Removal of Implied Rights

[wonkeydonkey]

Surfing around various forums I noticed a number of people have been advised to display notices in prominent places that remove a bailiffs implied right of access, the general supposition being it will have the same effect as a string of garlic around the door to ward off vampires.

 

We all know the story so I will cut to the chase, people are finding bailiff's will adhere to the notice not to call on the household but, this is now being turned to their disadvantage....and seen to be admission they are not prepared to discuss their debt and is a refusal to pay..therefore making it easy for a Council to take alternative measures to getting payment and even to apply for committal based on these notices.

 

I noticed when a debtor did this, they ended in a bigger mess than before due to having done so!!!!

 

It begs the question are these notices worth the paper they are to be printed on????

 

WD

Edited April 25, 2013 by wonkeydonkey

[dx100uk]

NO

 

waste of time

 

dx

[brassnecked]

A WOIRA is effective against TVL and the likes of Muck hall, but should not be used against bailiffs, there are other ways to kill their pig like a CCTV camera recording the visit.

[MagnaCarta]

CCTV and then shove a Phone Camera or separate Camera in their face. Record every move and every word. Ignore their pathetic pleas of 'you ain't allowed to film me, you haven't my permission' - if they are on your property, you can film who and what you want. Pass them a tissue if they get upset. if that doesn't work, shut the door - go upstairs, get an old blanket and give it to them. They can use it as a comfort blanket.

[brassnecked]

CCTV and then shove a Phone Camera or separate Camera in their face. Record every move and every word. Ignore their pathetic pleas of 'you ain't allowed to film me, you haven't my permission' - if they are on your property, you can film who and what you want. Pass them a tissue if they get upset. if that doesn't work, shut the door - go upstairs, get an old blanket and give it to them. They can use it as a comfort blanket.

The clown might levy it, and come unstuck like the one who seized the doormat:-D

[tomtubby]

Unfortunately there are some sites on the internet who advise the public to display a notice outside of their home "Removing the Right to Implied Access" from their property and that "apparently" by displaying this notice it will ensure that the bailiff ceases enforcement and thereby returns the debt back to the local authority.

 

A word of warning: anyone displaying such a notice should only do so if they are fully aware beforehand of the serious consequences that can follow.

 

it is very worrying indeed that since these notices have started to appear there has been an astonishing increase in the number of applications that have been made by local authorities for an Attachment of Earnings Order in relation to arrears of council tax.

 

There is a great deal of misinformation about these notices and for this reason, I will be starting a new "Sticky" on this very subject in the next few days.

[tomtubby]

Bailiff companies are almost routinely ignoring theses notices and the local authorities are simply steaming ahead with applications for "Attachment of Earnings orders". If the debtor earns an "average" salary the monthly deduction from his salary will be 17% of his net earnings !!!

If anyone believes that bailiff fees are removed they are frankly living in a dream world as they are simply ADDED to the AEO.

 

[EDIT] local authorities are delighted with these "Implied Right of Access" letters as it allows them to pursue more "draconian " methods of enforcement (Attachments of Earnings Order) which in this recessionary period would normally be frowned upon.

 

A little known fact is that with unpaid parking charge notices, the Civil Procedure Rules specifically provide that if the local authority are unable to enforce the arrant that they may instead request the warrant to be transfered to the respondents local County Court in order to issue the following:

 

An Oral Examination

 

A Charging Order

 

A Third Party Debt Order

 

An Attachment of Earnings Order

 

Sadly, I am now hearing of 4 local authorities who are looking towards these alternative methods of enforcement and the reason for this is because of these "Implied Right of Access letters".

 

Given that the particular statutory regulations allow for "costs" to be applied to any of the above methods of enforcement I can see some bailiff companies making a fortune out of these others methods of enforcements.

Edited April 26, 2013 by ims21
self promotion removed

[MagnaCarta]

Swindon Borough Council took 100% of what they thought I owed via a AEO, they took over 33% of my wages. Two years down the line they are still trying to [problem] me. All due to their own maladministration.

[tomtubby]

Magna Carta

 

The amount that can legally be deducted under an Attachment of Earnings Order is set by statute law and is on a sliding scale. The deductions that were applied in your case were due to the fact that your NET income was at the higher rate.

 

As you will know, these orders can prove very expensive indeed.

[MagnaCarta]

Hence the reason I requested my employer make me self employed via their overseas operations. I now have an account they cannot touch. The less I can contribute to this mentally ill country, the better.

[tomtubby]

You are correct, if a person is self employed then an Attachment of Earnings Orders cannot be attached to his or her salary.

[HCEOs]

Coming back to the original question you are correct that this common law notice should have no impact on a Bailiff or HCEO enforcing a debt.

 

I too have seen other forums promoting this as a way to get rid of enforcement action and as usual it is totally wrong and can end up misleading a debtor (and is some instances, costing them!)

 

These notices are also promoted by those claiming to be a Freemen on the land. We have recently been invoiced by one such individual at £5,000 for each attendance at his property. Laughably he now threatens to use the very courts to recover this that he doesn't subscribe to.

 

There is some interesting case law on the Wikipedia page here: Freemen Wiki The judge's summing up on the Meads v Meads case says it all...

[sgtbush]

oh i love freemen of the land!!! the stupid confused people that get confused with a birth certificate and a berth certificate!!!

like a heard of sheep!!oh the fun!!.........

 

until they have been jailed !!

[tomtubby]

From my post a week ago you will see that I had stated that I will be putting together a "sticky" regarding these "Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access" letters.

 

The reason why I have not as yet completed the new "sticky" is because I was waiting to receive further details of the outcome of a very recent court hearing by a council tax payer against a bailiff company.

 

Given the outcome, I will now be putting together a "Sticky" over the next few days and, due to the "popularity" of these "Notices of Removal of Implied Right of Access Notices" I will also volunteer to compile a Newsletter which can be distributed widely by the forum.

 

The brief details of the very recent court action are as follows:

 

A Liability Order of approx £700 was obtained by the local authority and passed to their bailiff provider to enforce.

 

The debtor downloaded a "Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access" from the internet and sent a letter to the bailiff company warning them that if they attended his premises that this would be trespass.

 

In the letter the debtor also advised the LA that if they ignored the "Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access" that the bailiff company would be accepting that they would be liable for a penalty of £750 (for the breach).

 

The bailiff company IGNORED the notice and instead.... the bailiff attended the premises.

 

The debtor continued to follow the "advice" from the internet...and issued a claim in the County Court against the bailiff company citing trespass and relying upon the case of Davis v Lisle (1936)...(amongst others).

 

The bailiff company defended the action and the court allocated it to the Small Claims Track.

 

The judge dismissed the claim and ordered THE CLAIMANT TO PAY THE BAILIFF COMPANIES COSTS !!!!

[tomtubby]

If anyone is considering posting these notices around their property it would be wise before doing so that they enter the following words into Google:

 

" Snake Oil Charlatan" or "Snake Oil Peddlers"

 

You will then be taken to this wikipedia page: Enjoy ......

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil

Edited May 4, 2013 by tomtubby

[SWLABR9]

So how come this works against TVL but not against bailiffs? By bailiffs can I assume we're specifically meaning bailiffs and not DCAs?

[tomtubby]

Can you explain what TVL is?

[brassnecked]

So how come this works against TVL but not against bailiffs? By bailiffs can I assume we're specifically meaning bailiffs and not DCAs?

 

TVL "Inspectors" are nothing of the sort, they are self employed salesmen/women working as agents of Crapita, on basic plus commission for every TV licence they sell under duress at the doorstep, they can report a non TV license holder for prosecution from evidence usually a doorstep confession "under caution" about non licensed viewing. They have even successfully had people who don't own a TV fined in court as a result of their dodgy interview. A few of them have been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice by reporting people who don't own a TV to bump up their commission , and were caught out when the innocent victim complained when marstons turned up.

 

As they have no legal authority or Statutory Right Of Entry they can have their rights of implied access removed rendering them a trespasser by such a notice and by sending one in a letter to TVL.

 

The same applies to DCA's like Muck Hall

[sgtbush]

Can you explain what TVL is?

 

television licence inspectors

[Peterbard]

From my post a week ago you will see that I had stated that I will be putting together a "sticky" regarding these "Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access" letters.

 

The reason why I have not as yet completed the new "sticky" is because I was waiting to receive further details of the outcome of a very recent court hearing by a council tax payer against a bailiff company.

 

Given the outcome, I will now be putting together a "Sticky" over the next few days and, due to the "popularity" of these "Notices of Removal of Implied Right of Access Notices" I will also volunteer to compile a Newsletter which can be distributed widely by the forum.

 

The brief details of the very recent court action are as follows:

 

A Liability Order of approx £700 was obtained by the local authority and passed to their bailiff provider to enforce.

 

The debtor downloaded a "Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access" from the internet and sent a letter to the bailiff company warning them that if they attended his premises that this would be trespass.

 

In the letter the debtor also advised the LA that if they ignored the "Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access" that the bailiff company would be accepting that they would be liable for a penalty of £750 (for the breach).

 

The bailiff company IGNORED the notice and instead.... the bailiff attended the premises.

 

The debtor continued to follow the "advice" from the internet...and issued a claim in the County Court against the bailiff company citing trespass and relying upon the case of Davis v Lisle (1936)...(amongst others).

 

The bailiff company defended the action and the court allocated it to the Small Claims Track.

 

The judge dismissed the claim and ordered THE CLAIMANT TO PAY THE BAILIFF COMPANIES COSTS !!!!

 

I must admit to being a little confused about this, I was under the impression that court officers and bailiffs were serving and executing warrants and orders under the powers of the court, not under any implied right of access.

 

Did I have it wrong ?

[brassnecked]

Can you explain what TVL is?

TV Licensing run by Capita for the BBC

[brassnecked]

television licence inspectors

 

Capita self employed sales agents.

[SWLABR9]

I suppose there's no point in denying access to TVL if they can clearly see you've got a telly on from the road outside (draws curtains )?

[tomtubby]

Given the importance of this subject, it is important that debtors take note of the following:

 

Ignoring the bailiff and paying the council?

 

If a bailiff is enforcing a Liability Order the debtor can ignore the bailiff and pay the council direct. Last year approx 3.3 million Liability Orders were obtained and of these approx 50% are referred to bailiffs. The rest stay with the council and the reason for this is because the defaulter engages with the council to make a payment proposal BEFORE the end of the statutory 14 day period.

 

If debtors do not want a bailiff at their door....then don't ignore the notice from the council and contact them to make a sensible payment proposal!!

 

 

If you pay the council direct can you ignore the bailiff fees?

 

NO you cannot !!!

 

What the majority of the public fail to realise is that the statutory regulations regarding the enforcement of council tax specifically provide that from all payments made, bailiff fees MUST FIRST BE DEDUCTED.

 

What should happen is that if a payment is made to the council they are supposed to deduct from that payment the applicable bailiff fees and send the payment to the bailiff company and retain the BALANCE which is applied towards the Liability Order. Given the problems with computer software etc, the local authorities instead keep the money and instruct the debtor to contact the bailiff direct regarding their fees.

 

Lets assume that the debtor posted one of these "Removal of Implied Right of Access Notices" on his door. The bailiff is still legally entitled to attend the property with the "intention" of levying upon goods and, if he still cannot engage with the debtor he is legally entitled to charge a fee of £24.50 for "attending to levy" (where no levy was made) and a further 2nd visit can be charged at £18.00.

 

There can be NO doubt at all that the bailiff is legally entitled to charge these fees. Unless he is able to "levy" he cannot charge any further fees. In other words..his fees are "capped" at £42.50

 

Can I refuse to let a bailiff into my home?

 

Of course you can !!!

 

This is by far the most misunderstood part of bailiff enforcement. Unless the bailiff is enforcing a Magistrate Court fine the statutory regulations are clear.......a bailiff may ONLY enter your home by "peaceful" means. In other words, if a door or window was left unlocked the bailiff may enter. Most importantly, if the door and windows are locked the bailiff may ONLY enter by "invite".

 

Should I let a bailiff into my home?

 

Personally...I wouldn't and there is a good reason why:

 

If a council tax payer cannot pay their council tax, the local authority will obtain a Liability Order and in so doing, will apply fees of approx £90. If the bailiff gained "peaceful entry" into the property and; assuming that the Liability Order was for £750, the bailiff would then be able legally to apply a "levy fee" of approx £60 to the account together with a "walking possession" fee of £12.00. So, by allowing the bailiff into the house the debt to the council has INCREASED by another £72.

[brassnecked]

Given the importance of this subject, it is important that debtors take note of the following:

 

Ignoring the bailiff and paying the council?

 

If a bailiff is enforcing a Liability Order the debtor can ignore the bailiff and pay the council direct. Last year approx 3.3 million Liability Orders were obtained and of these approx 50% are referred to bailiffs. The rest stay with the council and the reason for this is because the defaulter engages with the council to make a payment proposal BEFORE the end of the statutory 14 day period.

 

If debtors do not want a bailiff at their door....then don't ignore the notice from the council and contact them to make a sensible payment proposal!!

 

 

If you pay the council direct can you ignore the bailiff fees?

 

NO you cannot !!!

 

What the majority of the public fail to realise is that the statutory regulations regarding the enforcement of council tax specifically provide that from all payments made, bailiff fees MUST FIRST BE DEDUCTED.

 

What should happen is that if a payment is made to the council they are supposed to deduct from that payment the applicable bailiff fees and send the payment to the bailiff company and retain the BALANCE which is applied towards the Liability Order. Given the problems with computer software etc, the local authorities instead keep the money and instruct the debtor to contact the bailiff direct regarding their fees.

 

Lets assume that the debtor posted one of these "Removal of Implied Right of Access Notices" on his door. The bailiff is still legally entitled to attend the property with the "intention" of levying upon goods and, if he still cannot engage with the debtor he is legally entitled to charge a fee of £24.50 for "attending to levy" (where no levy was made) and a further 2nd visit can be charged at £18.00.

 

There can be NO doubt at all that the bailiff is legally entitled to charge these fees. Unless he is able to "levy" he cannot charge any further fees. In other words..his fees are "capped" at £42.50

 

Can I refuse to let a bailiff into my home?

 

Of course you can !!!

 

This is by far the most misunderstood part of bailiff enforcement. Unless the bailiff is enforcing a Magistrate Court fine the statutory regulations are clear.......a bailiff may ONLY enter your home by "peaceful" means. In other words, if a door or window was left unlocked the bailiff may enter. Most importantly, if the door and windows are locked the bailiff may ONLY enter by "invite".

 

Should I let a bailiff into my home?

 

Personally...I wouldn't and there is a good reason why:

 

If a council tax payer cannot pay their council tax, the local authority will obtain a Liability Order and in so doing, will apply fees of approx £90. If the bailiff gained "peaceful entry" into the property and; assuming that the Liability Order was for £750, the bailiff would then be able legally to apply a "levy fee" of approx £60 to the account together with a "walking possession" fee of £12.00. So, by allowing the bailiff into the house the debt to the council has INCREASED by another £72.

 

Excellent summary TT