Chandlers website caused late payment re:CTAX - now they want extra £350!!

[Peterbard]

"Another implied right "???

 

You Can imply a right to almost anything.

 

Does a bailiff need permission to enter?

Can a debtor refuse permission?

Is a letter in writing sufficient refusal?

 

Three simple and reasonable questions. Not sure quite how you connect it to fmotl?

 

If you answered no to any of those quet, you might as well give up now. It really is basic and straightforward. I fail to see any need to complicate things

 

Lol

 

The implied right which is referred to is an ancient law , not something you can just make up.

You have just lost my interest.

[Tuco]

Oh right-So we can only imply a right if it's in connection with ancient law.

 

Priceless-I must inform Mr K

[Peterbard]

Oh right-So we can only imply a right if it's in connection with ancient law.

 

Priceless-I must inform Mr K

 

You really do not know much do you.

 

OK Just for you.

 

It is pointless having a right under law unless it is enforceable, you cannot make up a law and then expect a court to enforce it.

 

I could say you presented me with you face and i exercised my implied right to punch it, you cannot "apply an implied right in law to just anything." It is trite law that you cannot imply an action which would constitute an offence, the instruction must be specific.

 

Entry to a premises if under a an act of parliament ot warrant is legal , entry without either is trespass, now that is simple .

 

incidentally, no one is "confused"on here regarding implied rights, you are thinking of somewhere else.

[Tuco]

Okay. For clarity, the courts have determined that there is an implied right of entry if a bailiff discovers an unlocked door. This is completely separate to an implied right of access. How do you think that it was originally determined that a bailiff may enter through an unlocked door?

 

It's hypothetical in any case as a letter refusing permission to enter covers unlocked doors in any case. If you recall, you yourself were active in ensuring that debtors have the right to refuse entry.

 

I Simply advise people to act on this right by placing revocation of permission in writing. It's nothing to do with fmotl, it's a basic right of any council tax debtor

[Peterbard]

I suggest if you want to continue and see if anyone is interested in this, this post should be moved to discussion rather than an advice thread.

[Tuco]

I agree-Although I do feel that you owe it to the OP to explain exactly why his Mother cannot refuse permission to enter her home, especially as she doesn't have any debt.

 

 

Surely you would want to offer her protection, given that the bailiff has told her that he will remove anything, regardless of who it belongs to?

 

 

I would have hoped that this sort of scenario was exactly the type that inspired you to campaign for debtors rights to refuse entry?

[Peterbard]

Incidentally I must say. That i was never involved in anything to do with how initial peaceful entry was conducted.

 

My involvement and in fact CAGs campaign back in 06 was about forced entry for civil debts.

[honeybee13]

Please could we remember that this is an advice thread for the OP. This debate is liable to turn them off asking for advice.

 

HB

[brassnecked]

Please could we remember that this is an advice thread for the OP. This debate is liable to turn them off asking for advice.

 

HB

Absolutely HoneyBee, OP is the most important person on the thread, multiple conjecture and tit for tat could send them to the arms of Bennison.

[Peterbard]

I think though that for the OPs sake and anyone else in a similar position. It should be made clear that a letter to the bailiff will not remove their rights to enter a property. That power is conferred by the order/warrant and the statute, not by any implied license.

 

The advice must always be to keep doors locked.

 

Unfortunately there is no method of preventing bailiffs calling once an order has been issued, other than paying the bill in total.

[Bailiff Advice]

I think though that for the OPs sake and anyone else in a similar position. It should be made clear that a letter to the bailiff will not remove their rights to enter a property. That power is conferred by the order/warrant and the statute, not by any implied license.

 

The advice must always be to keep doors locked.

 

To bring this subject (entry into premises and whether 'revoking' entry can be refused etc) to a close, it may be appropriate to use the 'discussion' section of the forum to debate the matter.

 

The subject had been broached by JK in one of his Bulletin's last year. The enforcement industry naturally sought opinion and responded in detail to his article. I have a copy of their response and will try to get this introduced into a new thread later today.

[Leakie]

Again I hate to say it I agree with DB

 

Even if there was a letter that worked.

The debt will still be owed.

Also I do not think an EA would take any notice,

As there is no come back on the EA,

there may be in Law, but as BA has stated none have been successful,

(please correct me BA if I have misquoted you)

[Peterbard]

Dont be like that Leakie.

You will enjoy the article even more, it agrees with me completely