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

[brassnecked]

I wonder how those people putting up or sending the notices would react if they were 'blacklisted' from police, fire and ambulance services attending through their non-payment of CT and deliberate avoidance?

 

Then those blacklisting them might find themselves in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights or Human Rights Actif someone was hurt as a result of non attendance of the Fire or Ambulance service. Many of these notices are a desperate attempt by people to prevent an aggressive bailiff when they cannot affford to pay all in one go due

[tomtubby]

I know of nobody who "deliberately" avoids Council Tax (other than Roger Hayes who didn't pay out of principle but didn't deploy a notice). A quick read through threads on here outline the genuine situations that many find themselves in.

 

 

The vast majority of people in arrears are nearly always the weak, the poor, the vulnerable or people who have trouble communicating, it is spiralling quite rapidly out of control. Figures confirm that since it was introduced in 1992 that debtors are increasing on an annual basis-Surely you would agree that this is not down to more & more people deliberately avoiding payment?

 

 

Your above post is completely accurate and in particular, your reference that the vast majority of people subject to bailiff enforcement are the weak, the poor, the vulnerable or people who have trouble communicating. Sadly, it is precisely these people that are the ones that websites with associations to Freeman on the Land movement prey on.

 

Debtors with communication problems are easy prey as they are told that instead of writing a letter to outline their circumstances and an affordable payment plan that 'deploying the NOROIRA' will revoke all bailiff enforcement.

 

Debtors with severe financial problems are the next easy target to hoodwink into paying a fee of between £10-£15 to download a "NOROIRA".

 

If the various websites (and there are many of them) had an ounce of compassion they would advise debtors of the pitfalls to beware of if the bailiff were to ignore the notice. None of them do so.

 

With the new regulations just 3 weeks away it is of vital importance that debtors are made aware that if they fail to respond to the letter from the bailiff company within 7 days that they will NOT be able to avoid an 'enforcement' visit and with it.....a fee of £235 being added to the account.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

An interesting observation Fletch

 

 

Are you saying that a man/woman who is CERTIFIED by the court, not appointed, has authority to come knocking?

 

 

****Or have you just done your usual trick & completely mis-understood other peoples posts? ****

 

 

A bailiff acting on behalf of the courts & indeed under the orders of a court may well have special powers. A "door stepper" acting on behalf of a local authority however has no more power than any other member of the general public.

****Very good analysis.****

[HCEOs]

Are there non-certificated bailiff ''door steppers" sent by the council then?...

[tomtubby]

 

A "door stepper" acting on behalf of a local authority however has no more power than any other member of the general public.

 

 

I am unsure of your definition of 'door stepper' but if you are referring to a certificated bailiff enforcing a Liability Order (granted by the Magistrate Court) then you are WRONG......they certainly have more power than any other member of the general public!!!

 

Could you clarify...

[mikeymack2002]

Ok crazy time here, atm if you display this notice then the Bailiff still knocks ok.

 

 

What IF this notice is displayed after April 6th the Bailiff under command visits, sees the notice and "decides" that he will then take a photograph, does not cross the imaginary line, makes a note that they had ATR/ATL this Will incur extra fees, (just what they want,) they return to the office and then makes the file known to the office manager who then tells the Bailiff to return this time knocking on the door, adding yet more fees, this time they still win.

 

 

The only reason to deploy the notice is to CLEARLY state to the Bailiff "I WANT TO PAY MORE FEES PLEASE" the Bailiff will ALWAYS say ok added to your debt thank you very much, to put it in a nutshell this notice is more useless than a empty thought, toilet tissue has more use than this drivel.

 

 

People the only notice you need to show is that you NOTICE you are in trouble and SPEAK to the creditor straight away before you get to see ANY BAILIFF, less than 2 weeks to go before the debtor will be HAMMERED make use of these last few days before the new higher fees come in.

 

 

As a Police Officer is attending to "prevent" a breach of the peace, I for see many more arrests for this offence in the very near future, this will mean more fines for the offence,

 

 

A man's home is his castle but to a Bailiff it is an ATM

 

 

MM

[fletch70]

I think this is my fault .

What I was trying to say was that people confuse the types of bailiffs so for example someone from Marshall Hoare Bailiffs are (as far as I know) nothing more than a DCA so if anyone turned up claiming to be from such a firm then they have no power and the notice would be effective.

 

Maybe a sticky on what type of bailiffs there are and what power they have would be a good idea. I can not see one at the moment.

[mikeymack2002]

Fletch you have nothing to worry about, most normal people will deal with a bailiff correctly and make arrangements to pay the outstanding debt, those that deploy this notice are the ones that want to AVOID paying and are subject to false advise.

 

 

If you look at the stickies you will find that over several they tell you what bailiffs can and cannot do, You will find that only some bailiffs are over bearing and most will treat you with some form of respect, but if you have a go they simply abide by the statutes that they work under, the job of a bailiff is to acquire funds in the shortest time possible, but they WILL always add more fees if they can for whatever LAW allows them too, this will prove VERY expensive to those deploying the "NORIROA"

 

The bailiffs that operate as DCA's know they CANNOT use their bailiff warrant to enforce as a DCA, it would cost them their job and certificate, a risk to great for them to take. you can always read this if you wish

https://www.gov.uk/your-rights-bailiffs/what-you-can-do-when-a-bailiff-visits

 

MM

[fletch70]

Fletch you have nothing to worry about, most normal people will deal with a bailiff correctly and make arrangements to pay the outstanding debt, those that deploy this notice are the ones that want to AVOID paying and are subject to false advise.

 

 

If you look at the stickies you will find that over several they tell you what bailiffs can and cannot do, You will find that only some bailiffs are over bearing and most will treat you with some form of respect, but if you have a go they simply abide by the statutes that they work under, the job of a bailiff is to acquire funds in the shortest time possible, but they WILL always add more fees if they can for whatever LAW allows them too, this will prove VERY expensive to those deploying the "NORRIA"

 

 

MM

 

MM

Thanks for that

Yes I am sure that most will treat the debtors with respect but of course they have a job to do.

There are so many myths out there about what a bailiff can and can not do and what you should do if visited. I do not agree that everyone who posts the NORRIA is a debt dodger, many may just be desperate and have found what they think is a way of delaying action

 

I also think that these TV programs that show Bailiffs at work do not help as they tend to show people inviting bailiffs into the home or even bailiffs breaking in (without the back story)

 

On another note I believe that the reason there has been an increase in CT liability orders and hence visits is down to a hardening of attitudes by local councils for a variety of reasons.

[mikeymack2002]

The real idea for deploying the NORIROA is to get the bailiff to think he is NOT allowed to cross this imaginary line, but they can and will regardless if is deployed, anyone worth their salt will always try their best to get out of debt before the bailiff gets involved, but after April 6th this type of debt IS going to spiral out of control, anyone that gets a visit WILL be very upset at the new fees regime, taking even more money than they have left, so all the bailiff will do is SEIZE much more often.

 

 

This in turn will make the debtor angry the Police step in maybe arrest the debtor, this is going to be a huge mess, so all a debtor can do is clear and talk to creditors at a much earlier stage, I think that the Police will attend much more readily to prevent a breach of the peace, due to bailiffs seizing a persons chattels, even though these are of little value at auction they are of value to the debtor, it maybe all they have left in the world and no way is a bailiff taking them, hence the need for POLICE ATTENDANCE BY THE BAILIFF, this again will only hurt the debtor.

 

 

MM

[The Starving Taxpayer]

Are there non-certificated bailiff ''door steppers" sent by the council then?...

 

 

I very much doubt it in this day & age-Websites such as this will have put paid to that. I believe most council contracts stipulate not only must bailiffs be certified but also be employed directly as opposed to self employed.

 

 

TT-"door stepper" was Fletch's description-I interpreted it to mean someone who comes knocking on your door. We will have to agree to disagree on whether I am wrong or not. A liability order is not authorisation or instruction from the court to enforce a debt. It is simply confirmation that a particular person is liable for it. A council may then consider the next stage in the recovery process which may be to engage enforcement agents or alternatively, they may decide to apply for an AOE. A private bailiff has no powers greater than a member of the general public UNLESS/UNTILL a debtor enters into a walking possession agreement.

 

 

MM-You are so wrong in stating that only people who want to avoid paying CT deploy notices. Firstly, there is no way of avoiding paying & a debtor will either end up paying or go to prison & then end up paying. Secondly, most people who deploy the notices do so because they don't want the high pressure situation of a bailiff visit or the potential exposure to excessive fees. You are right however, from April, it looks like a bailiff may only need to visit & not cross the boundries of a property for the fee to be valid.

[mikeymack2002]

Seen it far too often the notice is rubbish end of, not worthy of discussion, as far as I go to say they deploy it is to avoid talking the bailiff, they WILL NEVER go away will it? These notices are not worth the paper they are written on just ask anyone that knows different.

 

 

A bailiff can and will always knock on the door or cross boundaries' because they are allowed too, but I am not getting into discussions with drivel.

 

 

MM

[Peterbard]

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/45/made

 

Distress

45. (1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.

 

Also if a debtor is confined to prison for council tax the debt is expunged.

[fletch70]

Personally I think that this thread has become very very confusing

 

When I refered to doorsteppers I was referring to people who pass themselves off as certified bailiffs or HCEO's and give the debtor the fear that everything is about to be taken away

 

To be honest the case that TT talked about seemed pretty stupid, someone invoiced a bailiff for £750 and then took them to court, that IMHO is no more relevant than the inoices suggested by FMOTL sites for letters sent to DCA's

 

Again my understanding is that the CT liability order gives the council the power to take what action it deems fit, as i said I also think that councils are becoming less and less reasonable as time goes on for a variety of reasons. Of course an AOE is for a fixed % and has total disregard for the debtors ability to pay

 

Finally , again my understanding is that Bailiffs are only used in limited circumstances , reposessions , CT liabilty, Court orders and when a creditor has gone back to court to get enforcement. There are only repossessions(rental and mortgaged) and court fines where they are allowed to force entry.

 

I do believe that on the whole bailiff visits should be avoidable but there will be times when the debtor has been unable to deal with the situation either through their own issues or some bloody minded jobs worth and yes they do exist.

 

Final comment is a reply to the Brigadier, if you have nothing constructive to say then say nothing. See you nest year...no where is ben

[The Starving Taxpayer]

Seen it far too often the notice is rubbish end of, not worthy of discussion, as far as I go to say they deploy it is to avoid talking the bailiff, they WILL NEVER go away will it? These notices are not worth the paper they are written on just ask anyone that knows different.

 

 

A bailiff can and will always knock on the door or cross boundaries' because they are allowed too, but I am not getting into discussions with drivel.

 

 

MM

 

 

I wasn't questioning the validity of the notices, more so your attitude towards the people who deployed them.

 

 

FYI, I didn't deploy any last year, I did however send 3 on behalf of 3 separate debtors to the individual companies head office & not once did the bailiffs return.

[tomtubby]

 

I think this is my fault .

What I was trying to say was that people confuse the types of bailiffs so for example someone from Marshall Hoare Bailiffs are (as far as I know) nothing more than a DCA so if anyone turned up claiming to be from such a firm then they have no power and the notice would be effective.

 

Maybe a sticky on what type of bailiffs there are and what power they have would be a good idea. I can not see one at the moment.

 

 

 

With the exception of maybe one or two all STICKIES will need to be redone by 6th April.

 

Hopefully within the next week the Ministry of Justice will release further information about the complaints procedure and the transitional provisions. We are still awaiting info regarding the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. Once all of this is made available new STICKIES can be put together.

[ploddertom]

With the exception of maybe one or two all STICKIES will need to be redone by 6th April.

 

Hopefully within the next week the Ministry of Justice will release further information about the complaints procedure and the transitional provisions. We are still awaiting info regarding the National Standards for Enforcement Agents. Once all of this is made available new STICKIES can be put together.

 

I have a plan. Providing I'm not too busy this weekend I'll run it passed you.

[tomtubby]

Blimey..what is going on!! Please stop arguing as this is merely making an important subject go 'off topic'.

 

This thread is vitally important and after April 6th it is anticipated that there will be over 4 million Liability Orders issued (against a figure of 3.3 million for last year). Debtors need to be aware that if they are encouraged to 'deploy a NORIROA' then this will lead to a bailiff attending their property and applying a fee of £235. Also, if the debt is not paid at the time of the visit goods (in particular vehicles) will be removed IMMEDIATELY. The 'sale fee; of £110 will be added and daily storage fees applied.

 

The present position (and this is confirmed in the Rossendales judgment on the previous page is that a bailiff is NOT deemed a trespasser. Under the new regulations the same applies.

 

Crucially, common law also gets repealed from 6th April.

 

The bizarre 'NOROIRA' is a worthless document now and even more so from 6th April.

[The Starving Taxpayer]

The Norwich case involved a claim for compensation for trespass.

 

 

You have to be stupid to claim ridiculously high fees for such a triviality.

 

 

I suspect the Claimant was an air head & Rossendales realised (s)he could be taken to the cleaners.

 

 

I would never bother claiming for damages, I would simply challenge the validity of fees if the notice had been ignored. As stated, the 3 times I sent one ended with bailiffs not returning in all 3 cases.

 

 

reg 45 states a bailiff is not deemed a trespasser by any irregularity within the LO, nothing else.

[fletch70]

TT

I realise that this is a very important subject and with only weeks to go even more so. Surely though it does not stop the discussion of what can and can't be done.

 

Your interest and intention may be for certified bailiffs and HCEO's but it has other uses as well.

 

Now are you saying that the notice will stop the bailiff coming to your door but they will charge you for the visit or are you saying that the bailiff will come to your door anyway.

 

If it is the latter then having the notice there is really not relevant in these circumstances however if a person is in debt with other credit and has various DCA's on the case it may be of some use.

 

The other point you failed to mention is that a decision in the county court is not binding but persuasive and I can find many a contradictory county court judgements where debt is concerned.

 

All that aside, what exactly are you saying will happen if the notice is in place when a bailiff arrives?

[Peterbard]

TT

I realise that this is a very important subject and with only weeks to go even more so. Surely though it does not stop the discussion of what can and can't be done.

 

Your interest and intention may be for certified bailiffs and HCEO's but it has other uses as well.

 

Now are you saying that the notice will stop the bailiff coming to your door but they will charge you for the visit or are you saying that the bailiff will come to your door anyway.

 

If it is the latter then having the notice there is really not relevant in these circumstances however if a person is in debt with other credit and has various DCA's on the case it may be of some use.

 

The other point you failed to mention is that a decision in the county court is not binding but persuasive and I can find many a contradictory county court judgements where debt is concerned.

 

All that aside, what exactly are you saying will happen if the notice is in place when a bailiff arrives?

 

The notice is ineffective on a bailiff because he does not depend on an implied right of access. He is enforcing an order of the court.

 

As we know baiiffs cannot force entry in the first instance when enforcing a liability order, however the means if gaining peaceful entry are well documented in common law, through an open window or door.

 

Do we then think that this ability to enter property does not apply to walking up the garden path and knocking on the door.

[Crapstone]

Perhaps my saying 'deliberate avoidance' was harsh. But when it comes to Bailiffs people have to realise that they need to limit the damages and not let it get that far. Shoving your head in the sand and putting up worthless notices is doing nothing other than adding to the bill and it just adds up if they keep having to return.

 

Proving a Tort of Trespass is difficult and you have to prove a loss. From what I have learnt they have to have been there previously and denied a return as it would then be trespass. A letter sent before a visit would not be trespass. But if you were visited by a DCA then you can instruct them to leave the property and not return as that would then be trespassing.

 

What could you claim for really? Loss of enjoyment of the property? Bailiffs have a right to be there to recover the debt, rightly or wrongly someone has to do it. By the time the Bailiffs are involved people have had plenty of time to contact the claimant and make arrangements. It seems more like people that are trying to play the system that are using the notices and not ones that are vulnerable. Well that's my view on it...

[The Starving Taxpayer]

Yes, your original quote was a bit harsh.

 

 

I agree 100% with you that people should deal with these situations before it reaches the crisis point of bailiff action. Unfortunately, as I mentioned previously, there are people out there who struggle to communicate, there are people who tend to bury their heads in the sand out of fear of the situation. Then of course there are the weak and vulnerable, many with mental health issues. My feeling is that councils are ruthless, cold hearted bodies who totally lack compassion, understanding or care for people within the communities that they are charged to serve.

 

 

I used a notice on 3 separate occasions and all three times were for single mothers who were on their own. Two were frightened & intimidated by persuasive male bailiffs visiting and both had incurred steep bailiff fees in the past (some of which were subsequently found to be illegal) Why should these women be exposed to bailiff visits and abuse of legislation in order to maximise commission when they are not legally obliged to? Neither was trying to avoid payment, they just wanted the opportunity to pay the council directly.

 

 

This site actively encourages debtors not to deal with bailiffs, my personal experience is that using a notice assists in fastracking the debt back to the council. These people are more or less living hand to mouth-Sometimes it is a harsh choice between food or £10 in your pay as you go electric meter or paying council tax. Sometimes they don't even have that luxury of choice and it is none of the three. This is the life people are living today and the reason why council tax debt is spiralling out of control. This in itself should tell you that there is something drastically wrong with the system-It is certainly not the system that John Major promised us back in 1992 when CT was first introduced.

 

 

With regards the tort of trespass, again, I agree with you. I see no real reason why a person could claim for loss or damages just because someone has walked on their drive/path. This is clearly why the Norwich case was doomed to failure from the onset. In the notices that I send, I do not include a fee for trespass. The sole reason that I send notices is to protect the debtor. A private bailiff working as a debt collector for a local council would not be acting in the execution of his/her duty if implied right of access had been removed. All subsequent fees would be invalid. Likewise, if a bailiff is asked to leave a property before commencing a levy, he/she must do so immediately as implied right of access has again been removed. A notice is just putting in writing what a debtor may say verbally.

[Peterbard]

Sending one of these notices will not "fast-track "anything anywhere, the bailiff company will ignore it, as it has no legal power.

 

However a letter stating that the debtor is a vulnerable person or even that he will categorically not permit the levy, and/ or has no goods to levy, may result in the bailiff not bothering to call, as it would not be worth their while.

It would depend on the circumstances and the debt history, from what you have said there were previous failed visits which could have been on record, in these cases it is possible that the order would have been returned and other recovery measures used.

 

This is unlikely to happen after April however.

 

The problem is that people who are given the advice to use these notices think that it is a viable option as opposed to making a repayment arrangement, as a result they end up with more charges and costs.

[tomtubby]

 

The Norwich case is not publicised in any case so cannot be referred to

 

 

May I just correct a misunderstanding. The 'Norwich case' that you refer to is the one featured in post number 1 of this thread.

 

Like all County Court Judgments it is not publicised as such but that does NOT mean that it cannot be referred to at all.

 

I have seen a copy of the transcript of the 'Norwich case' and so too had John Kruse. In my post number one I had included extracts from an article written by him after he had reviewed the transcript.