On the now locked thread I was asked this by Skeleton:
when you state a bailiff cant do this etc, point us in the direction of the law that says he can not
So for starters:
A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance, Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223.
Placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway, Knox v Anderton [1983] Crim LR 115 or R. v Leroy Roberts [2003] EWCA Crim 2753
A person having been told to leave is now under a duty to withdraw from the property with all due reasonable speed and failure to do so he is not thereafter acting in the execution of his duty and becomes a trespasser with any subsequent levy made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages, Morris v Beardmore [1980] 71 Cr App 256.
What does this have to do with Sovereign Citizen and Redemption Scams ?
This is not GOODF, CAG or any of the other forums that you have been following each other back and forth.
This forum and this particular section has to do with the above, please take your little pissing contest which is not impressing anyone to a more appropriate forum
I am going to allow this thread to continue but with this proviso: No personal attacks, vulgarity or flame wars are to be posted here. The minute it happens, the thread will be locked and the poster will go on a temporary ban. In other words, keep to the subject matter at hand. No exceptions.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
Bones wrote:What does this have to do with Sovereign Citizen and Redemption Scams ?
This is not GOODF, CAG or any of the other forums that you have been following each other back and forth.
This forum and this particular section has to do with the above, please take your little pissing contest which is not impressing anyone to a more appropriate forum
Thank you
I was asked the question then the thread was locked. If the answer's not wanted, why ask the question?
Not a single one of these cases deals with bailifs. They are either to do with being breathalised on private property or having offensive weapons on private property.
#six wrote:Not a single one of these cases deals with bailifs. They are either to do with being breathalised on private property or having offensive weapons on private property.
Good point.
So if a police officer can not be allowed to enter a premises after he suspects that a crime has been committed, do you think it stands that a bailiff collecting council tax with no powers whatsoever can?
Bungle told me that she worked at the CAB
She lied
rumpelstilzchen wrote:
Please quote the part in Lambert v Roberts where the court states a debtor can remove the right of implied access.
Erm.... are you saying that if a person can remove the right to a police officer, then someone cannot also do so to a bailiff?
Please do not answer my question with a question.
Please quote the relevant part where the court states a debtor can remove the right of implied access.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
rumpelstilzchen wrote:
Please quote the part in Lambert v Roberts where the court states a debtor can remove the right of implied access.
Erm.... are you saying that if a person can remove the right to a police officer, then someone cannot also do so to a bailiff?
Right of access to the police can be withdrawn in certain circumstances. However if the police have a warrant granted by a judge then access cannot ever be revoked. Likewise a bailiff can enter a property with a warrant. Access cannot be revoked in such cases.
A police officer and a Bailiff are not the same, they act under different authority. I would think a Bailiff has a court order or similar, a police officer may need to get a warrant first in some instances, but not all. You need to cite something on point showing a debtor has this right.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
#six wrote:
Right of access to the police can be withdrawn in certain circumstances. However if the police have a warrant granted by a judge then access cannot ever be revoked. Likewise a bailiff can enter a property with a warrant. Access cannot be revoked in such cases.
I would certainly say that a police warrant is somewhat different to a CT bailiff's warrant of control. One gives a right to enter by smashing down the door, the other.... well.... what do you think?
NYGman wrote:A police officer and a Bailiff are not the same, they act under different authority. I would think a Bailiff has a court order or similar, a police officer may need to get a warrant first in some instances, but not all. You need to cite something on point showing a debtor has this right.
A bailiff collecting council tax does not have a court order.
The powers of a police officer are far, far greater than those of a bailiff collecting council tax.
Bungle told me that she worked at the CAB
She lied
rumpelstilzchen wrote:
Please quote the part in Lambert v Roberts where the court states a debtor can remove the right of implied access.
Erm.... are you saying that if a person can remove the right to a police officer, then someone cannot also do so to a bailiff?
Right of access to the police can be withdrawn in certain circumstances. However if the police have a warrant granted by a judge then access cannot ever be revoked. Likewise a bailiff can enter a property with a warrant. Access cannot be revoked in such cases.
Great.
So what about a bailiff collecting council tax then who has no warrant?
What gives him the power to enter when his implied right of access has been removed?
Bungle told me that she worked at the CAB
She lied
NYGman wrote:A police officer and a Bailiff are not the same, they act under different authority. I would think a Bailiff has a court order or similar, a police officer may need to get a warrant first in some instances, but not all. You need to cite something on point showing a debtor has this right.
They would both need to get a warrant first surely?
In any case, the police have authority to enter without a warrant in some circumstances. But the argument is pertinent - it seems that it's being said that a bailiff has greater powers than the police. It seems that some are saying that because someone owes money and is branded a 'debtor' they forego the civil rights that others have. Just because someone is a 'debtor' does not mean a bailiff has an automatic right to enter their property.
NYGman wrote:A police officer and a Bailiff are not the same, they act under different authority. I would think a Bailiff has a court order or similar, a police officer may need to get a warrant first in some instances, but not all. You need to cite something on point showing a debtor has this right.
A bailiff collecting council tax does not have a court order.
The powers of a police officer are far, far greater than those of a bailiff collecting council tax.
NYGman wrote:A Bailiff collecting CT must be acting under some type of authority.
The council obtain a 'liability order'. The power to enforce this lays with the council and they have several options to do so. One option is to use bailiffs.
)