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

[Peterbard]

Hi Battleaxe

 

The thing is that you can not give these people the legal right to use force and then say we will regulate when and how they use it.

When they turn up it is just you and them there is no one there to regulate them they will be a law unto themselves.

Any complaint will be your word against theirs.

No thinking person can condone this method of collection apart from anything else it does not work it just makes money for the bailiffs.

Their sound Bite is,” People should not be able to evade their debts by just refusing to open the door.”

What do they think a single mother or an elderly person living on pension is going to have behind their door? Shortly not even their dignity or security of their home it seems.

 

Peter

[Spandavia]

Hi to Peter and everyone,

 

I have just had a phone call from Chris Bell who is apparently Policy Leader for this Bill. He called me because I had e-mailed Michelle McGuckien who was a link on the Commons post from Peter. She passed my e-mail to Chris and he called. This is a very basic account of our conversation - wish I had recorded it, my brain's already frazzled so I just hope I did some good:

 

Chris started by immediately explaining that we will all benifit from this Bill. Because of this Bill bailiffs will be regulated, they will have special training about how to deal with people, they will have to be certified, they will learn how to evaluate situations so that vulnerable people will be dealt with in a suitable manner and most of all, they won't have the right to kick your door down and enter your premises until every other option has been exhausted. He started going through a list of the protections we will have and the varios regulations bailiffs will have to adhere to under the bill. he asked me if I'd read all of these - I haven't because as far as I know they aren't detailed in the Bill. Maybe they are - in the 15 missing pages!

 

I asked him why bailiffs couldn't be regulated anyway - I pointed out that this government has been promising to regulate bailiffs for a long time and regulating bailffs doesn't need the caviat that they can kick your door in.

I reminded him that 'an Englishman's home is his castle' or actually, ' a man's home in his castle' has been part of common law for 700 years. His reply was that a) an Englishman's home hasn't been his castle for a few years now (presumably since the Labour Government came in) because all sorts of people have the right to enter your premises including council officers, police, utiities officials etc. and b) when that law was written in 1267, your home was only your castle if you happened to own a castle!! because no one else had locks on their doors. Therefore anyone could push the door open and enter.

 

Here's a point - I never lock my door. I expect people to knock or ring the bell before entering - especially bailiffs. I expect the people were of the same mind in 1267. Here's another point - surely castles had moats and gates - not locks.

 

I pointed out endlessly that bailiffs take no account of the limited regulation that is in place for them today - so what makes the government so sure they will adhere to new restrictions for them? He was adamant - their new regualtions will protect all people who are anything other than willful debtors.

 

I asked him what he thinks the people of Great Britian will do faced with violent intruders in their houses. I pointed out that the only similarity I could think of was the Nazi party and the Brown Shirts. Chris insisted that the occassions of bailiffs forcing entry will be so minimal and so exclusively refined to genuine wilfull debtors, that we will not need to worry about it.

 

I suggested that, if you can absolutely prove someone is not paying their debt because they just don't want to - then they should go to court. that way they could explain why they don't want to pay - either because of hardship or because they genuinely feel they shouldn't have to pay. And in this instance a judge could decide whether they should have to pay and how. If they don't abide by the judges ruling, he would have the logical options of the law including sending them to prison. Chris's reply was I am the first person he has spoken to for ages who suggested the return of the debtors prison! Very heavy spin!!! Clearly what I was suggesting was that the public would prefer the justice of the court to the justice of the bailiff.

 

I tried very hard to explain what kind of people some bailiffs are - but he wasn't having it. If there are bad bailiffs they will be weeded out by this new Bill.

 

I tried to appeal to his political nature - does Tony Blair really want to be seen as the Prime Minister that over turned a nation's civil rights and ignored the common law that has given us those rights for so long? Answer - we were back to square one - we haven't had those rights for a few years anyway - we won't miss them.

 

I asked him since when does this government have the right to over rule the common law with statute law? His answer was that statute law always over rules common law. I said I though that statute was supposed to reflect common law? No - apparently not.

 

Finally I asked him what he would/will do if bailiffs come and kick his door in, pin him to the ground and remove his goods? Would he not feel inclined to retaliate? Protect himself? Protect his family? His answer was that he is absolutely sure that due to the regulations being put in place by this Bill, such a situation would never arise. Well of course it wouldn't because baliffs will not be allowed to visit officers of councils or the government. So of course Chris can be absolutely sure that he is immune from this sinister situation!

 

By this time I was so exasperated and frustrated I agreed we couldn't agree and told him I think we're on the brink of a blood bath in this country. We mutually gave up. I'm sure he thinks I'm a feisty bitch - my opinion of him? Nice enough guy - doing his job - saying all the right things that he has to say as part of that job.

 

The most important thing that I remember of our conversation is that at one point I had to say to him "you are talking as if the passing of this Bill is a foregone conclusion" and his answer was "it has to be because it's the only way we can regulate bailiffs".

 

So there it is - in my opinion this government is determined to pass this Bill regardless of what anyone thinks, says, or does. So I'm not expecting a reply from the Prime Minister to my letter and I just hope I win the lottery so I can get the hell out of here. But of course that isn't the answer when you have two children and two step children - who's going to protect their rights?

 

Sorry to end the evening on a downer everyone.

 

Best wishes

Spandavia

[natwesttookmymoney]

Spandavia - did you do 1471 and get Chris Bell's number?

 

Give it to me - I want a word with him!

 

Westy

[Bailiffchaser]

Probably witheld it tey are very clever sodds you know !!!!

[Peterbard]

HI

Yes but i bet he didn't mention that the regulation he is referring to wont be ready until after the bill has been passed or that it will only be secondary and not open to the scrutiny of open debate in the house ,so it could mean anything.

The fact that he contacted you directly i find encouraging if they were so confident they wouldn't bother.

I think you have acquitted yourself admirably and most important you didn't let him sideline you with the usual yes they will have the powers to kick your door in but they won't use them rubbish. If they didn't intend using them why issue them?

Yes we have a way to go but i believe we can make a difference to the shape of the eventual legislation let's hope it's enough.

Well done

Now is the time to increase the pressure.

If he wants to talk to me on the matter he is welcome to contact me at any time.

He will have my number

Best regards

Peter

[Spandavia]

I never had a number for Chris Bell - only for Michelle McGuckien who is the administrator (I think she's very junior) for the Bill. Here's the numbers for Michelle (she's going to love me)!

 

Michelle McGuckien

TCE Deputy Bill Manager

Tel: 0161 868 6606

0207 340 6564

 

Good luck - my husband is going to try and contact Chris Bell as well - he has a very legal brain and generally leaves it to me to talk to people because I'm more emotive at getting my point across - maybe too emotive - I get so outraged I give up! But only temporarily.

 

Best

Spandavia

[Spandavia]

Hi Peter,

 

No he didn't mention that when he was reeling off the list of regulations for bailiffs - but I did point out to him that no, I haven't seen these new rules because they're not included in any Bill I've read.

 

Hey ho - I'm glad you think it's positive he felt he should speak to me. Personally I'm not so sure. I'm sure that lots of you contacted Michelle via the link you pointed me to at the Commons. So I imagine that he looked at his options and thought - legally trained people in this field or middleaged mum. I'm sure he called me becaue he thought he'd have an easy ride. he didn't get it - but I'm not sure that is going to worry him too much. He reminded me of a junior bank manager - they know what to say but they don't really have an in-depth knowledge wof why they're saying it. except that they have a job to keep.

 

I really think you should have a word with EDIT: Personal Details Removed at ITV who is collating the info for 'Tonight With Trevor'. I spoke to her today and she's just started her investigations into the new bailiff law and she's already outraged. Her phone number is EDIT: Personal Details Removed.

 

Speak soon.

Spandavia

[Peterbard]

HI

 

Yes i spoke to her yesterday it is looking good the more people we can reach with this the better.

 

Keep up the good work

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

"The most important thing that I remember of our conversation is that at one point I had to say to him "you are talking as if the passing of this Bill is a foregone conclusion" and his answer was "it has to be because it's the only way we can regulate bailiffs"

 

If they just want to increase bailiff regulation fine, but why would they want to increase their powers before they do it wouldn't that make them harder to regulate?

 

Peter

[Spandavia]

Who knows what they're up to Peter - I did point out that they could regulate bailiffs without these draconian measures but he wasn't having it.

 

I don't think the poor man does anything but take orders and carry them out. He's one of the lucky ones- do your job, get paid, go home, have dinner, take the three week holiday - do your job, get paid.......

 

Thinking is such a dangerous hobby! We shouldn't do it!!!

 

best

Spandavia

[Guest Battleaxe]

I would this man to contact me. perhaps morning tea with me and my neighbours might get his thoughts into perspective.

[Spandavia]

Hi everyone,

 

Just got in and picked up a message on the ansaphone. Apparently the Bailiffs are visiting today. Will let everyone know what happens.

 

Also, I've e-mailed Chris Bell via Michelle McGukien to ask where we can find this list of safeguards and protections the public will have against abuse of power by bailiffs. I will pass on any reply.

 

best wishes to all

Spandavia.

[demon_x_slash]

Good luck. Watching with avid interest.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Shame you can't Mr Bell there when the Bailiffs call. Have you got CCTV, so you can record it and send the record of the visit to him?

[Bailiffchaser]

If you are with in the kent area i could pop down for a surprise visit !!!!

[Peterbard]

Hi everyone,

 

Just got in and picked up a message on the ansaphone. Apparently the Bailiffs are visiting today. Will let everyone know what happens.

 

Also, I've e-mailed Chris Bell via Michelle McGukien to ask where we can find this list of safeguards and protections the public will have against abuse of power by bailiffs. I will pass on any reply.

 

best wishes to all

Spandavia.

 

Hi

 

we are all thinking of you let us know what happens.

I have fired several letters off to the newspapers so we will see if any of them get taken up this time. I Also talked to Niocola earlier and it sounds like the show might be getting the go ahead fingers crossed.

 

I dfon't think he will be able to give you a list of regulations they don't exist yet.

The more sensible members of the chamber are trying to get the act delayed untill they have been at least drafted. Hope so gives us a bit more breathing space.

 

Peter

[Spandavia]

Hi Peter and all,

 

Well today has turned out to be a bit of an anti climax - not that we wanted a bailiff visit but having got the message, we were at least well prepared this time. And to be honest, we would rather they came and we dealt with them rather than this almost daily threat of a visit.

 

But we got a phone call from the bailiffs office about 2.00pm and a very pleasant lady (quite a shock that she was quite so pleasant) explained to me that there is only £39.00 outstanding on our account and if I could pay it, she wouldn't send the bailiffs! I asked her what happened to the £258.00 they were claiming last week? She didn't seem to know what I was talking about.

 

I passed the phone to Paul and he had a long conversation with the woman and he explained that we don't owe them anything because we've already paid £281.63 in fees for one visit. She was shocked - and insisted this was not possible! Then she very reasonably said that clearly there was a mistake in all the paper work and she would have to pass the file to her superiors. So the saga continues. Last week the council proposes that we should have the bailiffs fees reduced by £90 and now the bailiffs are saying it's all a mistake and they're not even sure we owe them the £39.00 they asked for today!

 

Of course I'm glad they haven't come but they won't confirm that they're not coming at all so we're sort of in the same boat - waiting for the bailiffs.

 

Anyway thankyou for all your kind words and for thinking of us. Will keep you in the loop if they get back to us.

 

Peter, re my e-mail to Chris Bell: I agree, it would be impossible for him to reply with the list I asked for - but that's not because it doesn't exist, it does, even if only for the purposes of fending off pesky members of the public. Chris Bell was reading the list off to me last night and had I been a bit quicker off the mark, I would have asked him to repeat the list very slowly so that I could write it down. So he's in a sort of Catch 22 position at the moment; he won't want to put in writing what he said last night but neither can he reply saying that the list doesn't officially exist. And if he just ignores my e-mail completely, it could back fire on him down the line i.e what are his reasons for ignoring it?

 

Hopefully he'll get back to me tomorrow.

 

Best wishes to all

Spandavia

 

p.s. I copied my letter to the PM to Ming Campbell and my local MP. I can't find an e-mail for david Cameron - only this stupid 'Ask David' thing on his site where by you post a blog and the public vote on which blogs are the most interesting. Then 'David' replies to the three blogs that get the most votes per week. Sort of 'X Files for the democratic masses!

[natwesttookmymoney]

Spandavia -

 

you can e-mail David Cameron via theyworkforyou website. His page is at

David Cameron MP, Witney (TheyWorkForYou.com)

[Peterbard]

HI Span what a relief i have been thinking about you all day.

 

I think you missunderstand me there is a set of regulations that apply or are supposed to under their present powers. But there has been no increased reguation to deal withe the powers of forced entry and restraint,in fact what lord lucas was pressing for was an indipendant regulator whose specific purpose was to oversee that bailifs are punished and have liscences removed when they overstep the mark and use force inapropriately.

I will copy and post e the appropriate section of the Hansard from the last meeting so this can be cleared up for anyone else who i may have missled.

 

Peter

[Peterbard]

Hi there are many other mentions of this in the transcript but i think this illustrates the point.

Apparently although the legislation could be in place in Aprill the regulations would have to be introduced in the summer under secondarry legislation.

Thisi s not good enough because it would be introduced without full debate in the house and could contain anything IMO.

 

"Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Would it not be better to wait for the full solution of regulation before introducing the powers, or at least before implementing them? Grave concerns have been outlined by Citizens Advice and others. Is the Minister really happy with the way that the process is working?

Vera Baird: The powers should not, in my view, be used by anybody who is not a certificated bailiff; it would be necessary for that certification to have been attained before anyone could use the powers. We urgently need to bring in a coherent code, because the abuses to which various people have alluded are taking place.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that answer, but I was referring to the fuller system of regulation of bailiffs, on which she is consulting. Given that it is obviously the Government’s view that a full system of regulation is required, should it not be put in place before strong extra powers are implemented?

Vera Baird: We think that the county court judges doing the regulating are capable of ensuring that there is acceptable quality. More detailed regulation needs to follow, but it seems to us that the right balance is struck in the Bill.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): As the hon. and learned Lady has made plain, she does not think that any bailiff who is not certificated should be able to be involved in the procedures. Would it not be sensible, and reassuring to Citizens Advice and others, to delay the implementation of the part of the Bill that we are discussing?

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman’s point ought to be considered seriously; I accept that.

Hope that clears it up

 

Best regards

 

peter

[Peterbard]

HI I recieved this this morning from Paul Nicolson.

It gives the names of the Mp's who will be present in the committe reading on the 27th.

 

This is being given the widest possible distribution

 

"Peter Bardsley, the Ex-Chairman of a Credit Union and a development worker in one of the poorest areas in Manchester has posted the following petition on the Downing Street website.

 

This morning there are 1334 signatures.

 

 

The committee stage of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Bill starts in the House of Commons on the 15th March. The members are.

 

Vera Baird, Mr Henry Bellingham, Mr Richard Benyon, James Brokenshire, Mr David Drew, Mr Tobias Ellwood, Mr Robert Flello, Mr Michael Foster (Worcester), Simon Hughes, Mr David Kidney, Sarah McCarthy-Fry, Judy Mallaber, Dr Doug Naysmith, Mr Brooks Newmark, Anne Snelgrove, Emily Thornberry and Jenny Willott.

 

DOWNING STREET PETITION

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Bailiff-Violence/

 

 

I would be grateful if you willl consider passing this on to as many people as possible

 

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

 

Background

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.

 

 

With best wishes,

 

Paul"

 

 

 

Rev Paul Nicolson,

Zacchaeus 2000 Trust,

93 Campbell Road,

London N17 0BF

020 8376 5455

0796 1177889

www.z2k.org

[Peterbard]

HI This is the ammendment to be attached By Rev Paul Nicolson for consideration at the commitee stage on the 27th.

I know it's a bit of a read but it is worth the effort

 

Peter

 

The TCE Bill and Vulnerable Situations

Insert page 202 insert line 22:

(3) Regulations shall provide for cases of civil enforcement of debts , including Magistrates Court fines, to be returned to the court by Civil Enforcement Agents for further consideration when they meet a debtor covered by page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents - Vulnerable Situations.

I am attaching Page 9 of the National Standards for Enforcement Agents covering vulnerable situations. The point of this amendment is as follows.

 

1. All fines and debt repayments are required to be proportionate to income.

2. All unemployment benefits and the National Minimum Wage are below the government’s poverty threshold. Technically every fine is disproportionate for benefit recipients with no assets and probably many debts, who have already been means tested.

3. Many verdicts of guilt for truancy, failure to pay TV licence, failure to keep an asbo, fare dodging or shop lifting are fuelled by poverty and handed down to people who are struggling to survive on inadequate statutory minimum incomes in a very expensive economy . The Home Office reported in Paying the Price that survival and providing for children are the overriding motivations for off street prostitution.

4. It’s a catch 22. They cannot afford a healthy diet, decent school clothes for growing children, fuel for keeping warm and transport to find a job or go to the supermarket, and perhaps rent and council tax arrears, all of which already compete for inadequate incomes; they are then caught and fined disproportionately for a TV license they cannot afford which makes the poverty worse.

5. On the spot fines of, say, £60 against the unemployment incomes of the childless people below, which are all less that half the government’s poverty threshold, are making the law laughable. When unpaid they are enforced with a collection order issued by the Magistrates and taken on by the bailiffs. I have seen a unemployed young man fined £190 by the Magistrates.

 

6. If they are fined in their absence the level of the fine is set at the top rate by the magistrates, a collection order is issued and since the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 came into force the bailiffs may force entry and seize goods.

7. Before the DVCV Act 2004 came into force the Magistrates had control of enforcement. Bailiffs would send vulnerable people back to court. I would be able to do a means statement for the magistrates and often pick up other problems and give assistance. Please see case histories below. The DVCV Act is guaranteeing thousands of miscarriages of justice to which there is no remedy.

8. The Magistrates have the power to reduce, or remit totally. a disproportionate fine particularly if there has been a change of circumstances for the worse in the life of the debtor. The fine is very rarely the only debt.

9. Now enforcement has been taken over by the Civil Service in the form of HM Courts Service I never see a vulnerable defaulter at the enforcement courts. The fines are being enforced by the bailiffs on the doorstep regardless of proportionality. The procedures have become merciless. A clear procedure should be set out for wrong address, wrong name and other bureaucratic errors which are all too frequent

10. Complaints about a bailiff’s behaviour are no longer dealt with by the Magistrates but by HM Courts Service. Complaints should in our view always be dealt with by the courts that originated the fine or warrants for forced entry under all circumstances.

11. Serious vulnerability is a combination of poverty with other circumstances such as mental illness, long term or fatal illness, lone mother, disability, recent bereavement, illiteracy, the larger the families the greater the poverty. The government relies on bailiff training to cover vulnerable situations. The training is before certification.

12. The culture of bailiffs is so anarchic under pressure from management to collect their fees as well as the fine is such that we believe the training will go out of the window once the certificate is received. Bailiff companies are to be given an upfront fee. They should earn it by implementing a legally enforceable procedure to protect vulnerable people from disproportionate enforcement of disproportionate fines and other debt repayments.

PN 6/3/7

Case history

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. While preparing her means statement I learnt 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 was tried again and she was acquitted. Under the present regime of collection orders and forced entry, the most likely outcome was that the fine would have been enforced by forced entry, goods could have been be seized and the magistrates never know the facts.

[maybelline]

BBC NEWS | Politics | Lords urged to curb bailiff power

 

also, any attempts to obstruct a bailiff, will apparently, lead to a possible 12 months in prison.

 

Citizens Advice says 'bailiff reforms need rethink'

[maybelline]

Your Rights: Privacy: Article 8: Article 8-the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence

 

the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (sorry for all those who are already well aware of all this stuff) this is one of the rights that may be conflicted isnt it it, in relation to bailiffs and forced entry.

[Spandavia]

Hi Peter and all,

 

Yet again I haven't done much work as I've spent a good part of the day reading the full transcript of Monday's Order Of The day from the Commons. I have cut and pasted the following snippet - I know you have already read this raised this issue on the site but I am so gobsmacked by it that I wanted to share it with everyone again:

 

 

Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk, Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

Before the hon. and learned Lady goes into more detail about the SIA, may I ask her about the magistrates courts guidance on search and entry powers, which was brought in under the 2004 Act to which she referred? That is the guidance to bailiffs as to how they should conduct themselves and what they may do. I understand that part of the guidance has been published, but 15 of the 31 pages have been redacted—that is, blacked out. Is there any possibility of our seeing the full text of the guidance? In the context of her remarks, it is important for us to know what guidance there is to bailiffs.

Add your comment

Vera Baird (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs) Link to this | Hansard source

I am aware that there have been applications to see the full text, but the rationale for leaving out part of the guidance is that if people are told how bailiffs are to go about their business, they can put defence mechanisms in place to stop them. I will make inquiries to see whether parliamentarians on a particular footing may be entrusted with the information. I imagine that that will be possible, but I will have to take advice

 

Are bailiffs to be the new secret police? As far as I know we're entitled to know exactly how the police should operate in relation to the public - but not bailiffs? Can it be legally right for them to withold this important info? I ask this question because I hope that you or someone on the site might know the answer to the legality of Ms Bairds statement.

 

Another thing that occured to me while reading the transcript - this Bill is being propsed at the very moment the issue of bank overcharging is in the headlines and I've heard that it's possible the government want to push this bill through quickly in part to enable credt card companies to collect debts more easily - but surely the same over charging in interest/fees etc. applies to the credit card companies as it did to the banks? And if this is the case - will the bailiffs (complete with their new powers) in many cases be enforcing payment of debts that shouldn't exist? Sorry if I haven't explained that very well - I've only recently considered this - but I hope you see what I mean? Beacuse if this is the reason for rushing the Bill through, shouldn't the credit card companies be restricted to using this method of collection only for debts incurred after the implimentation of the Bill. Other wise we'll see a tidal wave of bailiff collection for debts that have been accruing interest for years!

 

On our own case - we haven't had the bailiff here yet but we have had a letter in the post today telling us that we have to pay £168. So much for the pleasant phone call yesterday telling us it's £39.00.

 

Best wishes

 

Spandavia