Dealing With Bailiffs

Re: Dealing With Bailiffs

Postby MikeThomas » Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:31 am

Thanks Musashi! Very in-depth :clap:
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
User avatar
MikeThomas
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Llanharan, South Wales

Re: Dealing With Bailiffs

Postby Prajna » Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:27 pm

Interestingly and importantly, in the face of the propaganda hit-piece pushed round the MSM by the Press Association and eagerly copy-pasted by non-journalists (which gives the impression that bailiff powers are being curtailed), Philip Johnstone, who appears to be a real journalist, published the following article in the Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4218091/An-Englishmans-hoame-is-no-longer-his-castle.html

An Englishman's home is no longer his castle
An ancient right to refuse forced entry into our houses has been tossed aside, says Philip Johnston.


By Philip Johnston

6:34PM GMT 11 Jan 2009


Before Christmas, a family friend had a visit from the bailiffs. For various complicated personal reasons, the local authority thought she had not paid a council tax bill. She had, only they had not registered it properly under the correct name. When the bailiff arrived at her home, she was out and her son answered the door. He walked in without a by-your-leave and proceeded to make an inventory of her possessions before departing.

As can be imagined, she was horrified by this violation of her family's privacy. The local council, on checking its records, acknowledged its mistake and apologised. And that was that. Since a complete stranger had entered her home for no good reason, does that not constitute an affront, even if the door was opened by someone in the house? After all, an Englishman's home is his castle, isn't it? Apparently not. The powers of bailiffs to enter homes and seize property are wider today than they have ever been and are about to be strengthened further.

We will be hearing a lot more of the bailiff in coming months. About 75,000 homes will be repossessed this year and hundreds of thousands of people will face action for unpaid debts. Local authorities are also using bailiffs to pursue council tax defaulters, with more than a million visits last year. If you want a job, here is one that will last while all around are losing theirs.

Inevitably, it preys upon the misery of others; but someone has to do it. The issue, really, is how they do it and in what circumstances. Anyone who watched Little Doritt on television recently will know of Dickens's obsession with bailiffs that derived from the indebtedness of his father. But even the most rapacious bailiff in one of his novels did not have the power of his modern counterpart. Neckett in Bleak House had to be invited in to serve his warrant for debt on Skimpole. This is because, for centuries, bailiffs were unable forcibly to enter a home under a common law right of citizens established in around 1300 and reaffirmed on many occasions by the courts, as in the Semayne's judgment in 1604 from which the "Englishman's castle" concept derives, and by successive governments throughout history.

In 1760, William Pitt (the Elder) made a famous declaration of this right. "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it. The rain may enter. The storms may enter. But the king of England may not enter. All his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

This right to refuse forced entry held for centuries until the Labour government, with its cavalier disregard for personal privacy, came along. In 2004, it introduced the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which contained a power to force entry in connection with unpaid fines imposed for criminal offences. This was a significant departure from the common law that merited a wide debate; yet it was included in a measure that, on the face of it, had nothing to do with bailiffs. The Government maintains that it was fully considered by Parliament; but it depends what you mean by fully. The Bill was in its final day in committee when ministers tabled "urgent" new proposals to show they were "getting tough" with fine dodgers.

The minister, Chris Leslie, explained: "These amendments give enforcement officers the power to enter premises to execute a warrant of arrest, commitment, detention or distress where the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the offender who is a subject of warrant is present." The MPs on the committee seemed to have little idea that they were being asked to set aside an ancient liberty, and Mr Leslie certainly did not spell it out.

Dominic Grieve, the Tory spokesman and now shadow home secretary, smelled a rat but did not want to sound soft on fine dodgers. "We are about to give considerable powers to non-uniformed individuals… We are allowing them to enter private premises, which will not necessarily be the premises of the person whom they are seeking, to carry out searches… I am a little surprised that we are apparently introducing such potentially draconian legislation without paying real regard to the consequences on the ground on a day-to-day basis."

Despite these doubts the Bill went through. Her Majesty's Courts Service issued guidance to bailiffs about how their powers should be used. "If a person locks himself in their home, it might be reasonable to break open the door, but probably not to smash a hole in the wall," it advises.

In 2007, the Government extended these powers in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 to allow bailiffs to use physical force against householders to restrain or pin down them down. The Government says the new powers when they are triggered will be overseen by a "robust industry watchdog" still to be established and could only be used as a last resort when all other suitable methods of enforcement have been exhausted.

But that is beside the point. The fact remains that the liberties of "the poor man in his cottage" have been simply tossed aside, with the barest of parliamentary scrutiny.

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

Oh, and just to clarify something in Musashi's post (how arrogant of me!), the Acts refered to are the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

More to come once we have had a chance to see what all these new regulations really mean.

Namaste
FREEDOM Best Before: 11 Sept 2001
http://tomboy-pink.co.uk/ and http://DeclarePeace.org.uk/
User avatar
Prajna
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: UK

Re: Dealing With Bailiffs

Postby Prajna » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:52 pm

So, I've been looking through the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and found the following, which seems pretty draconian:

2007 c. 15
SCHEDULE 12
Part 2
Entry without warrant

14(1)An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods.

(2)Where there are different relevant premises this paragraph authorises entry to each of them.

(3)This paragraph authorises repeated entry to the same premises, subject to any restriction in regulations.

(4)If the enforcement agent is acting under section 72(1) (CRAR), the only relevant premises are the demised premises.

(5)If he is acting under section 121A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5), premises are relevant if they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor carries on a trade or business.

(6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—

(a)usually lives, or


(b)carries on a trade or business.


So this seems to indicate they can enter your home without a warrant. Bye bye Denial of Implied Right of Access. Bye bye any concept of a bailiff being a trespasser, who can be ejected, hit with a full bottle of milk or knocked spark out.

It appears there is no general power to use force for entry, except to business premises:

2007 c. 15
SCHEDULE 12
Part 2
General powers to use reasonable force

19(1)This paragraph applies if these conditions are met—

(a)the enforcement agent has power to enter the premises under paragraph 16;

(b)he reasonably believes that the debtor carries on a trade or business on the premises;

(c)he is acting under an enforcement power within sub-paragraph (2).

(2)The enforcement powers are those under any of the following—

(a)a writ or warrant of control issued for the purpose of recovering a sum payable under a High Court or county court judgment;

(b)section 61(1) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (c. 9);

(c)section 121A(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c. 5);

(d)section 51(A1) of the Finance Act 1997 (c. 16);

(e)paragraph 1A of Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 2003 (c. 14).


however, a warrant can be applied for to use force and to require the police to assist:

2007 c. 15
SCHEDULE 12
Part 2
Application for power to use reasonable force

20(1)This paragraph applies if an enforcement agent has power to enter premises under paragraph 14 or 16 or under a warrant under paragraph 15.

(2)If the enforcement agent applies to the court it may issue a warrant which authorises him to use, if necessary, reasonable force to enter the premises or to do anything for which entry is authorised.

21(1)This paragraph applies if an enforcement agent is applying for power to enter premises under a warrant under paragraph 15.

(2)If the enforcement agent applies to the court it may include in the warrant provision authorising him to use, if necessary, reasonable force to enter the premises or to do anything for which entry is authorised.

22(1)The court may not issue a warrant under paragraph 20 or include provision under paragraph 21 unless it is satisfied that prescribed conditions are met.

(2)A warrant under paragraph 20 or provision included under paragraph 21 may require any constable to assist the enforcement agent to execute the warrant.


Note also, regarding the use of force, it may be that force can only be used to enter, not against people blocking entry (though see later the offence of obstructing an enforcement officer):

24(1)The power to enter and any power to use force are subject to any restriction imposed by or under regulations.

(2)A power to use force does not include power to use force against persons, except to the extent that regulations provide that it does.


There is a curious remark with reference to tresspass in the section on remedies:

2007 c. 15
SCHEDULE 12
Part 2
Remedies available to the debtor
66(1)This paragraph applies where an enforcement agent—

(a)breaches a provision of this Schedule, or

(b)acts under an enforcement power under a writ, warrant, liability order or other instrument that is defective.

(2)The breach or defect does not make the enforcement agent, or a person he is acting for, a trespasser.

(3)But the debtor may bring proceedings under this paragraph.

(4)Subject to rules of court, the proceedings may be brought—

(a)in the High Court, in relation to an enforcement power under a writ of the High Court;

(b)in a county court, in relation to an enforcement power under a warrant issued by a county court;

(c)in any other case, in the High Court or a county court.

(5)In the proceedings the court may—

(a)order goods to be returned to the debtor;

(b)order the enforcement agent or a related party to pay damages in respect of loss suffered by the debtor as a result of the breach or of anything done under the defective instrument.

(6)A related party is either of the following (if different from the enforcement agent)—

(a)the person on whom the enforcement power is conferred,

(b)the creditor.

(7)Sub-paragraph (5) is without prejudice to any other powers of the court.

(8)Sub-paragraph (5)(b) does not apply where the enforcement agent acted in the reasonable belief—

(a)that he was not breaching a provision of this Schedule, or

(b)(as the case may be) that the instrument was not defective.

(9)This paragraph is subject to paragraph 59 in the case of a breach of paragraph 58(3).


The Act creates a new offence of obstructing an enforcement officer. For anyone brave, take note that the enforcement agent must be lawfully acting and I would hope that it would be a defence to show that they were not (though with the draconian powers confered by this and related legislation it would seem almost anything these bastards do is now lawful).

2007 c. 15
SCHEDULE 12
Part 2
Offences
68(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to—

(a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or

(b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or

(c)both.

(4)In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in sub-paragraph (3)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.


Ok, as if it wasn't hairy enough already, since 'enforcement officer' is mentioned throughout it might be prudent to find out what one of these fellers is, don'tcha think?

63Enforcement agents

(1)This section and section 64 apply for the purposes of Schedule 12.

(2)An individual may act as an enforcement agent only if one of these applies—

(a)he acts under a certificate under section 64;

(b)he is exempt;

(c)he acts in the presence and under the direction of a person to whom paragraph (a) or (b) applies.

(3)An individual is exempt if he acts in the course of his duty as one of these—

(a)a constable;

(b)an officer of Revenue and Customs;

(c)a person appointed under section 2(1) of the Courts Act 2003 (c. 39) (court officers and staff).

(4)An individual is exempt if he acts in the course of his duty as an officer of a government department.

(5)For the purposes of an enforcement power conferred by a warrant, an individual is exempt if in relation to the warrant he is a civilian enforcement officer, as defined in section 125A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43).

(6)A person is guilty of an offence if, knowingly or recklessly, he purports to act as an enforcement agent without being authorised to do so by subsection (2).

(7)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.


So, a cop is now an enforcement officer (bailiff), as is ANYONE working for the government. Jeeze, I bet Hitler wished he had the freedom to create legislation such as the above. Well that's me thoroughly pissed off and depressed. If anyone else wants to expand on this please do. There's still the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to look into and the The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014, not to mention a few others that all affect our position with regard to bailiffs etc. but that's me out for now.

Namaste
FREEDOM Best Before: 11 Sept 2001
http://tomboy-pink.co.uk/ and http://DeclarePeace.org.uk/
User avatar
Prajna
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 627
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:51 pm
Location: UK

Re: Dealing With Bailiffs

Postby holy vehm » Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:42 pm

But is any of it lawful at common law.

All actions must be reasonable otherwise they are unreasonable.

To act on instruction of a financial institution to recover funds that themselves are fraudulent is not within the scope of the law but within legislation which carries the weight of law as if it itself is the law but is not law.

Anyone with enough money to throw at it could challenge any legislation in the high court. Points of law are discussed, not points of legislation.

Parliament creates what ever it wants and it will stand until challenged, not in Parliament but in the high court.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Dealing With Bailiffs

Postby musashi » Sat Apr 05, 2014 7:35 pm

holy vehm wrote:Anyone with enough money to throw at it could challenge any legislation in the high court. Points of law are discussed, not points of legislation.

Parliament creates what ever it wants and it will stand until challenged, not in Parliament but in the high court.


Glad to hear you say that, HV, as I have been proposing just this for some time now. It's time to take the state to court.

Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Dealing With Bailiffs

Postby holy vehm » Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:33 am

Tis why they have restricted the peasants from access to the law system with cuts to legal aid and increases in costs.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm
Location: http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9142

Re: Dealing With Bailiffs

Postby musashi » Sun Apr 06, 2014 7:10 pm

holy vehm wrote:Tis why they have restricted the peasants from access to the law system with cuts to legal aid and increases in costs.


Once again we can look at magna carta and our lawful rebellion.
"To no man will be delay, deny . . . . . . or charge for justice"

So many of us are unemployed now, anyway, we can get fee remissions. A booklet is available from the courts. Though no doubt that greatest of all tax evading Jew who is not a Jew, Sir Philip Green, has included that in his reprot to Cameron on how to raise tax, cut spending and create austerity.

However, i do take your point that we have 'deep pocket justice'. Once again the lien is to take back your power and reduce costs to the irreducible minium while cutting out the state controlled, unionised closed shop called The Law Society whose members are court officers and whose first loyalty is to the court.

Musashi.
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Dealing With Bailiffs

Postby bustachemtrails » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:29 pm

All the above Acts referred too, are of course entitely unlawful and are treasonous 'rules' not laws. Yes I know they enforce these criminal rules regardless of whatever the constitution states.

These criminals are getting away with treason, fraud, perjury and malfeance etc.... when we quote their rules and use them in a defensive posture (because they are not even abiding by their own legislation), we are giving their corrupt regime credulity and keeping the illusion going.

I agree we need to get these crooks in the real courts of law so that 'truth' and 'justice' can be heard and seen to be done. With that in mind we need to reestablish those courts first, and we are not helping the situation by quoting their rules and attempting to get justice in the corrupt hearings we have today.

We have all the law we need within the constitution and gods law to bring down the entire criminal establishment. Too few in my view use it.

As an experiment go after any public servant quoting treason at them and see what response you get, if its anything like what I have experienced then they tend to disappear....its not the answer because it creates a standoff but at least they 'cease and desist'. Once enough people start demanding proper courts of law and stop consenting to their hearings, and also stop quoting from their rules and start quoting laws, something would soon have to change.
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire


Return to Bailiffs & Debt Collection Agencies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron