The Powers of Forced Entry

[caledfwlch]

This isn't quite Bailiff's as such, but might apply.

 

I have been watching a few videos created by activists who help consumers when Utility Companies turn up with an warrant to force entry and do a meter safety check, or indeed change meter to a pay one.

 

The claim the activists make is that a Warrant of Entry only allows the Locksmith to drill the locks, that they may not use any other means to force entry.

 

In a particular video, the door is secured by bolts as well as locks, and after 20 odd minutes of drilling the Locksmith still cannot get in since the door also has bolts.

 

The Representative of British Gas then starts asking for permission to come in so the locksmith can replace the lock he has spent 20 minutes destroying. Activist: "Will you check the meter if we do that?" British gas Rep: "Yes" so is told to go forth and multiply, the home owner will replace the lock and bill British Gas.

 

The employees and the Locksmith then depart - which suggests that the activist is actually correct, and the warrant of forced entry only allows lock drilling - from the force the locksmith was "accidently" using whilst coming to the end of drilling , it would have not taken much in terms of a big chap putting the boot or shoulder in to break the bolts.

 

So, any thoughts? And would this apply to an Enforcement Agent.

 

Best bit of the video is a Constable admitting he hasn't seen a Warrant, doesn't understand what powers the Warrant would allow, or indeed if using force beyond drilling the locks would be allowed, but he is still going to support British Gas, despite repeatedly claiming to be impartial. And as someone supposedly impartial and only there to prevent a breach of the peace, they went off with British Gas employees several times for private chats.

 

Just to add, these guys, such as the "Trial by Social Media" Chap, do not appear to be Freemen, or in anyway related to that insane ideology.

[mikeymack2002]

Gas safety checks are arranged by the LL. Having seen this video a while ago my question was why did they both leave without completing the job. The copper was of no use and the fact they did not correctly follow procedure was a joke...

 

 

Have you watched some of the others on the same subject?

[caledfwlch]

Gas safety checks are arranged by the LL. Having seen this video a while ago my question was why did they both leave without completing the job. The copper was of no use and the fact they did not correctly follow procedure was a joke...

 

 

Have you watched some of the others on the same subject?

 

Watching others at the moment.

 

Basically, the energy company know full well there is no health and safety issue - they want entry to replace the meters with payment meters - the problem is, under the 1986 act which allows them to replace meters, they are not allowed to force entry, they can only do so with permission of the debtor.

 

So, they go to court, lie on oath that there is a H&S issue, and get a criminal entry warrant under the 1954 act, ie, there is a suspicion the meter is leaking or gas/electric is being stolen, even though they actually want entry to replace the meter with a payment one.

 

In other words, they are committing fraud and contempt of court every single day, abusing legislation designed to protect health and safety and stop criminals who have fiddled the meters to get free energy, in order to get access and put a payment meter in.

[Bailiff Advice]

There does seem to be a problem surroundings the court granting warrants to gain entry to change a gas meter etc and one particular person (initials only; MG) seems to have an extremely high level of success in getting the courts to reject applicants (for warrants). This is an area that I have virtually no knowledge about so cannot comment either way.

 

If you are viewing the same videos and the person is MG it is my understanding that he is not an FMoTL activist.

[josephbloggs]

His people skills especially when talking to the police leave a lot to be desired

[obiter dictum]

Obvious question

 

The home owner is never told the utility company is applying for a warrant on any given day

 

So how can the home owner then turn up in a magistrates court and argue the warrant not be issued??

[brassnecked]

Bear in mind a Landlord is duty bound under the law to carry out an annual gas safety check, and a Landlord of any description must carry one out and yes some of these warrants are for that purpose, nothing else, no check Landlord gets collar felt if the check is not carried out. The other one where the utility forces entry almost at will by lying to gain entry needs looking at PDQ.

[caledfwlch]

Obvious question

 

The home owner is never told the utility company is applying for a warrant on any given day

 

So how can the home owner then turn up in a magistrates court and argue the warrant not be issued??

 

The problem is, they should be notifying!

 

They have to send what the MG chap refers to as a "Human Rights Notice" giving a customer the opportunity to turn up in court to argue against a warrant being granted. The one particular video highlights this, as someone in United Utilities office had clearly designed the Notification to be extremely misleading, and as pointed out, there was no way it was a system fault.

 

The Date the warrant was given as going before a Magistrate was 6.10.2015

The date they would then visit to enforce the warrant if granted was 16.06.2015!!!

MG realised, they had entered the date it was in court using American dating convention, but the date of visit was in UK dating convention, had it been a system error, both dates would have been in American. Instead it was clearly designed to stop the Debtor from going to court - as BA points out, MG for example gets many if not all these warrants denied. Because he gets the tenant, property owner or Landlord to hire a Corgi Plumber to do a full gas safety check (or electrician for electric meter) and take the certificate to court, which stops a Warrant under the 1954 act being granted, as the new Certificate proves there is no danger of the meter being unsafe, or being fiddled with and used to illegally extract power.

 

A Warrant under the 1986 Act, brought in when payment meters came into being only allows Entry by permission of the Resident, it does not allow a forced entry.

 

The bit I was wondering, whether it could be brought to apply to Enforcement Officers (Except presumably for EA's and HCEO's performing an eviction) is according to MG, the Warrant of Forced Entry only confers on a Locksmith the power to drill the locks - if the door is also bolted from the inside, he or she is not allowed to then use further force, such as a boot or shoulder to smash the bolts off, or smashing a window, if drilling the locks does not work they must withdraw.

 

The proof appears to be in the pudding, as in one video, when as he was told before he even began, the lock drilling failed to gain entry as the home was also secured with the bolts, so he and the British Gas reps were forced to leave.

 

Interestingly from that particular video, it was obvious that young children were inside (they were screaming in terror) and the British Gas rep seemed to believe he did not need to do a risk assessment on the forced entry going ahead, despite the fact kids may be right behind the door and injured.

[dx100uk]

is this not mark1960....in the video.

 

 

dx

[Bailiff Advice]

is this not mark1960....in the video. dx

 

No it is not... and it may not even be MG (who is one of the moderators on the Beat the Bailiff and the Banks Facebook page).

 

I suspected that it was MG before reading caledfwlch's post above but I now not so sure. MG is NOT in favour of the silly FMoTL nonsense.

[caledfwlch]

No it is not... and it may not even be MG (who is one of the moderators on the Beat the Bailiff and the Banks Facebook page).

 

I suspected that it was MG before reading caledfwlch's post above but I now not so sure. MG is NOT in favour of the silly FMoTL nonsense.

 

The youtube channel is under the name of Trial by Social Media, and the guy is based in Lancashire.

 

He hasn't come out with any FMOTL stuff in the videos I have watched. I am sure he mentions in one that he is something to do with the beat the banks and bailiffs facebook page.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI5IqHfQ8rLsqdO9owZ0FGw is the youtube channel, I have only watched the Utility Company stuff though, but he appears to go by what the legislation says - its the thing about not being able to force entry beyond drilling the locks that had me interested and wondering if it would apply to EA's acting on a Fine.

 

BA - the chap's initials are indeed MG, just watching another video which states his name.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

BA - the chap's initials are indeed MG, just watching another video which states his name.

 

Is his surname Gixxxrd?

[caledfwlch]

Is his surname Gixxxrd?

 

It is indeed.

[Bailiff Advice]

The youtube channel is under the name of Trial by Social Media, and the guy is based in Lancashire.

 

He hasn't come out with any FMOTL stuff in the videos I have watched. I am sure he mentions in one that he is something to do with the beat the banks and bailiffs facebook page.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI5IqHfQ8rLsqdO9owZ0FGw is the youtube channel, I have only watched the Utility Company stuff though, but he appears to go by what the legislation says - its the thing about not being able to force entry beyond drilling the locks that had me interested and wondering if it would apply to EA's acting on a Fine.

 

BA - the chap's initials are indeed MG, just watching another video which states his name.

 

Yes, it is the same person and he really is proving hugely sucessful with these gas and electricty warrants and it would seem that he is now is demand for giving radio interviews on the subject.

 

As to your question regarding whether or not the arguments posed by him would have any success with debts being enforced by bailiffs...the simple answer is NO.

[Bailiff Advice]

The person behind the Trial be Social Media channel is Mark Gillard and I have spoken with him on numerous occasions over the past three months. He is aware of this thread and he has asked me to make clear on the forum that his personal view is that whilst FMoTL may have some interesting principles, it is nonetheless, bullsxxt (his words not mine) and that none of their theories work in today's courts.

 

He is adamant that in order to oppose an application for a warrant, (for a gas or electricity meter) you must only rely upon current legislation that the government has created and use it to demonstrate to the courts and the police where it is being breached or abused.

[caledfwlch]

The person behind the Trial be Social Media channel is Mark Gillard and I have spoken with him on numerous occasions over the past three months. He is aware of this thread and he has asked me to make clear on the forum that his personal view is that whilst FMoTL may have some interesting principles, it is nonetheless, bullsxxt (his words not mine) and that none of their theories work in today's courts.

 

He is adamant that in order to oppose an application for a warrant, (for a gas or electricity meter) you must only rely upon current legislation that the government has created and use it to demonstrate to the courts and the police where it is being breached or abused.

 

What I would be interested in seeing where forced entry is defined - as we said, when he makes the point about the warrant only allowing the locks to be drilled, if the door is further bolted, the utility people withdraw, so its clearly correct, I just wondered if it is actually in the 1954 gas act or other legislation.

 

In one of his videos, Mark is accused of being a Freeman by some prat or other and denies it, as you have quoted with his point of view, which tallies with mine, the idea of "lawfull rebellion"using better knowledge of the law to defeat those who abuse it, and to "rebel" in ways that are frustrating and annoying to authorities or abusers of authority but totally legal is a wonderful idea, but the movement it has become is a load of rubbish, not just that but a clear danger to innocent people misled by it.

[Coughdrop]

Stupid questin perhaps, but is it not in the best interests of a debtor to go onto prepayment meters in order to prevent the running up of future bills? Are these people not obstructing things in the same way someone sitting in their car is obstructing a bailiff?

[DragonFly1967]

Stupid questin perhaps, but is it not in the best interests of a debtor to go onto prepayment meters in order to prevent the running up of future bills? Are these people not obstructing things in the same way someone sitting in their car is obstructing a bailiff?

 

That idea has some merit until you understand how a prepayment meter works.

 

If someone can afford to pay for their electricity and/or gas plus let's say £20 a month towards the arrears, and let's further suppose that they are spending £10 per week on gas and another £10 per week on electricity.

 

 

A prepayment meter is set, by the utility company to recover a percentage of the credit put onto it to cover the debt. I don't know what the percentage is (and it's variable by the utility company) but a Google search reveals that this is usually in the region of 20% but can be as much as 70%!!!

 

 

But, we'll take the average as it makes the sums easier.

 

 

Now the consumer is putting £10 a week onto pre-payment cards (for Gas & Electricity), £2 of which (for each card) is deducted as soon as it's put into the meter, thereby leaving them only £8 credit for gas & electricity. So, they can either top up extra per week, or spend a period of time sitting in the dark and without gas as well.

 

So, now they have to put £15 a week on each card as anything less than that will leave them with less than £10 credit. So £120 per (lunar) month, whereas before they were paying £80 and can afford £100, the extra £20 per month is having to come from somewhere else rather than paying that.

 

You also have to bear in mind that often, pre-payment tariffs are more expensive (often the most expensive) as is the "standing charge", so they might even need to put more credit on in order to get the same amount of electricity and gas.

 

 

 

Now finally, bear in mind that they could afford to make an offer of repayment of the arrears at a rate of £20 per 4 weeks. By recovering the debt by way of a pre-payment meter, and assuming that it's for both gas and electricity, the utility company will actually get £24, but the consumer will actually be driven into more debt, as they'll be failing to pay something else, by being forced to spend more than they can afford on gas and electricity. And is £4 per month really going to make that much difference to the likes of British Gas?

[caledfwlch]

Stupid questin perhaps, but is it not in the best interests of a debtor to go onto prepayment meters in order to prevent the running up of future bills? Are these people not obstructing things in the same way someone sitting in their car is obstructing a bailiff?

 

How is protecting the legal rights of a Debtor, and stopping people acting on a warrant gained by contempt of court, ie lying on oath in any way obstruction?

 

Pre payment meters cost a lot more for the customer to run than a credit meter, even if you dont have a debt, despite the fact that a prepayment meter is cheaper for theutility company to run than a credit meter.

 

My meter charges me 33p a day just for the pleasure of having it, and on top of that each electrical unit I use is charged to me at a higher price than a credit meter.