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

[Bailiff Advice]

B.A. I think we all know that in this particular case much of what has been written is not against generic FMOTL websites but one site in particular. Playing devils advocate, how many of the 17000 visits are unique and how many are the same people getting email notifications and just having a peak.

 

Dodge, I am not sure I agree that sending a notice removing IRA is sticking your head in the sand , it is just a way of making sure you do not get people knocking on your door, this is obviously more DCA related than bailiff related . Again from what I see the three letter process seems more DCA related and while I do not believe they have any merit they may have the desired result if the DCA decide it just isn't worth the effort .

 

I still think that far too much effort is being put into this , it is becoming a not very productive crusade

 

Fletch,

 

I think that if you were to view the Beat the Bailiffs Facebook page you will see for yourself that the matter of these notices (and the reliance upon them) by unsuspecting debtors is of great importance indeed.

[brassnecked]

Fletch,

 

I think that if you were to view the Beat the Bailiffs Facebook page you will see for yourself that the matter of these notices (and the reliance upon them) by unsuspecting debtors is of great importance indeed.

They cannot deny access to someone legally empowered to call end of.

[Peterbard]

 

Dodge, I am not sure I agree that sending a notice removing IRA is sticking your head in the sand , it is just a way of making sure you do not get people knocking on your door, this is obviously more DCA related than bailiff related .

 

HI fletch, I think that the first part of this sentence contradicts the second.

 

Referring to baiiff enforcement, the letter form the bailiff will be the end of a long period of letters and request for payment, this is usually brought to and end by the knock on the door, usually the previous have been ignored, now the idea seem to be to ignore this method as well, to me this is just a device seeking to further put off the moment when the debt has to be addressed.

[fletch70]

Hi Dodge

I am not so sure, I did say that I understood that the case I was describing was more to do with DCA's who as we all know behave terribly and bully people . There will also be timnes where people are really not up to dealing with these things. I can remember having to sort out some debts for my late wife who had just piled the post up . It was shortly before she died but she could have ended up with a CCJ and enforcement action without knowing it.

 

 

P.S i am famous

[mikeymack2002]

Why is this thread keep going around in circles with the same arguments its pointless, nothing new being discussed at all

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Why is this thread keep going around in circles with the same arguments its pointless, nothing new being discussed at all

Because its a continuously evolving subject and the thread must be kept alive in the hope of educating people that may fall foul of these silly little letters.

 

These letters are becoming more and more common and are costing unsuspecting individuals AND COMPANIES(yes a company has tried to use one) thousands of pounds. These notices just make an EA more determined if nothing else. Childish, i know, but there it is.

[Peterbard]

Yes Grumpy there are a number of daft ideas and misconceptions which need to be constantly addressed unfortunately, because misinformation is always out there.

 

I am also sick of hearing that EA's need to apply for an additional warrant to force entry on a fine enforcment, this needs stressing also, they do not, no idea where this rubbish keeps coming from.

[mikeymack2002]

Seriously is there a point that can be made within one post now its boring, if you want to help a debtor with bailiff issues go and do it discussing a thread that is a roundabout is just helping no one is it.

 

 

Some say they work some say they don't some even say what is the point but some say enough already please no point in carrying on with a post that does nothing but add to conjecture.

 

 

This thread has gone on so long with the same argument far too many times. If you want to help a debtor get sorted then advise accordingly, if not use emails to discuss this thread its going NO WHERE

[Peterbard]

MM This is a big forum, if this thread annoys you in some way then go and post elsewhere

[mikeymack2002]

What annoys me is that fact none of you have even considered the amount of time wasted on this thread could be channelled to helping others that DO need help so why waste the time here?

[Peterbard]

There is no one needing help in the bailiff section currently that I am aware of ?

 

edit, besides if the site team or anyone else spots someone they know where we are.

 

What interests me is why you are so intent on getting threads closed down

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Well go and channel your help then MM and leave us to it. We dont wish to waste anymore of your time.

[brassnecked]

Well go and channel your help then MM and leave us to it. We dont wish to waste anymore of your time.

 

 

I have decided that the next Excel Enforcement EA that calls at mine as he has the wrong address TomTom not working around here and they often get right number wrong street will have the hosepipe turned on him or I clamp his van. Will I get a nice holiday at Her Majesty's pleasure, for obstructing him? after all he has no business with me so the NOIROA should apply as he has a warrant to a different address. not mine.

 

I am trying to inject a little black humour as the NOIROA cannot work with an EA, except his warrant says 10 Acacia Avenue but he fetched up at 10 Acacia Drive where the named debtor doesn't live, EA waffles on about DPA won't take the proof he is at wrong address so will get the hosepipe treatment as in a good soaking.

[Bailiff Advice]

Because its a continuously evolving subject and the thread must be kept alive in the hope of educating people that may fall foul of these silly little letters.

 

These letters are becoming more and more common and are costing unsuspecting individuals AND COMPANIES(yes a company has tried to use one) thousands of pounds. These notices just make an EA more determined if nothing else. Childish, i know, but there it is.

 

Can I just say what I hope is a FINAL post on this thread.

 

The thread is clearly important and if regular posters on here do not want to read it then please refrain from doing so and refrain also from posting critical comments about the thread. I am actually quite pleased that the thread was re-started by a poster a week ago as it has provided an opportunity to update the thread with new information following the new bailiff laws in April 2014 and prove even more so that these notices are worthless.

 

As someone who spends all day...every day..... speaking with debtors (no longer on a commercial basis) who are subject to bailiff enforcement I can tell you with all honesty that these notices are a continual problem and yes.....they are costing many vulnerable debtors a lot of money as they post these notices outside of their home (or post them to the enforcement company) in the mistaken belief that their bailiff problems will end and the debts will be returned back to the local authority or the court and bailiff fees die.....only to find that the notice is ignored and a bailiff attends the property and additional fees of £235 are applied.

 

 

The above poster (GrumpyToSayTheLeast) is a frequent contributor on the forum and he is a bailiff (which he does not hide). He has provided a lot of useful information on the forum. His above comment about these notices should be taken into serious consideration.

 

Please...... no more arguing. As I say I hope that this is my FINAL comment on this thread and unless there is anything about the regulations etc that may have have been missed then I do not think that there is any further need for anyone to be posting further on this subject.

[Peterbard]

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.

 

Since April last year all enforcement by taking control of good is enabled and legislated by the TCE.

 

As far as the rights of the Bailiff to take control of goods there is no difference between the various debt types other than those prescribed within the act.

The act does not differentiate between the right to attend.

[Coughdrop]

I was not intending posting on this thread any more, but given the comments since yesterday evening, I am going to. It's not intended to cause any offence or prolong a post unnecessarily, just commenting on what has gone before.

 

I don't think these notices are costing vulnerable debtors a lot of money. Whatever money they cost would would have been charged anyway. It is possible, they may be leading them into a false sense of security, depending whether you believe they work or they don't work. Also, if debtors are vulnerable, then they need to provide some proof of this and their vulnerability will be taken into consideration (possibly resulting in the debt being returned, possibly not).

 

I think also we have to appreciate and respect the fact people have different opinions, and are perfectly at liberty to express them here. I often read comments I don't agree with, and one sure fire way of pretty much ensuring I post is to tell me not to - I know I'm awkward in that respect, but that's me I'm afraid.

[fletch70]

B.A.

Although I agree that the concepts examined in the thread are important your attempt at stifling free and open discussion really are against what I hold dear . I do not think we are talking about ways of circumnavigating the bailiffs here , and as Cough has said, if you post this up on your front gate and the bailiff turns up then only a fool would expect not to be charged the fee. There seems to be a general consensus across several forums that these letters only work where there is no legally enforceable right of access which will depend on the authority of the person coming to your door . I would suggest that if someone has been authorised in law to come a knocking it doesn't matter what you put up.

[Peterbard]

It is question of giving straightforward advice to people really, Tom in Manchester or Dick in Lichfield do not understand the intricacies, they just need to be told the truth and that is that their notices do not work.

[p3t3r]

This thread takes a lot of time in understanding!

 

So far, what I understand is this:

 

Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access - this applies to anyone unless there is legislation in place which provides a right of access, such as legislation concerning bailiffs. (or for postman, or someone lost etc)

 

As UK legislation concerns bailiffs right to enforce a debt, then that legislation trumps the notice of removal of implied right of access - since the legislation covers the bailiff.

 

ECHR trumps UK legislation!

 

If a bailiff were to call at a home and see the notice of removal of implied right of access, then the bailiff can use UK legislation which gives the bailiff the right to ignore such a notice.

But as far as I know, ECHR trumps UK legislation.

 

Take a scenario of failing to pay council tax - from what I have learnt, council tax liability orders are more or less 'rubber stamped' - which imo goes against ECHR, article 6, rights to a fair trial. Further failing to pay the debt or liability order would then probably result in bailiffs being involved. ECHR article 8:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ECHR trumps UK legislation.

 

ECHR combined with such a notice of removal of implied right of access would trump UK legislation, making UK legislation giving the bailiff the right of access to be void.

 

To bring ECHR into a legal argument at a later stage is not considered as an abuse of process as far as I know.

 

Notice has no effect on bailiffs in itself since UK legislation provides a way for bailiffs, though as I said, the notice in conjunction with ECHR, then the ECHR trumps the UK legislation.

 

Just my thought... This thread is quite complex to understand / learn.

[Peterbard]

B.A.

Although I agree that the concepts examined in the thread are important your attempt at stifling free and open discussion really are against what I hold dear . I do not think we are talking about ways of circumnavigating the bailiffs here , and as Cough has said, if you post this up on your front gate and the bailiff turns up then only a fool would expect not to be charged the fee. There seems to be a general consensus across several forums that these letters only work where there is no legally enforceable right of access which will depend on the authority of the person coming to your door . I would suggest that if someone has been authorised in law to come a knocking it doesn't matter what you put up.

 

Yes some cant seem to get it through their heads that the rights are explicit not implied, they are contained via the power in the warrant and using the procedure in the legislature, as Judge Pugh said there is no need to look behind the legislation.

[p3t3r]

Yes some cant seem to get it through their heads that the rights are explicit not implied, they are contained via the power in the warrant and using the procedure in the legislature, as Judge Pugh said there is no need to look behind the legislation.

 

ECHR trumps UK legislation?

[fletch70]

ECHR does not in itself trump UK legislation. Now if it were a judgement from the european court of justice it would cause difficulties

[Peterbard]

ECHR trumps UK legislation?

 

Council tax enforcement procedure is ECHR compliant.

 

This is not really on topic for this thread, but if you want to discus European law in context with council tax please start another thread.

[p3t3r]

I thought that all UK legislation was applicable, unless a person brought ECHR into question.

 

For example, if a bank were in the process of repossessing someones home, such a notice of removal of implied right of access would not stop the bailiffs from taking repossession of the home because the bailiff has the right under UK legislation.

 

If the person then relied on ECHR, then my opinion is that the bailiff doesn't have a right, unless it were decided within a court that UK legislation is superior to that of EU law.

 

That is probably a bad example as the person can stop the repossession using a precedent of 'Norgan Minimum' and the Administration of Justice Acts.

It is just an example of bailiff and removal of implied rights.

 

UK courts must give effect to UK legislation that is compatible with ECHR.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/oct/09/human-rights-eu-law-powerful article showing that EU law does infact trump UK legislation, or laws passed by parliament.

 

Going back to my previous example of someone home being repossessed by the bank. UK law states the bailiff can repossess the home, though EU / ECHR law would seem to dictate otherwise. UK courts would not take into account ECHR unless the person themselves brings this as a defence as to why their home should not be repossessed. It is not an abuse of process to bring ECHR into the argument if it had not already been used previously in the case.

 

You say that a judgement from the european court of justice would cause difficulties, in the article (link above). Yes, it would certainly cause difficulties for bailiffs attempting to collect council tax from those people who are not in a financial position to pay it, it would cause difficulties for many bailiffs if EU law was applied.

 

UK law / legislation is secondary to that of ECHR. UK courts do not take into account EU law unless it is used as a defence / claim.

 

Just my opinion. Whilst the notice in itself does not apply to bailiffs, the notice used in conjunction with ECHR and EU law would apply to bailiffs.

[p3t3r]

Council tax enforcement procedure is ECHR compliant.

 

This is not really on topic for this thread, but if you want to discus European law in context with council tax please start another thread.

 

I was discussing European law in context with the subject of this thread, - Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access. I think to start a new thread discussing this thread in conjunction with EU law is a little pointless, sorry.

 

You say that council tax enforcement procedure is ECHR compliant. All UK legislation is ECHR compliant unless a court defines otherwise.

 

It would make for an interesting court case if someone were to use the notice of removal of implied right of access in conjunction with their rights under EU law.

 

UK Courts rely on UK legislation. It is only when the claimant or defendant brings up the matter of EU law that EU law is then considered.