Baliff petition;Stop them getting a legal right to forced entry;Peter Bard

[JonCris]

FP in the main your correct bailiffs will be allowed to force entry provided they have a warrant. The problem is that not only will they be able to but they can 'invite' others of whom no criminal checks have been made to enter your home

 

They will also be allowed to use physical force to restrain & search a debtor for money both in the home & the street.

 

It's been suggested by the Muppets responsible for this legislation that the bailiffs should leave behind the last £500 found in the debtors possession & believe it or not they are even allowed to take possession of the family pet. You can just see it can't you "pay up otherwise we are going to take your pet"

 

Thanks Labour!!

 

Makes you wonder what planet they live on. Despairing init:mad:

[FairPlay77]

FP in the main your correct bailiffs will be allowed to force entry provided they have a warrant. The problem is that not only will they be able to but they can 'invite' others of whom no criminal checks have been made to enter your home

 

They will also be allowed to use physical force to restrain & search a debtor for money both in the home & the street.

 

It's been suggested by the Muppets responsible for this legislation that the bailiffs should leave behind the last £500 found in the debtors possession & believe it or not they are even allowed to take possession of the family pet. You can just see it can't you "pay up otherwise we are going to take your pet"

 

Thanks Labour!!

 

Makes you wonder what planet they live on. Despairing init:mad:

 

I'VE written to my dearly-beloved Labour MP to warn her that this new legislation is due to come into force just in time for the next election and that she might find that, as it will now be not only the very poor but the articulate middle classes who are clobbered by these bullies and thugs, that there is going to be one almighty row over this issue.

 

Perhaps we can get that idiot Brown and his cronies to delay it by a year or so if we can din it into their thick heads that it might be one of the issues that will send them scurrying to the Labour Exchage (no pun intented) after the next election.

[robin9342]

As I understand it, in order to get a warrant, the bailiff must first convince a magistrate that there are sufficient goods at the debtors home to satisfy the debt.

 

Now, we all know bailiffs are not exactly honest people, but the questions on my mind are: How does the bailiff know what is in your house if he has never been in? Therefore, how can a bailiff stand before a magistrate and declare that certain goods exist? What happens when it is proved that a bailiff has lied to the magistrate in order to obtain said warrant?

[JonCris]

I don't wish to point out the obvious but have you ever heard of court questioning an undefended warrant request.

 

The courts will as usual just rubber stamp them. Inquiry, if any, will at best, be cursory

[robin9342]

I don't wish to point out the obvious but have you ever heard of court questioning an undefended warrant request.

 

The courts will as usual just rubber stamp them. Inquiry, if any, will at best, be cursory

Quite possibly. But then the bailiff leaves himself wide open to accusations of lying to the magistrates and if proved, the mags will take a rather dim view of that.

[stabradop]

There should always be an opportunity to defend a warrant as far as baliffs are concerned. Furthermore you can always obtain an injunction against a baliff. And as far as I know if the baliff has lied then the warrant is invalid.

 

This is a bit different though to the "field agents" employed by DCAs, they have no bond or legal powers, and a magistrate would not grant them a warrant anyway. It would be only for court appointed baliffs so you would have to have had a court summons regarding the debt in any case.

 

And to play it safe you could always do with another member has done, set up a limited company and rent all your good from it for a nominal sum. That way all your stuff is safe.

[FairPlay77]

I don't wish to point out the obvious but have you ever heard of court questioning an undefended warrant request.

 

The courts will as usual just rubber stamp them. Inquiry, if any, will at best, be cursory

 

UNFORTUNATELY, this is the case - and it's a disgrace. If we really did have 'equality before the law' in this country, BOTH sides would have an equal opportunity to make their case in front of a judge or a magistrate.

It is utterly unacceptable and totally immoral that the court should make a decision without giving both parties the right to speak. I pointed this out strongly in response to the government's consultation paper and to my MP before the law was passed, and - guess what - they just ignored me.

 

Perhaps, at some point, this gross violation of our human rights will have to reported to the European Court. I cannot understand how any reasonable and honest person could possibly defend it - but sorry, I'm forgetting, our elected dictators are neither. reasonable nor honest and are totally hopeless when it comes to sticking up for their constitutents.

[JonCris]

The government ignored you as will the courts even if the bailiff lies to them They know the weak seldom fight back

[FairPlay77]

The government ignored you as will the courts even if the bailiff lies to them They know the weak seldom fight back

 

WELL I have fought back on bailiffs' visits for council tax and I have defeated them. No bailiff has ever been able to enter my home, I have never paid their illegal and dishonestly inflated fees, and I have made all my payments direct to the council, leaving the bailiffs to stew in their own juice. Sometimes people who are wrongly considered to be 'weak' (as you put it) do fight back and very often - and this may surprise you -they do win the battle. That is what's so good about CAG. And belive me, now that more and more people, in these difficult times, are going to be threatened by bailiffs, the number of people standing up to them is going to grow!

[JonCris]

good on you FP but most don't

[FairPlay77]

good on you FP but most don't

 

In that case we must give them the confidence they need to do so! That is why CAG is so important, and I believe it is giving more and more people the strength to fight back.

[greyhond123]

i have sent you an email with my support

[Francesco]

In that case we must give them the confidence they need to do so! That is why CAG is so important, and I believe it is giving more and more people the strength to fight back.

 

 

A good attitude FP, we all support this point of view.

 

We could also do with some factual imformation when the new powers start, or are threatened to be implimented.

There will be means of thwarting some of these henious actions, if people have ideas don't hesitate to share them, even if it's neccessary to pm others with details, pm - ing, for reasons that I assume are obvious.

 

F.

[Tryst]

UNFORTUNATELY, this is the case - and it's a disgrace. If we really did have 'equality before the law' in this country, BOTH sides would have an equal opportunity to make their case in front of a judge or a magistrate.

Since when did equality come into any law in this country lately?

 

Companies to whom you owe money are legally allowed to submit thier case to a court at the other end of the country and without even notifying you first. BT are the worlds worst for that. The only reason they need to give is that they believe you have moved house but do not yet know where to. The case is granted and heard and, since you were not present to put your case forward, the company wins it. Then the company miraculously finds out you didn't move after all.

 

This prevents you appearing in court in your own defence which is why they do it. Half of the cases would be lost if the court heard your defence. Unreasonable payment times, bills for services you have never asked for and a host of other reasons.

 

Edit: If a company does threaten to take you to court, send them a letter with the following statement.

If this case does go to court, it is to be submitted to a court within reasonable travelling distance of my home and I am to be notified of the date and time of the hearing. Failure to do this will result in action being taken to remove the debt on the grounds that you deliberately prevented me from appearing in my defence.

Most of the time, the company will drop the case if they know they will lose it. Even companies like BT will back down.

 

On top of that, the bailiff will appear at your home and steal your stuff for this imaginary bill and add a substantial cost to it as well. Giving them the right to break into your home just about tops this capitalist law and effectively gives any company the right to just steal your stuff.

 

Why don't they do away with the middle man and give any company the right to break in and steal your stuff whenever it pleases them, whether you owe them money or not?

 

Behind on council tax? There's a reason for me not paying all of it. When they finally decide to get a police force in this country instead of a load of traffic cops searching for untaxed vehicles, I will start to pay for the police force. When the police don't even respond to a 999 call, it makes you wonder what they do all day.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Tryst

[joneseyblod]

Hi

 

How do I go about adding my support to the baliff petition?

 

Also to the person who set up a limited company sold their assets to it and then rents them back please could we have a pm chat about this?

[Tryst]

That bailiff would have been on very dodgy ground. I believe he would still be classed as breaking in. The law allows peaceful entry through an open/unlocked window, not a broken one. Would be a shame if said bailiff were to cut himself on the broken glass!

If it was broken, who is to say that the person who broke it didn't unlock it as well by reaching in? Especially since it would be hard to prove that the bailiff unlocked it. As I said earlier, his license to be a bailiff gives him more credence in a court if someone was to say he broke in.

 

As far as I know, a broken window constitutes an open window. Qestionable but I'm sure the bailiff has more chance of winning if it was challenged.

[JonCris]

A broken window does not constitute an 'open' window & to enter by such means would still be trespass

[Guest BURP]

hmmm. that's an interesting one, a bailiff puts his hand into a broken window and opens it to climb inside. A bailiff can't break a window but if its already broken.......

[robin9342]

Would still count as forced entry. Otherwise, bailiffs would already be saying "It was already broken, guv, honest"

[Guest BURP]

I think you are right. Let me ask a circuit judge in the morning and get his position on that.

[Guest BURP]

Robin, you were right, but for the wrong reasons. An interesting question nonetheless. I put it to a circuit judge this evening off record and his reply was different than expected. He said he would uphold a Section 8 (Form4) complaint if a bailiff was accused of unfastening a broken window from the inside by putting his hand through it and climbing in. He continued that while this is peaceful entry, an enforcement officer on discovering damage to a debtor's property to vacate and consider the property a potential crime scene and contact police. A debtor could contend the bailiff caused the damage but the criminal burden of proof would exonerate him. If such a Section 8 be dismissed this could have ramification that bailiffs could break a window with nobody watching and contend that window was already broken before arriving at the debtors property.

[JonCris]

I'm sorry & with the greatest respect to the CJ but I think he/she has misinterpreted the meaning of peaceful entry in this context

 

If the window is broken but the lock closed then to put your hand through the window & unlock the window already amounts to unlawful trespass & that's before you even step inside

 

In otherwords the door or window MUST be open or unlocked to afford peaceful entry.

 

I strongly suspect that this is the case is because the legislators & the courts foresaw the possibility that if bailiffs could exercise their powers through broken locked windows or broken locked doors it could lead to abuses

[Guest BURP]

I dont think this is a case of misinterpretation of peaceful entry. The question I put was about a certificated bailiff. They can enter a property without causing damage to it without a trespass action being brought. Even if a door was locked and a bailiff finds a key under a flowerpot outside then he can lawfully enter. That would take a lot of balls but he wouldn't be exceeding his authority.

[JonCris]

I don't know how many ways I can say this but he WOULD be exceeding his powers even if he found a key hanging on piece of string through the letter box

 

If a door or window is locked then the intention of the occupier is that their private dwelling should not be entered by ANYONE & that in principal is the same as demanding that a bailiff leave your home which they are required to do

[Tryst]

One more thing. If a bailiff enters your home while you are out using force after this law goes through, what's to stop him taking anything he wants and denying he took it? I rather like a flipside of that arguement so what's to say you can't say that a bailiff took far more than he said he did.

 

Hmmm... Maybe time for a change of tactic if this law does get passed. Maybe those of us who get bailiff visits should suddenly aquire receipts from friends for all sorts of stuff and then accuse the bailiff of stealing it.

 

Well, I'm looking to get the **** out of this country anyway. The laws suck big time already and the criminals have the rights while the victim gets nothing, not even justice.

 

This is just one more way to allow crooks to gain access to everything you own. **** it, why not just go out and leave the door open?