was not impressed by this as to my mind this kind of control has never worked on bailiffs in the past and I doubt it will work in the future.

I think we must be careful here if the government are allowed to let the law stand and throw us a bone by increasing regulation we have lost.

We must go for the complete removal of any legislation that legally permits bailiffs to enterer peoples homes without consent and use forcible restraint. There would then be no need for extra regulation.

Kind regards

Peter

[Bailiffchaser]

I have included a link to your petition on my blogg. Hope it helps.

 

link removed

[un1boy]

Hi, can I have a copy of the petition? It's scandalous that baliffs could be given this sort of power - especially when we have seen that the balance of many people's debts are made up of mostly unlawful bank charges and some don't even exist....

[Smoothy]

Un1boy....here ya go

CAG Forum documents

Just remembered to enable the right mouse so click the one you want with right mouse button to save to your computer.

[un1boy]

Cheers Smoothy

[dannyboy660]

There's a conflict of interest....i.e two differently worded petitions have been allowed which are calling for the same result.

 

Once again, No 10's web team have allowed them to run separately, when they could be combined.

 

It's the 'British' way of doing things.

 

Divide and conquer???

 

They won't listen to me, and I'm posting this publicly.

 

My most sincere best wishes to Peter, if you can change things then you have achieved the kind of equality and social balance that I have struggled for, in vain, for XXXX years.

 

Keep at it.

[Peterbard]

I have included a link to your petition on my blogg. Hope it helps.

 

Cheers mate

 

Kind regards Peter

[Peterbard]

This is an e-mail sent by Rev Paul Nicolson to the usual piers and copied to me.

Just keeping everyone informed the best i can .Lets see how the debate goes today.

Keep up the good work every body

 

Peter

 

This morning I received the following from Peter Bardsley in Manchester who is running a petition and distributing ours about the use of force by bailiffs.

 

"Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I was dragged into hospital for a couple of days I am a dialysis patient and well you know.

Any way I have 130 signatures on paper here which are still coming in and I believe some have been sent straight to you also we have 200 names on the no10 website http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Bailiff-Violence which isn’t bad as it as only been on for a few days."

 

The story is being given to the Sunday Mirror who ran a heavy piece on Bailliffs last Sunday,

 

With ebst wishes,

 

Paul Nicolson

 

Rev Paul Nicolson,

Zacchaeus 2000 Trust,

93 Campbell Road,

London N17 0BF

020 8376 5455

0796 1177889

www.z2k.org

[Peterbard]

My most sincere best wishes to Peter, if you can change things then you have achieved the kind of equality and social balance that I have struggled for, in vain, for XXXX years.

 

Mahy thanks all ecouragement greatfuly recieved.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Here are some excerts fromthe Hansard of yesterdays reading in the HL,I will post the link atthe end so you can look at the whole thing.It basically says we are going to have a fight on our hands in the commons although i detect that Barroness Upholland is finding it harder to justify her arguments.

 

20 Feb 2007 : Column 1019

 

 

"The first issue is the use of force against the person. The Bill authorises regulations that will authorise the use of such force. That is an unnecessary and unhelpful evolution in the relationship between a bailiff and a debtor. I can see some arguments for that in theory but think it is something we will come to regret in practice. It is not the way in which a relationship should exist between a bailiff and a debtor. The use of force generally between the agents of the state and the citizen is something that we need to be very careful of. We have seen how easy it is to tread the wrong side of the line in several recent police cases. They have to exercise immense restraint in these circumstances. It is all too easy for something to go wrong. I do not think that this is a danger that we should introduce into bailiff legislation. Beyond anything else, I do not think it is really necessary. There is only a tiny constituency in the bailiff community that thinks that it might even be of use. I do not think that we should endanger our social arrangements. Once you allow this sort of thing, it has a tendency to become commonplace. I would not like to see that happen.

Secondly, I would like to go back to some arguments we had in Committee and later concerning Semayne’s case and related matters—an Englishman’s home is his castle, or not—and to the basic principle, which I thought had largely been followed, that although a criminal fine derives from a criminal prosecution, the recoupment of a criminal fine is a civil matter. Those principles are transgressed by the idea—which I agree is not new in this Bill but derives from an amendment made in 2004—that criminal fines and certain government debts can allow bailiffs to force entry without a court order. We do not have the history on it yet, but that seems to me something that will turn out to be a step in the wrong direction. It should not be the relationship between a government and the governed that they can break into one’s home without the matter having been carefully considered on an individual basis. If the use of these powers becomes at all commonplace, I believe that it will add—in the way that many practices that we have allowed to grow up do—to the discontentthat the citizen feels towards the Government and to the disillusionment with politicians and the political process.

We have to recognise that just because we are the government and we are owed money it should not give us rights beyond those which accrue to somebody who is owed money in the ordinary way of things. We should not allow ourselves privileges of harm against the citizen that we do not allow other people and which disrupt the relationship and make it seem a more oppressive form of government than I should like to see. We have to be careful about doing damage through little things because it is in little things like this that the damage is done, not through some great big purpose to oppress the citizen. Damage is done through little things that allow the citizen to come off worse in circumstances where they ought to have a better right of justice and be treated better."

 

On the matter of the promise not to impliment powers already in place:

 

"Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment No. 19, which seeks to leave out line 33 at page 210. I remind noble Lords whose attention may not necessarily be concentrated on this particular matter that line 32 states:

“A power to use force does not include power to use force against persons”.

Line 33 continues,

“except to the extent that regulations provide that it does”.

Those are slightly weasel words"

 

Weasl words Yep

 

Full text Lords Hansard text for 20 Feb 200720 Feb 2007 (pt 0004)

 

On to the Commons please keep those names coming in so we show that htey cannot get away with removing our rights to security in our own homes.

Petition We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Restore the ancient rights of British citizens to refuse the forced entry of bailiffs.

[x4traktrekax]

Hi, I have signed you petition, its about time someone stoood up to these bullies.

[Peterbard]

Ther follows a letter sent to the persons wo will be responsible for pushing the bill through the commons it isa bit long but i thnk it encapsulates what most of us think.

 

Peter - as promised - Paul

 

----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Nicolson

To: [email protected]

Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:57 AM

Subject: Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill.

 

 

 

Dear Simon Hughes,

I ave sent the same brief to Henry Bellingham.

Our focus in the Bill is on vulnerable people, who are fined disproportionately to their incomes, and the way in which centuries of common law balance created by the courts between debtor and bailiff has been swept aside. The government has sided with the bailiffs, who abuse the significant powers they already have, giving them draconian rights of forcible entry into domestic premises and, if regulations are implemented, draconian rights of forcible restraint against persons.

I am attaching a a chronology of our discovery of the secret instructions to baliffs about their use of forced entry. A copy of the blacked out pages is on its way to you in the post. Aslo attched is Page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcment Agents, which I refer to later. The Government is well aware of our position on these issues. I have met Lady Ashton and her officers dealing with the Bill.

We regret that there is no attempt in this Bill to repeal or amend schedule 4 to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 in particular paragraph 3 of the new schedule 4A to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

This had the effect of abolishing the centuries old common law preventing forced entry by bailiffs. It was abolished on the 6th July 2004 by Standing Committee E considering a DCA amendment to the Home Office Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. Our complaint to the speaker and the reply from his office is also attached.

In neither House was there any mention of Semayne’s case in 1604; nor Lord Denning’s judgement in Southam v Snout in 1964, in which he quoted William Pitt the Elder, the first Earl of Chatham; Denning said it was the “classic passage” on the principle that an Englishman’s house is his Castle; William Pitt said in 1767 “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 cannot enter – all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement”. There was no consultation with the enforcement industry, creditors or the advice sector. No

The Bill prohibits force against the person by bailiffs, unless permitted by regulations. Regulations would permit restraint against debtors who interfere or threaten to interfere with their seizure of goods. The government has received a copy of the minute from the meeting of the Enforcement Law Reform Group comprising bailiffs, creditors and the advice sector showing that none of them want the government to allow bailiffs to restrain debtors who interfere with their work, preferring to rely on the general right to self defence. It is the High Court Enforcment Officers who have lobbied for this, by they never meet vulnerable people who have been fined by Magistrates for absence of TV licences, fared dodging, breaking an ASBO or chldren's truancy often caused by poverty.

Such a bad law will certainly be used and abused. I can visualise the possibility of an unemployed lone parent with several children receiving benefit and under stress because of her poverty. The DCA has been shown a copy of answer to the PQ showing that all unemployment benefits are below the government’s poverty threshold. She has been fined for failure to pay her TV licence (now referred to by the DCA as a criminal fine when such fines have in the past been enforced as a civil debt - being a debt to the Crown). She has debts to Provident Plc, the leading home credit company, for £500 on which she is paying £300 interest over a year; HM Revenue and Customs was late in cancelling the child benefit for he eldest son when he reached the age of 18, finished full time education and left home so she repaying an £800 overpayment.

She has not responded to the summons about the TV licence because she is semi literate and cannot afford the transport to the courts and there is no one to look after the children while she is out. She was fined disproportionately in her absence. The male civil enforcement officer/bailiff has a warrant to seize her goods to cover the fine and his fees; he forcibly enters the property with a male colleague; she threatens to punch him on the nose; the two men hold her down and a fight ensues; the children join in defence of their mother and are traumatised. (In different circumstances Social Services put children on the “at risk list” when they are traumatised by domestic violence between partners). Any complaint will be her word against the bailiffs; the chances of her having advice or legal aid are very, very slim. Repercussions in the community against the bailiffs are more likely than any appeal. Such a bad law authorising violence will certainly be used and abused by bailiffs.

The problem of increasing violence against the officers of the State, and others in public office, is a very serious and is faced by bailiffs/civil enforcement officers, probation officers, police, social workers, doctors and nurses, and sometimes clergy. It needs to be addressed across the board rather than piece-meal or in a manner that will create more violence, as in the particular case of the proposals for the bailiff. I ask for the government to withdraw their amendment making way for regulations authorising restraint against the person.

The crucial paragraph in page 9 of The National Standards for Enforcement Agents reads as follows.

Where a person falling into the above category is discovered by an

enforcement agent to be the occupier, the matter shall be referred back to

the court and no seizure of goods may proceed without leave of court. The

person may be bailed to appear at the court by the enforcement agent.

I have dealt with a case in which a lone mother with two children under 16 was fined £175 in her absence for the truancy of one of them. The enforcement agent put her on bail to appear in court on a certain day. It was discovered by a volunteer who prepared her means statement that that the child in question was deaf, the mother was long term unemployed on Income Support, which is below the government’s poverty threshold, and their home was over three and a half miles away from the school. They were vulnerable. The education authority had failed to inform the magistrates of these essential facts. When they heard them the magistrates’ set their decision set aside. The case tried again and she was acquitted.

Under the present regime of collection orders and warrants to force entry, the most likely outcome was that the fine would have been enforced threats will be made to force entry, goods could have been be seized and the magistrates never know the facts.

Compassionate allowance must be made for the difficulty of paying for transport and telephones for impoverished families to reach and communicate with the court. Lone parents on benefit who do not get to court for minor misdemeanours like absence of TV licence or the truancy of their children are all treated as hardened criminals in this Bill.

The government’s list of vulnerable situations set out in their policy statement to be covered in bailiffs training does not include the unemployed on benefit with no assets, the illiterate or those who do not yet speak English. A clear procedure should be set out for wrong address, wrong name and other bureaucratic errors which are all too frequent.

The only mention of vulnerable groups or persons in the document produced by the DCA is in relation to the training enforcement agents will need to undertake before they receive a certificate. Page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents covering vulnerable situations is ignored.

Training is not enough. It is certainly possible that once a bailiff has received his certificate he will forget his training under pressure from his management to collect their fees. Mistakes will be made in good faith or bad. Remedies should be sought on behalf of vulnerable people against legal criteria.

Even though there will be an up front fee paid by government, we do not know how much it will be and the vast majority of their companies’ profits will come from fees paid by debtors and defaulters. Bailiffs should earn that up front fee by ensuring that the justice is done when they find themselves enforcing disproportionate fines against vulnerable people.

Training is not enough. Very great powers are being given in this Bill to thousands of civilians to exercise force against the persons of other civilians and forcible entry into their homes. Enforcement agents should be trained about the laws governing their behaviour when they meet vulnerable situations. They require description on the face of the Bill with these provisions covering vulnerable people. It is said by the Department that these powers will only be used in the last resort. But what that means in practice is a State secret.

I would be very grateful for meeting with you to discuss all this,

With good wishes,

Paul Nicolson,

Founding Patron 1996 - 2000 The Most. Rev. and Rt. Hon Lord Runcie

Patrons The Most Rev and Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams, H.E.Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor,

The Duke of Richmond and Gordon. Lord Morris of Manchester , Sir John Mortimer CBE QC, Lady Victoria Getty,

Professor John Griffith, Jon Lord, The Revd. Dr. Christopher Moss SJ, Jeremy Paxman,

Trustees Sami Aziz. Matt Davies. The Revd. Keith Holt. Peter Morris, Barrister.

Alan Murdie, Barrister. Sr Maureen Tinkler DC.

Chairman, The Rev. Paul Nicolson. Treasurer; Frank McDowell FMAAT, Secretary; Mandy Platt.

Associates Professor Peter Ambrose, Gerald Moon,

The Rev. Dr. Nicholas Sagovsky, Ian Wise Barrister

[MARTIN3030]

Looks good Peter....excellent work.

[maybelline]

excellent work, I am so very happy to see this spelled out as it is:) I hope a positive result is forthcoming.

 

'life chances' comes to mind, re our desperate mother of above!

[Peterbard]

Z2K

Zacchaeus 2000 Trust

Registered Charity Number 1110841

The Rt. Hon Michael Martin MP 29th July 2006

Speaker of the House of Commons,

The House of Commons,

London SW1A 0AA

An important citizens' right has been abolished by Parliament while it was totally absent from the minds and voices of Members of Parliament and the House of Lords. I am writing to complain that the centuries old right of British Citizens to refuse entry to a bailiff was abolished but never entered the debate on the 6th July 2004 by Standing Committee E considering the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Christopher Leslie MP, when introducing the Government amendment, did not tell Standing Committee E that they were abolishing the right of citizens to refuse entry to bailiffs established in around 1300 and then confirmed in Semayne's case in 1604, and upheld by the courts ever since, (a full chronology of the common law by our Barrister Trustee

Alan Murdie is enclosed). The committee were mistakenly told they were closing a "loophole". The Minister was "astonished to find that (bailiffs) did not have these powers" but was apparently ignorant of the common law, which had established that "an Englishman's home is his castle".

The amendment was introduced by the Minister at the last minute, after accompanying a bailiff in his work, but with no consultation with or notice to the advice sector, who support vulnerable households, which would have ensured that Members of Parliament and the House of Lords knew what they were doing.

The measure was never introduced or debated on the floor of the House of Commons.

 

The Standing Committee was told that "we do not envisage using the powers in civil enforcement activities such as collecting congestion charges or parking fines". I have been informed by officials at the Department of Constitutional Affairs that "Fixed penalties which are not paid within the required time are registered as fines in the magistrates' courts, and therefore are then subject to enforcement under Schedule 5 of the Courts Act," which activates the bailiffs power to force entry. There was a failure to inform the Committee about

 

Founding Patron 1996 - 2000 The Most. Rev. and Rt. Hon Lord Runcie

Patrons The Most Rev and Rt Hon Dr Rowan Williams, H.E.Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor,

The Duke of Richmond and Gordon. Lord Morris of Manchester, Sir John Mortimer CBE QC, Lady Victoria Getty,

Professor John Griffith, Jon Lord, The Revd. Dr. Christopher Moss SJ, Jeremy Paxman,

Trustees Sami Aziz. Matt Davies. The Revd. Keith Holt. Peter Morris, Barrister.

Alan Murdie, Barrister. Sr Maureen Tinkler DC.

Chairman, The Rev. Paul Nicolson. Treasurer; Frank McDowell FMAAT, Secretary; Mandy Platt.

Associates Professor Peter Ambrose, Philip Evans, Gerald Moon,

The Rev. Dr. Nicholas Sagovsky, Ian Wise Barrister.

Company Registered by Guarantee No 05442501

93 Campbell Road, Tottenham, London N17 0AX

Telephone: 020 8376 5455 - Fax 020 8376 5319 - Mobile: 0796 11 77 88 9

e-mail:[email protected]; website: Z2K - Zacchaeus 2000 Trust - Registered Charity No. 1062221

the consequences of abolishing the right of citizens to refuse entry to bailiffs in the context of the Courts Act 2003.

The Minister also told the committee “It is important not to regard all those involved as bailiffs”. In fact the Magistrates Courts only employ private companies of bailiffs, so every civilian enforcement officer is a bailiff.

Furthermore Standing Committee E was told by the Minister that it was necessary to give the bailiffs the power to force entry “Because we are talking today about the enforcement of criminal penalties and it is important to focus on that”; echoed in the House of Lords when Baroness Aston announced "These powers will relate only to criminal warrants"; and repeated frequently throughout both debates. The Government did nor inform either House that the fines for many of the “criminal” offences involved are petty shop lifting, truancy, TV licenses, fare dodging, no tax disc for a car, often fueled by poverty. They result in disproportionate fines against vulnerable households receiving unemployment benefits all of which are below the government’s poverty thresholds.

Finally there was no reference to the enclosed Page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents nor attempt to legislate for it to protect vulnerable households against excessive or unreasonable use of forced entry.

I have for over twenty years met these “criminals” while helping them deal with bailiffs and fines and the right to refuse entry was an important protection for vulnerable households; even with that right 76% of fines were collected; a substantial part of the balance is due to disproportionate fines that can never be paid in full, others that should be reduced due to a change of circumstances and others that have been misdirected. .

Copy to members of Parliament who attended Standing Committee E in the 6 July 2004. Committee:

 

Joe Benton MP, (Chairman) L, Vera Baird MP L, Ann Cryer L, Cheryl Gillan MP C, Paul Goggins MP L, Dominic Grieve MP C, David Heath MP LD, John Heppel MP L, Lady Hermon MP UU, Huw Irranca-Davies MP L, Ann Keen MP L, Christopher Leslie MP L, Julie Morgan MP L, Kali Mountford MPL, Meg Munn MP L Co-op, Robert Walter MP C.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Baroness Anelay of St Johns, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Morris of Manchester, Lord Rae, Lord David Howell, Baroness Richardson of Calow

[maybelline]

excellent:) thats not meant to be teacherish! I mean its great that this has been picked up on and taken notice of.

 

seperate point but

 

just last week my council wrote to say i was in arrears I WAS NOT but the important part is that when I sorted out the bailiff problem asking Ombudsman to get involved the council insisted and indeed made it dependent on, my writing a letter to the effect that if i were to go into arrears again even my one day they would immediately reinstrct a bailiff, now if that is not heavy handed and a problem then I dont know what is, the point I make is that often bailiffs are incorrectly instructed because of the ignorance of staff at local level and refuse to bow down gracefully in the face of their error. (I have pointed out they are mistaken)!

[Spandavia]

Hello to all on this excellent site. It is very good to know that my husband and I are not alone in our alarm at what is happening in this country.

 

As I write this, I am sitting in my house with all the windows and doors closed (stuffy) because we are waiting for a visit from a baliff - for something we do not owe! The baliffs insist that we owe them £258 for Council Tax Arrears. The council have confirmed that we have no arrears either for council tax or business rates - but the council never the less insist that we DO owe the baliffs money for visiting us.

 

When the baliffs did visit us, back in October, we paid them a fee of £281 over and above the £600+ we paid for the debt. We then set up a payment schedule with the local council for the remaining council tax and business rates (bear in mind that we were appealing against the business rates when the baliffs came). We paid over £3000 to the council in a period of approx. 7 weeks and we also paid the court liability orders. All arrears were paid by Dec 14th and as far as we were concerned that was the end of it.

 

On Feb 14th we got a letter from the baliff addressed to 'the occupier' saying that they were looking for my husband - why they were looking I don't know, we live here and we work here - we're pretty easy to find! We called the Council and they confirmed that we had paid all our Council Tax liability. The letter(s) from the Bailiffs were followed up with two notices saying that they would be visiting us on 17th Feb to remove goods to the value of £129.00 x 2 for 'outstanding council tax'. We got this notice on the 16th Feb. We spoke to the council again who said they would confirm in writing that we didn't owe them anything. Then we spoke to the baliffs who said they would delay collection for two weeks so that we could get confirmation from the council that there was no debt.

 

When the council's letter finally came, it said we had no arrears but we did owe £258.00 to the baliffs. We asked them what for? We've had one visit, for which we paid £281.93 - what was the £258.00 for? My husband pointed out that if the baliff felt we owed them this money then surely they should send us an invoice - not on behalf of the council - and we could challenge it in court. What did the council have to do with it? Why is a local council allowing it's name to be used to collect baliffs fees?

 

Subsequent to various e-mails backwards and forwards, it now appears that a) the council would appear to have issued instructions to the baliffs for an extra debt that we (nor they?) know anything about and b) the council have paid the money we paid to them, to the baliff? So do baliffs now factor for local councils? Or are they just viewing a shared system and if so, why?

 

Anyway we've got nowhere thus far. We've spoken to the council, the baliffs, our local councillor, a company called 'payplan' who give free information about baliffs (and they're advice was 'pay it - you can always try and get it back later'), citizens advice and even the police. No one can explain to us why we are being asked to pay over £500 for one visit from the baliff - who did not enter the premesis or levy distress. According to the original paper work we got from the council, a baliff can charge £22.50 for the first visit.

 

So in the mean time we're awaiting the visit with doors and windows shut. We've advised our local councillor that we are going to video any baliff who comes here and we will make the video available to any newspaper, TV or media that we feel should see just how heavy handed these people are.

 

Personally I believe this has been caused by an error in the council office but that is not the point. For what ever reason this has happened it is nothing less than unbelieveable that people in Britain - a country that has always prided itself on being a democracy that upholds peoples rights to civil liberties, should find itself in this sorry state. As you can probably deduce from this, we are fortunately not the kind of people to take this lying down and we are insensed rather than intimidated. But what about old age pensioners, single mums, or anyone who finds themselves on their own facing legalised thugs at the door? I am not suggesting in any way that people should not pay their bills - but the speed with which these situations arise is frightening. We weren't even assesed for business rates until late May last year and then it was backdated for two years thus causing the large debt and we we were in the process of appealing both that and the significant rise in our council tax when we had the visit from the baliffs. But we weren't given the time to resolve anything - the council with the help of the courts just sent in the bully boys.

 

I know, from all that I have read since this happened, that there are far worse cases than ours but I'm hoping that we will ultimately get an invoice from the baliffs. Unless they can prove it is reasonable to charge such huge fees for a single visit, we will not pay it and they can pursue the matter in the small courts. That is the only way we can see to high light the matter. There is no guarantee, even then, that the system will be altered but it is surely worth a try. In the mean time I have, of course, joined the petition.

 

I'll keep everyone posted on the outcome of the baliffs visit - if he actually turns up. Many thanks to Peter and all those who are trying to protect our civil liberties. Let's hope this government will listen.

Best wishes

Spandavia.