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

[Peterbard]

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.

te.

As you say all legation is checked for compliance before it becomes law.

 

Therefore any action taken under that legislation would be compliant, if it wasn't it would be actionable as a breach of the particular statute.

 

If the statute is accused of breaching EU law there is a procedure which must be followed and during the long process the statute in question is permitted to continue to function. This is an interesting subject but not for this thread.

 

This thread is about the withdrawal of implied rights of access, you are talking about the role of the EU in the enforcment process it is a different subject.

[p3t3r]

hi, my reply is in blue...

 

te.

As you say all legation is checked for compliance before it becomes law.

No, I have not said that. Also, as far as I know, absolutely no UK legislation is checked for compliance against EU law!

All legislation is assumed to be in compliance with that of EU law, that is until either a claimant or defendant applies EU law to their court case. For example, it could be possible for a defendant to use EU law in conjunction with their notice of implied rights against the bailiff.

 

Therefore any action taken under that legislation would be compliant, if it wasn't it would be actionable as a breach of the particular statute.

No, there are many instances of where UK legislation has been overruled by that of EU law / ECHR. UK legislation is assumed to be in accordance with EU law and the Judge/ Courts would assume this unless a claimant or defendant relies on EU law within their case.

 

If the statute is accused of breaching EU law there is a procedure which must be followed and during the long process the statute in question is permitted to continue to function. This is an interesting subject but not for this thread.

 

This thread is about the withdrawal of implied rights of access, you are talking about the role of the EU in the enforcment process it is a different subject.

I am talking about the implied rights of access in conjunction with that of EU law.

 

If you insist on discussing the implied rights of access alone, then, legally it has no effect on bailiffs who have rights under statute to be on the premises.

However, I am talking about the implied rights of access when used in conjunction with EU law. I am not talking solely about EU law. Using EU law which trumps that of UK law, then imo, the notice becomes valid. However, it is not valid if it does not take into account additional rights provided by EU law.

 

European law overrides individual countrys laws. This has been happening for over 50 years!

 

It is up to the claimant or defendant to enforce their rights under EU law. Using EU law in conjunction with the notice of removal of implied rights of access would carry more weight / validity rather than just using the notice by itself.

 

As I have already said, it would make an interesting court case if someone were to use this notice and EU law...

Although, the type of person to use this notice is probably doing so in an attempt to keep the bailiffs away as they can not pay their council tax / mortgage etc... Probability is that they do not have the money to test the validity of this notice in conjunction with EU law in a court, otherwise, they would have paid their council tax / mortgage etc.

[Peterbard]

You are taking this way off topic, if you wish to continue with me at any rate start another thread.

 

 

Oh and yes all primary legislation is checked for compliance with the human rights legisltion before it goes under the hand of the monarch. But yet again another topic.

[p3t3r]

You are taking this way off topic, if you wish to continue with me at any rate start another thread.

As I have said, I am talking about the title of the thread in conjunction with EU law. It would seem nonsensical to start a new thread to discuss the exact same thing as this thread.

 

 

 

Oh and yes all primary legislation is checked for compliance with the human rights legisltion before it goes under the hand of the monarch. But yet again another topic.

No it is not. It is not checked for its compliance with EU law... If it were then why is it possible for people to make an appeal against a UK courts decision based upon UK legislation to that of an European court?

There are many instances whereby UK legislation has been overruled by EU law.

Earlier in this thread, Judge Pugh provided the conclusion against the validity of the notice of implied right of access. That is based upon UK legislation. Had the case been tried using EU law, then an alternative conclusion may have been formed. The UK courts do not automatically assess cases using EU law, they only do this if the claimant or defendant indicates EU law in their case.

[Peterbard]

It does not work like that I am afraid.

[p3t3r]

It does not work like that I am afraid.

 

What does not work like what ???

 

EU law trumps UK law - period!

 

Judge Pugh was IMHO correct in the decision that the notice of removal of implied right of access did not apply to the bailiff, but that case only used UK legislation. It did not take into account EU law. Had the case used elements of EU law, then the outcome would probably have been somewhat different. Judge Pugh did not have to consider any EU law, it would only have been considered if the claimant or defendant used EU law.

 

I am confused by your last post when you said "it does not work like that", you don't provide any explanatory detail as to your opinion.

[Peterbard]

Well i could explain it to you, but it would be OFF TOPIC!!!

[p3t3r]

right, well, I am only speaking about the title of this thread in conjunction with EU law. certainly not off topic as you repeatedly suggest!

 

you can not explain your statement of:

It does not work like that I am afraid.

because you say:

Well i could explain it to you, but it would be OFF TOPIC!!!

 

Speaking / discussing the title of this thread in relation to EU law is IMHO certainly not off topic. Although, you accuse me of being off topic on a few occasions (which I disagree with), yet, you have yourself on 2 occasions speaking with me admitted to writing things that are off topic or for another thread.... Yet you can't answer / explain your statement of:

It does not work like that I am afraid.

 

EU law trumps UK law. The point I am making in this thread is in relation to the thread (not off topic) and includes a different perspective of the Judge Pugh case as it calls on the additional elements / protections offered by EU law. IMHO, had the notice been used in conjunction with that of EU law, then the outcome of the case would have been totally different.

 

I can not for the life of me see what I have said which is off topic as you state.

[Bailiff Advice]

Crumbs this thread has gone so far off topic that anyone viewing will be so damn confused.

[p3t3r]

lol i seriously can not see how I have caused this thread to go off topic?

 

I apologise if i have caused the thread to go off topic, but I can not see how.

 

I am discussing the thread title in conjunction with EU law... imo, NOT off topic!

[lookinforinfo]

P3t3r I take it that you accept that it is enshrined in English Law that EAs are not trespassing when visiting a debtor on their property?

 

Moving on to European Law are you saying that there is not a similar permission for EAs with regards to trespass and that an appeal to the ECHR might mean that

the NOROIRA notices could be declared Lawful. Or are you saying that the Law already exists there and if so could you kindly point us to it.

[josephbloggs]

Might as well just get rid of uk law then and stop calling us england and just have one big country called europe by this guys logic

And while we at it stop paying bills because no one can do anything because it infinges our human rights??

[Peterbard]

As said it is not that simple, you cannot just chose which law you want to use. The court wil decide whichever legislation is applicable under the system of law in which it operates. Appeal to Europe would follow a long procedure of appeals to other courts possible ending p at supreme court before being transferred for consideration under EU law.

 

The human rights issue is completely different subject, in the final stages before an act is passed into law there is a procedure for checking that it conforms with the human rights requirements. it would be pointless for it to be otherwise, as it could be challenged and found useless at a later date, and basically a waste of everyone's time if this were not so.

 

However this does no mean that legislation cannot be challenged if someone feels that it is impinging on their human rights, and breaches one of the amendments.

 

Contrary to what many think however this is not just a matter of saying to the judge, sorry I am not paying this fine because it breaches my human rights, people have to bide by the law.

If someone thinks the legislature is at fault a representation must be made to the supreme court, they will then make a decision as to the validity of the claim, this can then be appealed to the lords (Wilson Vs firs trust).

In the mean time the law will continue to function as it was written until such a time that parliament can re write and approve the defective section.

 

In severe cases where there is obvious and imminent effect on public interest this can be circumvented by ministerial intervention.

 

Although what any of this has to do with implied rights of access is anyone guess.

[p3t3r]

P3t3r I take it that you accept that it is enshrined in English Law that EAs are not trespassing when visiting a debtor on their property?

 

Moving on to European Law are you saying that there is not a similar permission for EAs with regards to trespass and that an appeal to the ECHR might mean that

the NOROIRA notices could be declared Lawful. Or are you saying that the Law already exists there and if so could you kindly point us to it.

 

I have already said within this thread that 'British' Law makes a provision for an enforcement agent to visit a debtor. The same has also been shown in this thread from the ruling by Judge Pugh.

 

The NOROIRA notices are lawful. Again, this has already been shown by the ruling from Judge Pugh. However, Judge Pugh did state that the bailiff had the right to be on the debtors premises as British Law makes provision for this. As discussed by myself earlier, Judge Pugh did not take into account EU law, - the claimant did not proceed with their case using EU law and in turn used some incomprehensible 'Freeman On Land' absurdity. (apologies for calling that absurd, I've only heard about that this week when looking at this thread and still trying to understand it fully).

 

As for pointing you to the law, again, I have already discussed this in the thread. ECHR, human rights, EU law.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6358591.stm

 

lookingforinfo, everything you have asked me - I have already discussed in this thread.

 

 

Bailiffs and the Human Rights Act

 

The Human Rights Act, which came into force in October 2000, may see bailiffs being used less frequently. Part of the Act protects your right to 'peaceful enjoyment of possessions and respect for your privacy, family life and home'.

In practice, this should mean that courts and public authorities use bailiffs more as a last resort, and should consider using less intrusive and distressing ways of getting you to pay what you owe. These include:

 

• Benefit deductions;
  
• Attachment of earnings; and
  
• Voluntary payment arrangements.
  

I came across this earlier whilst looking for something else and wonder if it has any implications or if anyone has explored this avenue. I appreciate it may be old and out of date but it does seem to suggest the Council should treat the Bailiff as a means of last resort.

 

PT

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2795900

[p3t3r]

Might as well just get rid of uk law then and stop calling us england and just have one big country called europe by this guys logic

And while we at it stop paying bills because no one can do anything because it infinges our human rights??

 

Your post is nonsensical and you make broad assumptions.

[p3t3r]

hi dodgeball,

As said it is not that simple, you cannot just chose which law you want to use.

Yes you can choose, as I have already outlined in this thread. But to outline it again for you.... If for example you go to court for a house repossession, the court will be using UK statute law. It would be upto the claimant to bring attention to their rights under EU law.

 

The court wil decide whichever legislation is applicable under the system of law in which it operates.

UK courts use UK law.. It is upto the claimant or defendant to use EU law.

 

Appeal to Europe would follow a long procedure of appeals to other courts possible ending p at supreme court before being transferred for consideration under EU law.

 

The human rights issue is completely different subject, in the final stages before an act is passed into law there is a procedure for checking that it conforms with the human rights requirements. it would be pointless for it to be otherwise, as it could be challenged and found useless at a later date, and basically a waste of everyone's time if this were not so.

Again, you make an assumption that UK law conforms to that of the rights afforded to citizens under EU law. Again, I ask you to provide an example as to how you assume this (since you couldn't supply answers earlier)

There are many instances whereby UK statute law was found to be incompatible with that of EU Law.

However this does no mean that legislation cannot be challenged if someone feels that it is impinging on their human rights, and breaches one of the amendments.

Yes, correct! Eureka! That is what I have been talking about! I have already said that the ruling from Judge Pugh would have possibly had a different outcome had the claimant used EU law.

 

Contrary to what many think however this is not just a matter of saying to the judge, sorry I am not paying this fine because it breaches my human rights, people have to bide by the law.

I have not suggested that paying a fine breaches human rights. You accuse me of going off topic? lol

 

If someone thinks the legislature is at fault a representation must be made to the supreme court, they will then make a decision as to the validity of the claim, this can then be appealed to the lords (Wilson Vs firs trust).

In the mean time the law will continue to function as it was written until such a time that parliament can re write and approve the defective section.

Yes. though i am not sure of wilson v. firs

 

In severe cases where there is obvious and imminent effect on public interest this can be circumvented by ministerial intervention.

 

Although what any of this has to do with implied rights of access is anyone guess.

I don't know.... Perhaps you going off topic (again) like you have accused me of doing?

[p3t3r]

Maybe this article will explain it a little better...

 

Bailiffs and the Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act, which came into force in October 2000, may see bailiffs being used less frequently. Part of the Act protects your right to 'peaceful enjoyment of possessions and respect for your privacy, family life and home'.

In practice, this should mean that courts and public authorities use bailiffs more as a last resort, and should consider using less intrusive and distressing ways of getting you to pay what you owe. These include:

 

• benefit deductions;
  
• attachment of earnings; and
  
• voluntary payment arrangements.
  

http://www.steedandsteed.co.uk/cms/article/dwddealingwithbaliffs

[Peterbard]

"Again, you make an assumption that UK law conforms to that of the rights afforded to citizens under EU law. Again, I ask you to provide an example as to how you assume this (since you couldn't supply answers earlier)

There are many instances whereby UK statute law was found to be incompatible with that of EU Law. "

 

I make no such assumption you should read what I said, I said that legislation was checked for compliance with human rights, has been since 2005 or so. If for instance you look at the TCEA which is the act we are talking about, this was clearly checked for human rights issues and if you look at hansard great pains were taken in ensuring it was(this i kknow for certain). This does no t mean that the legislation is compliant and people can still maintain that it is not, people can maintain what they like, but they would have to prove it.

 

Incidentally you are fooling no one, this argument is straight off the FMOTL GOODF website.

[Peterbard]

Your post is nonsensical and you make broad assumptions.

 

This is insulting to a knowledgeable poster, and besides it is incorrect, BN makes a perfectly good point which is supported 100% by the way our legal system operates and illustrates the illogical nature of your argument.

[p3t3r]

hello!

 

I make no such assumption you should read what I said, I said that legislation was checked for compliance with human rights, has been since 2005 or so. If for instance you look at the TCEA which is the act we are talking about, this was clearly checked for human rights issues and if you look at hansard great pains were taken in ensuring it was(this i kknow for certain).

If you know it for certain, please can you supply me a link so I can learn who or what checked its compatibility?

If it was checked for compatibility, then is also the 'rubber stamping' of council tax liability orders checked also?

 

This does no t mean that the legislation is compliant and people can still maintain that it is not, people can maintain what they like, but they would have to prove it.

Yes, of course, which is what I have said in this thread. Though, I think that nobody has proceeded with this under EU law as of yet.

 

Incidentally you are fooling no one, this argument is straight off the FMOTL GOODF website.

I do not intend to fool anyone as you suggest. I have read a little of FMOTL website this week and have apologised for my opinion in that I consider it to be absurd. Can you provide me a link to this argument as I haven't yet read it.

 

What is the GOODF website?

 

 

edit... ive googled GOODF, first hit is getoutofdebtfree? you mean this website?

[Peterbard]

All this nonsense should be on another thread, or better still on another forum.

[p3t3r]

My summary, so far...

 

The Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access - this is a perfectly valid notice, - my opinion of this is backed up by the ruling from Judge Pugh which is shown earlier in this thread.

The notice is akin to 'No Cold Callers' notices which are supplied by various police forces, councils etc.

 

In relation to bailiffs, the notice is not considered to be valid. Firstly, there is no implied right of access for a bailiff since it is an explicit right. The bailiff has the right to attend the property and as such ignore the notices.

 

IMPORTANT: Anyone relying on this notice to get rid of the bailiff is more likely to suffer financially since they are presumably under the illusion that such a notice would simply get rid of the bailiff. In this instance, the notice is absolutely useless because the bailiff does not have an implied right whatsoever, the bailiff has an explicit right - which is backed up by UK legislation which affords such right to the bailiff. Again, this is backed up by Judge Pugh.

 

So, whilst the notices are akin to 'no cold callers' notices and apply to the vast majority of people, the notices do not apply to people who have a legal right to attend your home. The bailiff has a legal right in UK law to attend a debtors home.

 

The reliance on such notices by individuals can lead to a dangerous scenario since the individual is under the false illusion purported by FMOTL that the notices are valid. Again, to put it simply, the notices are not valid to anyone who has a legal right to attend a home - and this includes bailiffs who are given the legal right to attend a home.

 

Now, turning to a possibility as to how the notice is valid against bailiffs. EU law, ECHR, human rights... Lets take an example of council tax. If a debtor can not pay council tax, then their ability to pay should be assessed by a court. My opinion: If the person does not have an ability to pay, then allowances should be made by the court. In no circumstance should a liability order be granted on a person who does not have an ability to pay their council tax since as this is perverse! There is absolutely no point in instructing bailiffs to attend a debtors home and therefore significantly increase the debt by adding on bailiff fees.

However, in the case of a debtor who can afford to pay but does not pay, then bailiffs should attend. IMO, bailiffs should be used as a last resort against the debtor who refuses to pay where all other possibilities have been exhausted such as deductions from benefits, salary deductions etc.

 

There are IMO various EU laws which would help with the validity of the Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access.

Firstly, the right to a fair trial. There is absolutely no fair trial in the scenario of council tax where liability orders are processed almost automatically, 'rubber stamped' by the Judges. This goes against ECHR article 6, the right to a fair trial.

 

If the debtor has not had a right to a fair trial as defined by ECHR article 6, then the bailiff should be informed of this in conjunction with ECHR article 8, the right of respect for his home, family etc.

 

The debtor should make their case known to the bailiff and the bailiffs client.

 

If the bailiff does not leave the property after being informed of ECHR article 6 and article 8, then it could be argued that the bailiff is in violation of those applicable laws. This is my opinion and until someone actually tests the legality of this in a court, then it is just that, an opinion.

 

A (BBC?) report which can be seen from one of my links in this thread from a few years ago states that the use of bailiffs should decrease since the human rights act. Unfortunately, I feel the reverse has happened in the fact that liability orders are rubber stamped and as such bailiff use has increased rather than decreased.

 

Again,I reiterate that use of such notices are ineffective against bailiffs and other people who have a legal right under UK legislation to attend the home of a debtor. However, as Judge Pugh has outlined, the notices are valid toward those people who do not have a legal right to be at the property.

 

Usage of such notices used in conjunction with that of various EU laws and human rights should IMHO prevent the bailiff from attending the property until such time that a FAIR TRIAL (article 6 ECHR) has occurred. The debtor should then escalate their case using ECHR and EU law in order to provide remedy.

 

Summary: Notice of implied right of access is perfectly valid, but not valid against people (bailiffs) who have an explicit legal right to attend. However, such right should be examined under EU law since I feel that more often than not, article 6 has been violated (fair trial) which would then lead to article 8 violated.

 

EU law / ECHR - This trumps UK law! Whilst people may have an explicit right under UK law to attend a debtors home, this is not necessarily so using EU law.

[Peterbard]

You see you start of here with a perfectly reasonable precis of what has been already said on this thread then you go off topic and seem to suggest that the whole council tax procedure contravenes the human rights act, then you say that people can quote atricle 6 and 8 to bailiffs and they will have to withdraw, you then site a BBC piece which was written when the TCE was going through parliament and the content of which have nothing to do with the position today.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

 

This thread is about the withdrawal of implied rights, how are EU laws implied ? You see how i struggle to see how these points are relevant to this thread.

 

Are you saying that other notices could be drafted using EU law which wold have a similar effect, if so then start another thread and we will examine your theory.

[p3t3r]

hi again!

You see you start of here with a perfectly reasonable precis of what has been already said on this thread then you go off topic

You constantly accuse me of going off topic. As far as I am concerned, speaking about the subject topic in conjunction with EU law is not off topic.

 

and seem to suggest that the whole council tax procedure contravenes the human rights act,

No I do not.

 

then you say that people can quote atricle 6 and 8 to bailiffs and they will have to withdraw,

Again, NO I do not say this.

 

you then site a BBC piece which was written when the TCE was going through parliament and the content of which have nothing to do with the position today.

IMO the content is relevant today. I don't know what TCE is, although the BBC article (from what I remember of it) illustrates my point of human rights and EU law

 

I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

The point? The subject of the thread! In conjunction with EU law!

 

This thread is about the withdrawal of implied rights, how are EU laws implied ?

EU laws are not implied.

 

You see how i struggle to see how these points are relevant to this thread.

Relevant since I am discussing the thread title in conjunction with human rights and EU law.

 

Are you saying that other notices could be dratted using EU law which wold have a similar effect,

Again, NO.

 

if so then start another thread and we will examine your theory.

I am unsure how you can examine my theory when you have refused to answer questions and ignored questions. As I have already said, my theory can only be examined if someone takes this matter to court using EU law and its outcome can be assessed.

[unclebulgaria67]

This seems to be an argument being held on CAG and a bailiff advice site.

 

I thought that it was up to UK courts and UK parliament to consider EU law. UK citizens enjoy the EU law rights which a UK government has agreed to sign up to, but UK law applies in the first instance, with any arguments about whether actions contradict EU laws to be decided by a UK court, when the argument is put to them.