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

[Bailiff Advice]

I notice tonight that this thread has had 30,580 views. Absolutely incredible figures and once again demonstrates the huge public interest in this subject.

 

There is a further thread that I started a year ago that outlines in detail the history of these daft notices and I notice tonight that that thread has also been viewed many thousands of times.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from

 

A few days ago I was reading a recent article in a trade journal regarding this subject (Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access) and the overall opinion is that whilst these notices were fairly common in 2013 the current position is that even the popular Freeman on the Land websites rarely suggest their use.

[caledfwlch]

Funny how, when expected to pay a tax or fine, the Freemen believe the Courts/Government do not have the authority to do so, making odd claims such as, Magistrates Courts are "Admiralty" Courts.

 

Yet, they recognise the Government when it comes to receiving benefit handouts, and they recognise the Courts when the people who have attacked or burgled them, or someone owes them money and they go for a CCJ.

 

Your purple quote is utterly bizarre - What on earth has an Enforcement Agent trying to collect a debt got to do with being a slave and exchanged from one Master to another!

[brassnecked]

Funny how, when expected to pay a tax or fine, the Freemen believe the Courts/Government do not have the authority to do so, making odd claims such as, Magistrates Courts are "Admiralty" Courts.

 

Yet, they recognise the Government when it comes to receiving benefit handouts, and they recognise the Courts when the people who have attacked or burgled them, or someone owes them money and they go for a CCJ.

 

Your purple quote is utterly bizarre - What on earth has an Enforcement Agent trying to collect a debt got to do with being a slave and exchanged from one Master to another!

Slavery was abolished in the UK in 1833, so that Bill of Rights quote was obsolete from then, actual dealing as in passing from one master to another was abolished in 1807. FMOL is snake oil.

[Bailiff Advice]

Funny how, when expected to pay a tax or fine, the Freemen believe the Courts/Government do not have the authority to do so, making odd claims such as, Magistrates Courts are "Admiralty" Courts.

 

Yet, they recognise the Government when it comes to receiving benefit handouts, and they recognise the Courts when the people who have attacked or burgled them, or someone owes them money and they go for a CCJ.

 

I am the most staunch supporter of anyone who may be vulnerable and naturally that includes anyone on benefits but the sad fact is, that your above comment is absolutely correct....although you have missed something. FMoTL supporters have an overwhelming dislike for the 'establishment' and an almost hatred for the police force. And yet, it is the police that they call the moment a bailiff visits their home.

[brassnecked]

I am the most staunch supporter of anyone who may be vulnerable and naturally that includes anyone on benefits but the sad fact is, that your above comment is absolutely correct....although you have missed something. FMoTL supporters have an overwhelming dislike for the 'establishment' and an almost hatred for the police force. And yet, it is the police that they call the moment a bailiff visits their home.

Many FMoL people are professional agitators funded by benefits, and yes will use the police as if they are a pawn.

[Peterbard]

Yes thanks BA.

I have read both the articles myself sometime ago, but I felt that it was for you to clear the matter up.

 

As an aside, I think that most on here are sick to the back teeth of these slurs and downright unfounded lies propagated about you and this forum.

You/we offer a threat to their nonsensical beliefs and it has to be said business interests and it seems that they will go to any lengths, including libel and slander to intimidate people into allowing them to continue giving there harmful advice.

 

I would suggest that this has now gone far enough and some more severe measures should be taken to protect the reputation of the innocent parties concerned.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

As an aside, I think that most on here are sick to the back teeth of these slurs and downright unfounded lies propagated about you and this forum.

 

You/we offer a threat to their nonsensical beliefs and it has to be said business interests and it seems that they will go to any lengths, including libel and slander to intimidate people into allowing them to continue giving there harmful advice.

 

I would suggest that this has now gone far enough and some more severe measures should be taken to protect the reputation of the innocent parties concerned.

 

It is the extreme popularity of this forum and elsewhere that causes these 'activists' (because that is what they are) to spout such rubbish. Yesterday's nonsense was that the Rossendales v Thorntons's case was ficticious and that I could personally be punished by being sent to prison for 12 months.

 

I know perfectly well that any advice that I provide is 100% accurate and I will continue to provide that advice.

 

It is truly remarkable that this thread has received over 650 more visitors overnight. It is simply madness how popular this subject is.

[Peterbard]

In regard to any previous arguments represented by this case.

 

Although the section referred to in the council tax regs no longer exists the common law quoted is of course still applicable, and if there was trespass, there would have to be a civil action for damages, and here are none.

 

The legislative background of enforcement has changed greatly now of course and all enforcement, whether via writ warrant or enactment , for civil or criminal debt must use the TCE, this is not a matter of opinion.

 

The current daft idea is that the notice will work on one kind of debt and not another, this is moronic nonsense as ALL debts are (to repeat myself) enforced using the same procedure.

 

This idea comes about in the same way that FMOTL ideas usually do, at cause is someone who once read s book on bailiff law and became an expert, the problem with this is that they do not have a clue how the law works in the wider sense, so make idiotic unfounded and it has to be said moronic statements.

[josephbloggs]

It is the extreme popularity of this forum and elsewhere that causes these 'activists' (because that is what they are) to spout such rubbish. Yesterday's nonsense was that the Rossendales v Thorntons's case was ficticious and that I could personally be punished by being sent to prison for 12 months.

 

I know perfectly well that any advice that I provide is 100% accurate and I will continue to provide that advice.

 

It is truly remarkable that this thread has received over 650 more visitors overnight. It is simply madness how popular this subject is.

 

Have to ask, have you begun to post on BTBATB as there was 1 poster yesterday giving out excellent advice which is a first for that group.

[silverfox1961]

Have to ask, have you begun to post on BTBATB as there was 1 poster yesterday giving out excellent advice which is a first for that group.

Even if she was, she wouldn't stoop so low as to admit it here.

 

I wouldn't worry about the post on the other site, they will soon be either shot down or disappear

[colin11]

Even if she was, she wouldn't stoop so low as to admit it here.

 

I wouldn't worry about the post on the other site, they will soon be either shot down or disappear

 

Actually that is not correct, there are a few giving good advice, and I think the powers to be are encouraging it

 

Sure there is still a lot of bad advise, but that is the nature of it's instant response nature, and the fact anyone can give advice

[caledfwlch]

I would suggest that this has now gone far enough and some more severe measures should be taken to protect the reputation of the innocent parties concerned.

 

Do you mean reporting these people charging to act as so called Mackenzie Friends, and then after lying and misleading the Client into paying the fees to be represented in Court, then find themselves losing and being whacked with thousands of pounds in charges? because the MOJ needs to take serious action urgently on this issue.

 

I was always under the impression that Mackenzie Friends were supposed to be volunteers helping people out in Court, not acting as a contractor and charging the Client?

 

Maybe a quick decision and clarification by the MOJ that anyone who charges to act as an MF be banned from entering any Court.

[Peterbard]

Yes I went on there some time ago and advised on a consumer credit issue and received a thank you from one of the team. I find it almost impossible to keep track of the posts though, this may be due to my basic knowledge of how FB operates.

 

It is a shame that the FMOTL have such a presence on there, the use of the ridiculous three letter system as espoused by Butterfingers and others on GOODF for instance, but as you say there is also some reliable advice.

[colin11]

The trouble is the 3 letter system for quite a few, seems to work

 

Now i don't doubt for a second that the successful ones have had unenforcible debts written off and a simple prove it letter would have done the same job

 

The thing that worries me is, a lot are expecting the 3 letters to work, but are now receiving claim forms in response

[Bailiff Advice]

Have to ask, have you begun to post on BTBATB as there was 1 poster yesterday giving out excellent advice which is a first for that group.

 

I tried sending you a PM (do you not have one)?

 

Great to hear that sensible advice is being given out on there and long may it continue.

 

After all, it could save a debtor being arrested for cutting off a wheel clamp, having her car removed to the pound and facing huge additional fees (all because she believed that if a bailiff left a clamp on the car for more than two hours that he has abandoned the levy!!!).

[Coughdrop]

There is a ground swell towards lawful rebellion at the moment which is evident in many places. I've spotted it on some motoring forums of which I'm a member. However, one also has to remember we should be careful about stereotyping people. Many on benefits are not there out of choice and have no connection with FMOTL; similarly many FMOTL are not on benefits.

 

As for professional agitators, that's a rather ironic term, as some of the arrests of 'professional' agitators are indeed professionals - teachers, lawyers, policemen - people from many walks of life.

 

Stereotyping groups of people often incites hatred and dislike rather than helps. Just my opinion!

[Peterbard]

The trouble is the 3 letter system for quite a few, seems to work

 

Now i don't doubt for a second that the successful ones have had unenforcible debts written off and a simple prove it letter would have done the same job

 

The thing that worries me is, a lot are expecting the 3 letters to work, but are now receiving claim forms in response

 

Yes it has no legal basis, various daft ides are said to work, when in fact creditors fail to escalate to proceedings in court in more than 80% of cases in any case(blood out of a stone sydrome).

The same for so called sucesful use of these notices, you would be as well writing that there is vulnerability or that you have no goods etc. it may have a simmilar effect, although in the case of EA now that the enforcement stage fee is due upon attendance, even if no goods are seized it will be unlikely.

[Bailiff Advice]

Actually that is not correct, there are a few giving good advice, and I think the powers to be are encouraging it

 

And that must be very ecouraging. The Freeman on the Land idealogy is actually becoming very worrying indeed and more so given that almost noblby understands what it is.

[silverfox1961]

There is a ground swell towards lawful rebellion at the moment which is evident in many places. I've spotted it on some motoring forums of which I'm a member. However, one also has to remember we should be careful about stereotyping people. Many on benefits are not there out of choice and have no connection with FMOTL; similarly many FMOTL are not on benefits.

 

As for professional agitators, that's a rather ironic term, as some of the arrests of 'professional' agitators are indeed professionals - teachers, lawyers, policemen - people from many walks of life.

 

Stereotyping groups of people often incites hatred and dislike rather than helps. Just my opinion!

 

While not wanting to stereotype anyone, I like this post from the Crimbodge website. (I may have previously posted it but can't remember)

http://crimebodge.com/freemen-of-the-land-are-pseudo-intellectual-babbling-nutcases/

[unclebulgaria67]

I thought the new rules were going to solve all of the issues and there would not be any grey areas to cause confusion.

 

FMOTL and bailiff advice sites rely on lack of clarity in the law/rules, plus the conflict between EA and the debtor.

 

Too many councils using EA companies early in the debt collection process, to replace collection staff they have made redundant. Too many PCN's issued as a revenue raising exercise to make up for less money from central government.

 

This thread just allows the same old debate to go on between the conventional CAG type advice and the interesting advice that is offered elsewhere. People on the Internet will always look for interesting advice, because they think it will deal with the problem, putting off paying a debt. You cannot win, but you can keep repeating factual information, answering the queries posted. No point having a pointless debate, that will go on until the cows come home.

[Bailiff Advice]

Included in the comments being made elsewhere about the case of Thornton v Rossendales is the many solicitors have been asking where details can be obtained but more importantly, that Norwich County Court have stated that they have received many request for details as well.

 

This thread has now run to 15 pages (could have been much shorter if it were not for the ECHR arguments and the nasty comments from the internet troll (Starving Taxpayer...aka Mark1960). I think that it would be far better if this thread was closed and I can then start a new thread with a far better title to include the case name.

 

I can get the new thread started later this afternoon. In the meantime, I will send copies of both John Kruse's articles to regular posters on the forum who have shown an interest in this subject.

 

PS: I know that you have read both articles DB.

[SabreSheep]

Closing thread as requested