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

[Peterbard]

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

 

Its OK C, Just sayin that's all

[Bailiff Advice]

 

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

 

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

 

"It is

ordered

that the amount be enforced in the manner mentioned" etc

 

I cease to be amazed at just how many people read posts on here and after making the above comment yesterday I was contacted by no less that four local authorities, a Barrister and a very helpful lady from the IRRV. If I make an error it is quickly brought to my attention !!!

 

In making my above post I had been relying upon the following Magistrate Court form:

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/schedule/2/made?view=plain

 

It is not the easiest court form to read. The following is the wording:

 

Form A

Schedule 2

 

Liability Order

is Respect of Council Tax

 

On the complaint of (name of billing authority) that the sum of £xx is due from the defendant to the complainant under Part V of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement( Regulations 1992 and is outstanding, it is adjudged that the defendant is liable to pay the aggregate amount specified below,

and it is ordered that that amount may be enforced in the manner mentioned in Part V of those Regulations accordingly.

 

Sum payable and outstanding

 

Costs of complaint

 

Agregate amount in respect of which the liability order is made £x

 

Justice of the Peace (or by order of the Court Clerk of the Court

 

 

PS: Please everyone do not post replies on this thread as it has already gone way of track with the ECHR 'debate'. Given that liability orders are such an important subject it is best if a new thread is started.

[Peterbard]

Completely on topic. Regarding the implied right of access,however the situation may have been previous April last year, the current situation is that he rights are not implied but expressed in the TCE,for all debt types. As above the power of the warrant is excercied by the act and sect 14 schedule12 says the EA can etc

[Old Cogger]

One way to clear all this up- if the original poster went through the procedure completely and include court appearance we could all see what the outcome would be = end of subject???

[Peterbard]

Completely on topic. Regarding the implied right of access,however the situation may have been previous April last year, the current situation is that he rights are not implied but expressed in the TCE,for all debt types. As above the power of the warrant is excercied by the act and sect 14 schedule12 says the EA can etc

 

Sorry really should have included this in my last post, Relevant premises are the debtors usual place of residence or business.

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

 

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 busine

[Peterbard]

Nothing "implied "about that" LOL

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Nothing "implied "about that" LOL

 

Exactly. Not sure how people can misunderstand it. But they do.

 

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to say something about it though.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Damn it. I promised myself I wasn't going to reply to this thread again.

[p3t3r]

I couldn't understand how I was taking this thread off topic. I was wrong. Sorry about that!

 

I was discussing something completely different that had no bearing on this topic. But this topic has sent me on a spiral of googling and getting lost in the net.

 

To summarise this thread: The notice is just the same as a 'no cold callers' notice. People who have legal right such as postman or bailiff or anyone with a legal right to attend your property can ignore such a notice since it does not apply to them. Their access is not even implied. They have a legal explicit right to be there.

 

Environmentally friendly: The notice is a waste of paper and ink. Can be summarised in 3 words: No Cold Callers

[Peterbard]

Yes indeed c

 

and staying on topic, in relation to the way the council tax arrears are enforced. The enforcement agent is not authored by the liability order in any case, the EA is authorized to use schedule twelve procedure through the enactment, not the LO.

It is the authority which has always issued distress to its bailiffs or now instructs the EA to use the procedure via the council tax regs and the LGFA. The liability order is just a legal mechanism for ensuring that the debt is legally due and issued to the authority.

 

So as far as the implied right of access contained in the LO or the relevance of the LO in this, the simple truth is there isn't any.

[Peterbard]

Seems to have caused some consternation, although not on here , do we need to start a thread to discus the enforcement of liability orders or is everyone on here ok ?

[Peterbard]

Seems to have caused some consternation, although not on here , do we need to start a thread to discus the enforcement of liability orders or is everyone on here ok ?

 

Yes it isn't complicated, pointless starting a thread for the benefit of some halfwit FMOTL elsewhere.

[herbie171]

Has anybody ever seen a liability order?, I asked my council to send me the liability order they claimed they had, still waiting months later

[outlawla]

Has anybody ever seen a liability order?, I asked my council to send me the liability order they claimed they had, still waiting months later

 

The liability order would exist in most (if not all) cases in the form specified as 'Form B' in Schedule 2 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. That form relates to the liability of council tax and costs of all people on the complaint list (typically 1,000 plus).

 

The other form specified as Form A in Schedule 2 is used (or should be used) for individual cases where a defendant has turned up to challenge the proceedings or has sent in written evidence/defence. Whether councils use liability order Form A appropriately is another matter.

 

It is logical that the bulk order (Form B) would be thought appropriate only for those cases where the liability is not challenged (for example on the grounds that the costs charged are unreasonable).

 

Regulation 35(1) (SI 1992/613) provides that where representation is made about the costs charged, the relevant person's case should be individually assessed. Not alot of councils would like to admit that.

[Bailiff Advice]

The liability order would exist in most (if not all) cases in the form specified as 'Form B' in Schedule 2 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. That form relates to the liability of council tax and costs of all people on the complaint list (typically 1,000 plus).

 

The other form specified as Form A in Schedule 2 is used (or should be used) for individual cases where a defendant has turned up to challenge the proceedings or has sent in written evidence/defence. Whether councils use liability order Form A appropriately is another matter.

 

It is logical that the bulk order (Form B) would be thought appropriate only for those cases where the liability is not challenged (for example on the grounds that the costs charged are unreasonable).

 

Regulation 35(1) (SI 1992/613) provides that where representation is made about the costs charged, the relevant person's case should be individually assessed. Not alot of councils would like to admit that.

 

 

To ensure that this thread does not suffer the same fate as many others by going 'off topic' I will start another thread on this subject. For the avoidance of doubt, Form A and Form B are NOT forms addressed to the debtor (in a similar way that a warrant would not be addressed to the debtor either). This was evidenced in the wording:

 

On the complaint of (name of billing authority) that the sum of £xx is due

from the defendan

t

to the complainant under Part V of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement( Regulations 1992 and is outstanding, it is adjudged

that the defendant

 

Also, there is no requirement to use any of the forms.

[outlawla]

To ensure that this thread does not suffer the same fate as many others by going 'off topic' I will start another thread on this subject. For the avoidance of doubt, Form A and Form B are NOT forms addressed to the debtor (in a similar way that a warrant would not be addressed to the debtor either). This was evidenced in the wording:

 

On the complaint of (name of billing authority) that the sum of £xx is due

from the defendan

t

to the complainant under Part V of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement( Regulations 1992 and is outstanding, it is adjudged

that the defendant

 

Also, there is no requirement to use any of the forms.

 

Is the last statement in the above post opinion or fact?

[Bailiff Advice]

Is the last statement in the above post opinion or fact?

 

If the statement that you refer to is the following:

 

'There is no requirement to use any of the forms"

 

Then the answer is fact. There are no such forms (Form A and Form B) and neither are they provided for in the regulations.

[outlawla]

If the statement that you refer to is the following:

 

'There is no requirement to use any of the forms"

Then the answer is fact. There are no such forms (Form A and Form B) and neither are they provided for in the regulations.

 

Presumably, if 'there are no such forms (Form A and Form B) and neither are they provided for in the regulations', then there has been an amendment to Regulation 35(1) which provides for (or used to provide for) the following:

 

Liability orders: further provision

 

35.—(1) A single liability order may deal with one person and one such amount (or aggregate amount) as is mentioned in regulation 34(7) and (8) (in which case the order shall be in the form specified as Form A in Schedule 2, or a form to the like effect), or, if the court thinks fit, may deal with more than one person and more than one such amount (in which case the order shall be in the form specified as Form B in that Schedule, or a form to the like effect).

 

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Presumably, if 'there are no such forms (Form A and Form B) and neither are they provided for in the regulations', then there has been an amendment to Regulation 35(1) which provides for (or used to provide for) the following:

 

 

Correct.

 

I had only been made aware myself after being contacted by a member of CIPFA who had read a post of mine on the forum. The change was introduced many years ago following the dreadful LIBRA project.

[outlawla]

The amendment is SI 2003/2211, the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2003.

 

Though there is nothing explaining in that amendment the reasons why the forms are no longer prescribed, the explanatory note to the Welsh amendment (SI 2003/1715) does give this as the reason:

"

....

The Lord Chancellor’s Department have recently conducted a review of the forms used in Magistrates' Courts and now wish to implement a new set of forms which are all to have a consistent style. As part of this process, it is necessary to de-prescribe the forms of Liability Order and of Warrant of Commitment mentioned above

...

Presumably the amended regulation, 35(1), is as follows:

 

Liability orders: further provision

 

35.—(1) A single liability order may deal with one person and one such amount (or aggregate amount) as is mentioned in regulation 34(7) and (8), or, if the court thinks fit, may deal with more than one person and more than one such amount.

 

Thankfully, the provision for dealing with a single Liability Order (for example, where someone wishes to defend costs individually) has not been affected by the de-prescribed forms.

[Bailiff Advice]

The 2003 amendment was the one that I was referring to and the reference to the changes being implemented following the LIBRA project are contained in one of the Council Tax Information Letters that I sent to you long ago.

[ploddertom]

I think we are more than a little off track now and this would be better discussed in a thread of its own in the Local authority Forum.

[Peterbard]

Apologies for posting on this old thread. There have been some absurd allegations that the case referred to in this thread was a figment of the OP's imagination, could BA state where she obtained the information regarding this case, or failing that give alternative authority for it, in order to set the record straight please.

[ploddertom]

Is that someone here or elsewhere? If here then can we link to their thread, if from elsewhere then I don't see why, they can search for their own.

[Bailiff Advice]

Apologies for posting on this old thread. There have been some absurd allegations that the case referred to in this thread was a figment of the OP's imagination, could BA state where she obtained the information regarding this case, or failing that give alternative authority for it, in order to set the record straight please.

 

Thank you DB for your concern. I am fully aware of the silly allegation having received a number of messages earlier this evening.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the case was (Thornton v Rossendales Ltd) had initially been brought to my attention by the country's expert on bailiff law; John Kruse following a superb article that he had written after he had reviewed the transcript. In fact, he has actually written two separate articles about the case (one for a trade journal). I have sent him copies of the comments made today.

 

In 2013, the 'author' of the allegation posted the following comment on the internet:

 

"I am a free person in the meaning of the 1689 Bill or Rights because I am not a slave that can be traded from one keeper to another"

 

Clearly a comment from an individual who supports the "Freeman" nonsense.