These forums are closed and available for archive purposes only. Please visit the UK Column Community website to see what's being discussed there, and to become a member.

BEST BAILIFF INFO EVER? forced entry into homes...info

Seems like some handy info, do we have any law experts here who can verify some of this?. Also does this aply to "court appointed bailiffs"? I believe there is a difference, not sure what tho. Never had to deal with bailiffs personally tho have seen much on the subject via YT etc.

 

https://www.facebook.com/notes/cka-dom/best-bailiff-info-ever/123813171154018

 

 Forced entry into homes....info


 


A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance. This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223 - and 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


 


Debtors can also remove implied right of access to property by telling him to leave: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434 similarly, McArdle v Wallace [1964] 108 Sol Jo 483


 


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.


 


Bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling, Grove v Eastern Gas [1952] 1 KB 77


 


Otherwise a door left open is an implied license for a bailiff to enter, Faulkner v Willetts [1982] Crim LR 453 likewise a person standing back to allow the bailiff to walk through but the bailiff must not abuse this license by entering by improper means or by unusual routes, Ancaster v Milling [1823] 2 D&R 714 or Rogers v Spence [1846] M&W 571


 


Ringing a doorbell is not causing a disturbance, Grant v Moser [1843] 5 M&G 123 or R. v Bright 4 C&P 387 nor is refusing to leave a property causes a disturbance, Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308 or Jordan v Gibbon [1863] 8 LT 391


 


Permission for a bailiff to enter may be refused provided the words used are not capable of being mistaken for swear words, Bailey v Wilson [1968] Crim LR 618.


 


If the entry is peaceful but without permission then a request to leave should always be made first. Tullay v Reed [1823] 1 C&P 6 or an employee or other person can also request the bailiff to leave, Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33


 


Excessive force must be avoided, Gregory v Hall [1799] 8 TR 299 or Oakes v Wood [1837] 2 M&W 791


 


A debtor can use an equal amount of force to resist a bailiff from gaining entry, Weaver v Bush [1795] 8TR, Simpson v Morris [1813] 4 Taunt 821, Polkinhorne v Wright [1845] 8QB 197. Another occupier of the premises or an employee may also take these steps: Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33.


 


Also wrongful would be an attempt at forcible entry despite resistance, Ingle v Bell [1836] 1 M&W 516


 


Bailiffs cannot apply force to a door to gain entry, and if he does so he is not in the execution of his duty, Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781


 


A Bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property (ie workmen inside a house), access by this means renders the entry unlawful, Nash v Lucas [1867] 2 QB 590


 


The debtor's home and all buildings within the boundary of the premises are protected against forced entry, Munroe & Munroe v Woodspring District Council [1979] Weston-Super-Mare County Court


 


Contrast: A bailiff may climb over a wall or a fence or walk across a garden or yard provided that no damage occurs, Long v Clarke & another [1894] 1 QB 119


 


It is not contempt to assault a bailiff trying to climb over a locked gate after being refused entry, Lewis v Owen [1893] The Times November 6 p.36b (QBD)


 


 


If a bailiff enters by force he is there unlawfully and you can treat him as a trespasser. Curlewis v Laurie [1848] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557


 


A debtor cannot be sued if a person enters a property uninvited and injures himself because he had no legal right to enter, Great Central Railway Co v Bates [1921] 3 KB 578


 


If a bailiff jams his boot into a debtors door to stop him closing, any levy that is subsequently made is not valid: Rai & Rai v Birmingham City Council [1993] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557 or Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781


 


If a bailiff refuses to leave the property after being requested to do so or starts trying to force entry then he is causing a disturbance, Howell v Jackson [1834] 6 C&P 723 - but it is unreasonable for a police officer to arrest the bailiff unless he makes a threat, Bibby v Constable of Essex [2000] Court of Appeal April 2000.


 


Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557 if the debtor strikes the bailiff over the head with a full milk bottle after making a forced entry, the debtor is not guilty of assault because the bailiff was there illegally, likewise R. v Tucker at Hove Trial Centre Crown Court, December 2012 if the debtor gives the bailiff a good slap.


 


If a person strikes a trespasser who has refused to leave is not guilty of an offence: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434


 


License to enter must be refused BEFORE the process of levy starts, Kay v Hibbert [1977] Crim LR 226 or Matthews v Dwan [1949] NZLR 1037


 


A bailiff rendered a trespasser is liable for penalties in tort and the entry may be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights if entry is not made in accordance with the law, Jokinen v Finland [2009] 37233/07 http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/

Comments

  • Hi harrybrown

    I have lots relating to the laws concerning these morons,(and many other "officials") but just to give those who are being bugged by baiuliffs a headsup, This is a letter I put together to deal with these thugs before it even gets to a visit.

    Its a second letter sent if you still get bugged after sending the first, but the Italic and bold are whats sent in the first letter, then just repeated with a few additions in the second, hope that makes sense.

    May 23, 2013

    Westcot Credit Services Ltd

    PO Box 137

    Hull

    HU2 8HF



    Dear Sir/Madam



    Ref: D3/xxxxxxxx

    Client Ref No:xxxxxxxxxxxx



    In response to your second letter dated  17/05/2013.

    It seems you have some misunderstanding on the reason for my first reply dated 09/04/2013.

    It also seems that you have totally ignored the points made in that letter, namely the sections repeated below;



    Point (A)

    Firstly it is my understanding that Section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) act 1999 states that only those third parties NAMED directly in the original contract may enforce any delinquent accounts, so it is my belief that you are in fact a Third Party Interloper.

    You have NOT addressed this issue so in my opinion you still remain in dishonour and are not,and have never been, a party to any dealing I may have with anyone.

    Unless you can show your naming in any original contracts I may have with SKY (insert problem company here)as stated in Section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) act 1999, you are hereby requested to cease and desist with any and all presumed claims against me.



    Point (B)

    I have not to my knowledge ever given you permission or consent to include yourselves in any contracts I have, nor do I intend to.

    Unless you can show evidence of my ever giving you such consent, you are hereby requested to cease and desist with any and all presumed claims against me.




    Any further contact from Westcot Credit Services or any of its agents after 23/05/2013 except for the reason stated below,will be deemed as harassment as stated in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and will be pursued in a court of law accordingly.



    No further correspondence will be required from yourselves or your agents accept in acknowledgement that you have understood all the points made and that your services are neither authorised or required.



    Yours faithfully

    xxxxxx  xxxxxx

    This will stop any and all bailiffs from that first initial contact,usually by mail, before it ever gets to a threatened visit.

    However, regarding your question on court appointed bailiffs, no, these are a different animal and have way more powers than the guy that just works for a collection agency. This letter will not work with them, but, having said that, all the above points you made in your initial post are written in law, and can be used against the government bad guys.

    My advise when using the points you made are, have as many friends at your home during a visit as you can muster, type out all the relevant points to your particular case in a bold format so you can provide a copy to each and every enemy at your door, this includes the police too, in a bailiff situation they are NOT normally your friend. The reason for providing each person with a copy is to take away the "I didnt know" excuse, even though in law it cant be used, they still do and sadly get away with it.

    Plus you would be suprised at just how many police men/women are truly unaware of what YOUR rights are, so a little guidance from your passed around set of rules/laws can never go amiss.

    Anyway, the most powerful weapon you have in your arsenal is simply the word......NO!

    Regards otg

Sign In or Register to comment.