Case Law

[AndyPandy]

What if it's a Magistrates Court Fine?

Different rules, but we're talking about civil debts at the mo.

Are we, I thought we were talking about bailiffs and attempts to remove their rights of access !

[Droopy]

Are we, I thought we were talking about bailiffs and attempts to remove their rights of access !

We are - in the context of civil debts.

[Tuco]

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.

What if it's a Magistrates Court Fine?

You could never have removed implied right of access for magistrates court fines. They have power to force entry.

I'm not entirely convinced you can remove implied right of access for any form of enforcement post April 2014 as legislation is different.

Prior to that, it was possible to do so for council tax and PCN's.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Droopy, you started this thread with this:

A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance, Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223.

Will you please concede that sentence does NOT appear in the decision?

[#six]

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.

What if it's a Magistrates Court Fine?

You could never have removed implied right of access for magistrates court fines. They have power to force entry.

I'm not entirely convinced you can remove implied right of access for any form of enforcement post April 2014 as legislation is different.

Prior to that, it was possible to do so for council tax and PCN's.

This details a case from 2012 where someone tried and failed to remove right of access for council tax debt

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... egal-costs

[Droopy]

Droopy, you started this thread with this:

A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance, Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223.

Will you please concede that sentence does NOT appear in the decision?

The use of 'debtor' does not appear, however being a 'debtor' does not exclude someone from exercising the rights that other's have. A debtor and a non-debtor can equally remove access.

[Droopy]

This details a case from 2012 where someone tried and failed to remove right of access for council tax debt

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... egal-costs

That case was about someone trying to claim damages from a bailiff 'trespassing'. It was not about the right to remove access. It rightly failed as no damage had occured.

The OP on that - tomtubby - is Bungle on here.

[Tuco]

What if it's a Magistrates Court Fine?

You could never have removed implied right of access for magistrates court fines. They have power to force entry.

I'm not entirely convinced you can remove implied right of access for any form of enforcement post April 2014 as legislation is different.

Prior to that, it was possible to do so for council tax and PCN's.

This details a case from 2012 where someone tried and failed to remove right of access for council tax debt

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... egal-costs

A very strange (but not binding) decision. Much like the beneficial interest argument that is raging at present.

Here are two examples of me personally successfully removing implied right of access to bailiffs:

http://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewt ... =12&t=3758

[Worzel Gummidge]

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.

YOu are correct they have noting to do with the notices, they are quoted continually on GOODF and BHF.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The use of 'debtor' does not appear, however being a 'debtor' does not exclude someone from exercising the rights that other's have. A debtor and a non-debtor can equally remove access.

FFS!
You have cited case law and your post implies the court stated the sentence in your post. The case had nothing to do with debtors and the case had nothing to do with bailiffs. The court did not say what you claimed it said.
I pity anyone who follows your advice.

[Worzel Gummidge]

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?

I police officer can enter premises if he believes that an offence is being committed, we are taking about civil actions and a civil bailiff.

The police could not enter because it was beyond the powers of his office, there is a difference between the two kinds of enforcment. The bailiff does have powers, conferred by his warrant, not sure how this helps your implied rights theory.

[Worzel Gummidge]

It should be noted by all that all this is of no concern since April 6th 2014, as the entry is now under statute. (quoted earlier)

[Tuco]

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?

I police officer can enter premises if he believes that an offence is being committed, we are taking about civil actions and a civil bailiff.

The police could not enter because it was beyond the powers of his office, there is a difference between the two kinds of enforcment. The bailiff does have powers, conferred by his warrant, not sure how this helps your implied rights theory.

I think you'll find in the drink driving case, the police officers weren't allowed over the boundary of the property, despite chasing the drunk driver all the way home.

Of course, bailiffs collecting council tax do not have a warrant in any case.

Anyway, I thought you were going about 5 posts ago? Is this one of you Frank Sinatra comeback moments?

[Tuco]

It should be noted by all that all this is of no concern since April 6th 2013, as the entry is now under statute. (quoted earlier)

April 2014 actually.

[Worzel Gummidge]

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?

I police officer can enter premises if he believes that an offence is being committed, we are taking about civil actions and a civil bailiff.

The police could not enter because it was beyond the powers of his office, there is a difference between the two kinds of enforcment. The bailiff does have powers, conferred by his warrant, not sure how this helps your implied rights theory.

I think you'll find in the drink driving case, the police officers weren't allowed over the boundary of the property, despite chasing the drunk driver all the way home.

Of course, bailiffs collecting council tax do not have a warrant in any case.

Anyway, I thought you were going about 5 posts ago? Is this one of you Frank Sinatra comeback moments?

Yes i know you hoped I would stay away.
Your right it is not warrant it is an order from the authority, but it still confers the same powers. As you say the police could not purse the driver on to his property, however the bailiff acts under a civil power.He is not pursuing a drunk driver, this is civil and the powers come from a different source you cannot compare the two mark, that would be silly.

[The Observer]

And with Tuco's taunting response, we are done. Tuco has earned a temporary ban and the thread is not going anywhere, so it will be locked.

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO RE-START THIS CONVERSATION IN A NEW THREAD. That will generate a temp ban as well for the initiator. If you feel the need to argue about this thread topic please take it back to the sites where it originated.