Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access......debtor loses in court and ordered to pay bailiff companies legal costs

[sequenci]

Well, the process has been in place for over two decades. I'm sure any realistic challenges have already been tried. It's not a new system by any stretch of the imagination.

[p3t3r]

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but until the ECtHR rules along the same lines it doesn't count for much as the UK Court won't consider your opinion as relevant.

 

If ECHR is buoght into a UK court, then the Judge has to consider it and its implications, based upon proportionality.

 

The Judge can not simply ignore EU law. However, the Judge does not have to consider EU law unless the claimant or defendant relies upon it.

[honeybee13]

If ECHR is buoght into a UK court, then the Judge has to consider it and its implications, based upon proportionality.

 

The Judge can not simply ignore EU law. However, the Judge does not have to consider EU law unless the claimant or defendant relies upon it.

 

Hello p3t3r. Do you have a source for this please?

 

HB

[p3t3r]

hi honeybee,

 

It has often been suggested that judges are somehow able to ‘overrule’ legislation, for example if, exercising the power given to them by the Human Rights Act 1998, they declare that a particular law is incompatible with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is often framed in terms of ‘ what right do these unelected judges have to overturn the laws set out by elected representatives in Parliament? ”. It is right to suggest that judges are able to rule that the acts of public bodies are unlawful and to decide against the Government in a particular case. Indeed, this is a powerful check on the power of the State against the individual. Many of the examples seen in the media, or commented on by politicians, tend to focus on criminal matters or on Human Rights

Quoted from: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/judges-and-parliament/

 

 

judges rely on UK statute alone (since it is assumed that the statutory legislation is in compliance with EU law). If the claimant or defendant brings into question EU law, then the Judge has to consider this and interpret the UK legislation to be in accordance with EU law.

 

But the Judge is not going to automatically apply EU law, unless this is argued by the defendant or claimant

[p3t3r]

Well, the process has been in place for over two decades. I'm sure any realistic challenges have already been tried. It's not a new system by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I can't find any details as to where someone has tried to use EU law (rights of a fair trial, right to private family home, possessions,) in relation to council tax or bailiffs. I have searched for it but can't find, that is reason I suggested it here to see what other peoples views are.

 

But I guess the only definitive view would be that from a court, whether UK or EU, - to which I can not find any info!

 

Maybe someone will decide to pursue this.

[Peterbard]

Dodgeball... you fail to answer questions. You know I do not know what TCE is, you fail to explain that to me also.

 

.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

[p3t3r]

dodgeball, thank you!

 

though i have probably 100 or so browser windows open at moment! will read it later, thanks again for explanation.

[fletch70]

You are confusing ECHR with law passed by the EU. There is a massive difference.

As has been quoted above we refused to give the vote to prisoners even though ECHR said we should. Now if the EU law (completely different thing) had said that we had to give the vote to prisoners then we would have had two choices, leave the EU or comply.

 

France was heavily fined for not allowing UK beef into the country although by the time it was sorted they had lifted the embargo.

 

You need to remember that the EHCR is a CONVENTION and not a law

[p3t3r]

. You need to remember that the EHCR is a CONVENTION and not a law

 

Yes. A convention that has a direct influence on how law in EU countries is interpreted.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jan/29/uk-broke-law-european-human-rights-cases-2014 That article states that UK broke the law in relation to ECHR less than 1% of all applications lodged with ECHR in 2014.

 

I think the same article points out that should the UK leave EU, then there will be over 2 million illegal immigrants from UK living outside UK in EU!

[honeybee13]

Guys, could we stay off the topic of UK emigrants in the EU please? I think it's way off the topic of this thread.

 

HB

[fletch70]

Yes. A convention that has a direct influence on how law in EU countries is interpreted.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jan/29/uk-broke-law-european-human-rights-cases-2014 That article states that UK broke the law in relation to ECHR less than 1% of all applications lodged with ECHR in 2014.

 

I think the same article points out that should the UK leave EU, then there will be over 2 million illegal immigrants from UK living outside UK in EU!

 

That really means very little, so we broke the rules of the EU convention less than Russia..hold the front page! . All it tells you is that either a) our justice system is fair and proportionate or b) people in this country really do not use the European court of Human rights . You are i think misinterpreting the link between the two. So where does it tell you what happened after the ECHR ruling?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/03/european-human-rights-protocol-15

[p3t3r]

hi fletch,

 

I don't understand this:

 

. So where does it tell you what happened after the ECHR ruling?

[fletch70]

Quite simple really

 

You claim that a ruling from ECHR trumps UK statute law ( wrong IMO)

These cases have been won in the ECHR

 

So...what are the consequences ? Has UK law been changed? Was the UK government penalised for the difference ? I cite the case of prisoners and the vote

 

www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05941.pdf

 

As you will see the original ruling was in 2005 and as far as I am aware nothing has been changed

 

I am not saying what my own personal opinions are , nor am I saying what the moral course of action may be but what the de jure situation is .

 

Please also do not confuse the council of Europe with the EU which is what many people do http://en.strasbourg-europe.eu/member-states,44987,en.html

Edited March 22, 2015 by fletch70

[Peterbard]

dodgeball, thank you!

 

though i have probably 100 or so browser windows open at moment! will read it later, thanks again for explanation.

 

Yes this is the legislative procedure which governs the," taking control of goods to recover money owed".

It is the legal conduit which conveys the power of warrant or order of the court and provides legislative authority for the charging of fees and all other related activities (including attendance).

[unclebulgaria67]

Is it worth keeping this thread going round in circles ?

 

Remember that all courts are generally there to serve the interests of creditors or to protect the interests of state. ECHR makes rulings which can be inconvenient to governments, but they very rarely hand down judgements that make a massive difference. Even with prisoner voting, the ECHR did not say that the UK had to enable voting rights for prisoners. They said that the UK parliament should consider how they can enable prisoner voting. The could just make arrangements for prisoners towards the end of their sentences to register to vote, so when they got out they could vote. The UK has not been fined for not doing enough on this, as far as I know.

[Bailiff Advice]

A perfectly good and helpful thread about the silly Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access has been completely overshadowed by the ECHR argument and as important as the subject is, it should have been posted as a separate thread altogether.

 

The fact of the matter is that the case of Thornton v Rossendales is the only case that has ever been made to court. It was taken under UK law and the debtor lost his case and was ordered to pay Rossendale's legal costs.

 

There is little point guessing what the outcome would have been if the case had been taken under ECHR (EU Law) as this would be just guesswork. An entirely separate thread should have been started.

[wonkeydonkey]

A perfectly good and helpful thread about the silly Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access has been completely overshadowed by the ECHR argument and as important as the subject is, it should have been contained in a separate thread altogether.

 

The fact of the matter is that the case of Thornton v Rossendales is the only case that has ever been made to court. It was taken under UK law and the debtor lost his case and was ordered to pay Rossendale's legal costs. There is little point guessing what the outcome would have been if the case had been taken under ECHR (EU Law) as this would be just guesswork. An entirely separate thread should have been started.

 

I couldn't agree more....this thread was started to show people posting notices to remove implied rights of access were seen to be ineffective, it has never been suggested they were UNLAWFUL to use, so why take the subject matter of track?

[caro]

If anyone wants to discuss the implications of ECHR on bailiff issues then please start a separate thread. Any further posts on it will be removed.

 

It would help the site team and the thread if any such off topic posts were reported without comment on the thread.

[Peterbard]

Ahem I did mention this repeatedly about thirty or so posts back. Anyway nice to be back on track.

[caro]

Can't always follow all threads at all times DB, but as you say.....

[p3t3r]

A perfectly good and helpful thread about the silly Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access has been completely overshadowed by the ECHR argument and as important as the subject is, it should have been contained in a separate thread altogether.

 

The fact of the matter is that the case of Thornton v Rossendales is the only case that has ever been made to court. It was taken under UK law and the debtor lost his case and was ordered to pay Rossendale's legal costs. There is little point guessing what the outcome would have been if the case had been taken under ECHR (EU Law) as this would be just guesswork. An entirely separate thread should have been started.

 

The notice of "Implied Right Of Access" is not silly! This is shown in Judge Pugh ruling where it was stated that the Judge had no reason to query the use of such a notice. Such notice is akin to that of "no cold callers" notice.

 

What is silly is that some people seem to believe that such notices apply to bailiffs. Bailiffs have the legal right to attend the property, as such, they ignore such notices.

 

I apologise for writing about EU law / ECHR in relation to the notices and bailiffs on this thread and not starting a new thread. I can not see how discussing the subject of this thread in relation to law is taking the thread off topic, though apologise for that. Someone else has started a new thread in relation to this thread to include the ECHR perspective. Though, going by the logic shown here, if someone within the new thread then discusses UK law and not EU law, then that too would be off topic! Sure, I am a little confused as to why the discussion I added here is off topic, though as many people have said it is off topic, then I guess I am wrong in my thoughts, again, I apologise for that!

 

So, to get this thread back on topic, people are perfectly able to use such notices, (shown by Judge Pugh ruling) but in doing so they must be aware that such notices have no effects in stopping a bailiff attending (again, shown by Judge Pugh ruling). They should also be aware that this may add additional fees to the debt, because, in using such notices in the expectation that it would stop a baliff attending, they are trying to evade paying their debt.

 

Basically, the notice of implied rights of access is just an over elaborated "no cold callers" notice. It does not apply to bailiffs or anyone else who have a legal right to be at the property.

 

I have this week read some information from what I believe to be flawed logic and dubious website which purport the usage of such notices will instantly stop bailiffs. It is my opinon that such websites are extremely dangerous since they seem to encourage false thinking, illogical logic, - people who rely on such false information are a danger to themselves if they actually believe such notices will stop bailiffs!

[Bailiff Advice]

The notice of "Implied Right Of Access" is not silly! This is shown in Judge Pugh ruling where it was stated that the Judge had no reason to query the use of such a notice. Such notice is akin to that of "no cold callers" notice.

 

What is silly is that some people seem to believe that such notices apply to bailiffs. Bailiffs have the legal right to attend the property, as such, they ignore such notices.

 

So, to get this thread back on topic, people are perfectly able to use such notices, (shown by Judge Pugh ruling) but in doing so they must be aware that such notices have no effects in stopping a bailiff attending (again, shown by Judge Pugh ruling). They should also be aware that this may add additional fees to the debt, because, in using such notices in the expectation that it would stop a baliff attending, they are trying to evade paying their debt.

 

Basically, the notice of implied rights of access is just an over elaborated "no cold callers" notice. It does not apply to bailiffs or anyone else who have a legal right to be at the property.

 

I have this week read some information from what I believe to be flawed logic and dubious website which purport the usage of such notices will instantly stop bailiffs. It is my opinon that such websites are extremely dangerous since they seem to encourage false thinking, illogical logic, - people who rely on such false information are a danger to themselves if they actually believe such notices will stop bailiffs!

 

I still maintain that it would have been far better for you to start a new thread but I have to be honest here by saying that your above post is excellent and entirely accurate.

[p3t3r]

hi bailiff advice, someone else has started a new thread in relation to the 5th and 21st letters of the alphabet which i dare not say in this thread

[Bailiff Advice]

Sorry BA. Not that I want the last word, but things keep developing.

The newest daft idea seems to be that these notices will only apply to council tax bailiffs, because he is just a debt collecror, I just want to nip it in the bud.

 

 

DB, I do apologise for failing to respond to this post. The idea is too silly to even waste precious time on.

 

The main point to consider is that it is the writ/warrant/liability order that provides the power to the bailiff to enforce the debt .....and when it comes to actual enforcement (of the writ/warrant/liability order) the law states that the bailiff must use the procedure outlined in Schedule 12.

 

The enforcement agent must of course abide by the wording on the writ/warrant of control/liability order.

 

In the case of a Writ of Control (relevant for judgements over £600 passed to the High Court) the wording specifically

'commands'

the Enforcement Agent to enforce the writ.

 

In the case of a Warrant of Control (relevant for road traffic debts) similar wording is given.

 

In the case of a Liability Order (relevant for arrears of council tax) the order itself specifically contains the following words:

 

"It is

ordered

that the amount be enforced in the manner mentioned" etc

An 'order' or a 'command' is simple to understand and again would provide a reason why the bailiff enforcing council tax cannot be a debt collector and also why bailiffs may simply ignore a Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access

[Peterbard]

Yes BA you could spend a lifetime debunking half baked ideas for certain websites. in this case power contained in the various orders are subject to section 62 of the TCE which says;

 

62Enforcement by taking control of goods

(1)Schedule 12 applies where an enactment, writ or warrant confers power to use the procedure in that Schedule (taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money).

(2)The power conferred by a writ or warrant of control to recover a sum of money, and any power conferred by a writ or warrant of possession or delivery to take control of goods and sell them to recover a sum of money, is exercisable only by using that procedure.

 

Of course it is the same procedure in all cases, and the same right to attend and take control of goods.

 

(I should just clarify, since there are those who will pick at irrelevancies, by the same procedure I mean of course the TCE 2007 shed 12, of course within that procedure there are different enforcment methods available to the EA dependent on the type of debt, use of force etc)

 

I think all the source legislation has been altered from the earlier to levy distress just to "use schedule 12 procedure".

 

In Judge Pugh's case the procedure was contained in the regulation as he said there is no reason to go behind this, now of course it is contained in the TCE