BTBAB - Beat the Bailiffs and Banks - worse than GOODF

[Worzel Gummidge]

Yes the spelling thing is just a way of distracting attention, but we all know that. Very childish.

Mark you just have to BHF or GOODF and type the word "cretin" into the search to see how abusive you are, and have always been.
Implied rights of access notices have never worked on bailiffs because their rights of entry don't depend on an implied right, they are enforcing under a legal process. Civea put a letter on their site, and sent memos to all their members with an instruction to ignore very early on. Sometimes bailiffs and DCAs just do not call, if they feel the debtor has no money why would they ? They just refer it back to the creditor.

Anyway what is the current view on the three leter system ?

PS
I gave you the spelling mistake as a get out of jail free card, what a nice man i am.

[Bungle]

mod: please lower the temperature.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Dismiss it all you like pal. Makes no difference to me. I was just relaying a conversation I had with someone. I've never really felt the need to investigate what a parking warden earns as I've never considered becoming one.

Whether or not you have ever taken an interest in what a traffic warden earns is irrelevant. The same can be said for the question on whether or not you have ever considered becoming a traffic warden. That is only your attempt at deflection. The only thing that is relevant is your claim that someone somewhere pays £5 commission for each and every parking ticket issued. If you are going to make such claims on this forum it is normal practice to provide some evidence that supports your claim. Relaying a conversation such as you have described, where no supporting evidence was offered to you, is pointless. You may very well believe what you are told even though you were offered no evidence to suggest the claim is true, but do not be surprised if no one else believes the tale when you repeat it.

[Worzel Gummidge]

.

A bailiff enforcing a private debt for council tax under a liability order had no greater power than any other member of the general public. His implied right to access a property could have been removed, just like anyone elses.

Mark I cannot think you really believe this.

Firstly a council tax debt is not a private debt, it is owed to the council it is a public debt, a tax.

Also I am ot sure where you live, but arround here anyway, ordinary people are not permitted to walk into my property and take my goods.
A council tax bailiff operates under exactly the same procedure as every other bailiff( except county court). They have exactly the same rights to peaceful entry of debtors premises.(section 14 of the TCEa 2007.

Again bailiffs do not rely on an implied right and they never have.

[letissier14]

I think what Tuco is trying to say is that a bailiff can't enter your property for council tax (private - not commercial) unless you let them in.

[Tuco]

Yes the spelling thing is just a way of distracting attention, but we all know that. Very childish.

Mark you just have to BHF or GOODF and type the word "cretin" into the search to see how abusive you are, and have always been.
Implied rights of access notices have never worked on bailiffs because their rights of entry don't depend on an implied right, they are enforcing under a legal process. Civea put a letter on their site, and sent memos to all their members with an instruction to ignore very early on. Sometimes bailiffs and DCAs just do not call, if they feel the debtor has no money why would they ? They just refer it back to the creditor.

Anyway what is the current view on the three leter system ?

PS
I gave you the spelling mistake as a get out of jail free card, what a nice man i am.

"Cretin" is an apt word to describe a semi-literate buffoon who cannot read or write properly. You don't help debtors, you help yourself. You are no better than the likes of Chris Morris and Ceylon etc, other than you don't pose in videos you've made.

As I said, Bungle knows that NOROIROA worked as she used to try to put debtors off using them. I've posted evidence of two separate occasions when I stopped bailiffs by using a NOROIROA on BHF. You may wish to get your head around the fact that bailiffs do not have the option of whether they call or not. Contracts with bailiffs stipulate that a certain amount of visits must take place before the debt is returned, one such visit being out of office hours. In the two examples I posted on BHF, the debt was returned to the council after just one visit, despite the bailiff being contracted to visit more times before returning the debt.

You're never going to learn are you? I keep telling you, I don't post opinions, I post facts. I leave the guesswork to you. Whats the verdict on Beneficial interest this week? Yes or no?

[Tuco]

I think what Tuco is trying to say is that a bailiff can't enter your property for council tax (private - not commercial) unless you let them in.

Partly. Entry rights was a very complex issue prior to April 2014. Court fines and high court writs could not be stopped by using a NOROIROA. A bailiff collecting council tax however, relied on permission to enter or an implied right to enter. Both may have been withdrawn by the debtor. It was also possible to withdraw these permissions prior to a bailiff visiting. A liability order is not an order to enforce. It simply confirms the tax payer owes money and that the council may use a variety of additional enforcement measures. If a debtor choses to let a bailiff in, the bailiff may do so. If a debtor leaves a front door open, the bailiff may assume it is an implied right to enter. A letter before a visit revoking this right stops a bailiff from entering over the boundary of a property.

The goalposts have moved after April 2014 as legislation states that a bailiff MAY enter premises. You can still write before hand refusing permission to enter. However, it may be harder to refuse an implied right as legislation POSSIBLY suggests that an implied right is no longer required.

[Droopy]

I think what Tuco is trying to say is that a bailiff can't enter your property for council tax (private - not commercial) unless you let them in.

It's more a case of refusing them entry before they even arrive. CT is a civil matter and the only power that schedule 12 gives the bailiffs is the power to take control of goods. They have no absolute right of entry. You can refuse access at any time and also demand they leave, as long as they haven't taken control of anything.

Worzel posts what is convenient for his argument at that given time and changes his mind on any issue simply to oppose what the BHF says.

[Worzel Gummidge]

I think what Tuco is trying to say is that a bailiff can't enter your property for council tax (private - not commercial) unless you let them in.

I see , I that what you are saying Tuco ?

The bailiff enforcing council tax (or any civil debt), cannot force entry, he can however enter through an unlocked door without permission and take control of goods.
He can also take lawn furniture, lawn mowers and the family jalopy. Which i think i am right in saying an ordinary member of he public cannot do.

[Worzel Gummidge]

Yes the spelling thing is just a way of distracting attention, but we all know that. Very childish.

Mark you just have to BHF or GOODF and type the word "cretin" into the search to see how abusive you are, and have always been.
Implied rights of access notices have never worked on bailiffs because their rights of entry don't depend on an implied right, they are enforcing under a legal process. Civea put a letter on their site, and sent memos to all their members with an instruction to ignore very early on. Sometimes bailiffs and DCAs just do not call, if they feel the debtor has no money why would they ? They just refer it back to the creditor.

Anyway what is the current view on the three leter system ?

PS
I gave you the spelling mistake as a get out of jail free card, what a nice man i am.

"Cretin" is an apt word to describe a semi-literate buffoon who cannot read or write properly. You don't help debtors, you help yourself. You are no better than the likes of Chris Morris and Ceylon etc, other than you don't pose in videos you've made.

As I said, Bungle knows that NOROIROA worked as she used to try to put debtors off using them. I've posted evidence of two separate occasions when I stopped bailiffs by using a NOROIROA on BHF. You may wish to get your head around the fact that bailiffs do not have the option of whether they call or not. Contracts with bailiffs stipulate that a certain amount of visits must take place before the debt is returned, one such visit being out of office hours. In the two examples I posted on BHF, the debt was returned to the council after just one visit, despite the bailiff being contracted to visit more times before returning the debt.

You're never going to learn are you? I keep telling you, I don't post opinions, I post facts. I leave the guesswork to you. Whats the verdict on Beneficial interest this week? Yes or no?

I dont think Cretin, is an exceptionable way to refer to anyone.

[Worzel Gummidge]

I think what Tuco is trying to say is that a bailiff can't enter your property for council tax (private - not commercial) unless you let them in.

It's more a case of refusing them entry before they even arrive. CT is a civil matter and the only power that schedule 12 gives the bailiffs is the power to take control of goods. They have no absolute right of entry. You can refuse access at any time and also demand they leave, as long as they haven't taken control of anything.

Worzel posts what is convenient for his argument at that given time and changes his mind on any issue simply to oppose what the BHF says.

Sorry you cannot withdraw permission to attend:
14(1)An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

[Droopy]

I dont think Cretin, is an exceptionable way to refer to anyone.

By that statement you are saying that 'cretin' is not open to objection. Spot on.

Check the meaning of words you donut.

[Worzel Gummidge]

I think what Tuco is trying to say is that a bailiff can't enter your property for council tax (private - not commercial) unless you let them in.

Partly. Entry rights was a very complex issue prior to April 2014. Court fines and high court writs could not be stopped by using a NOROIROA. A bailiff collecting council tax however, relied on permission to enter or an implied right to enter. Both may have been withdrawn by the debtor. It was also possible to withdraw these permissions prior to a bailiff visiting. A liability order is not an order to enforce. It simply confirms the tax payer owes money and that the council may use a variety of additional enforcement measures. If a debtor choses to let a bailiff in, the bailiff may do so. If a debtor leaves a front door open, the bailiff may assume it is an implied right to enter. A letter before a visit revoking this right stops a bailiff from entering over the boundary of a property.

The goalposts have moved after April 2014 as legislation states that a bailiff MAY enter premises. You can still write before hand refusing permission to enter. However, it may be harder to refuse an implied right as legislation POSSIBLY suggests that an implied right is no longer required.

Mark.
A liability order confers the right to use schedule twelve procedure, a warrant confers the right to use schedule 12 procedure, as does a writ. They all have the same rights of peaceful entry, because they all use the same procedure,

Additional rights including the right to use force for certain types of debt are contained within that same procedure. (section 18)

How many people do you imagine have lost there car because they have been told by you that the bailiff is the same as an "ordinary member of the public", and they have failed to move it. You think you are helping debtors ?

[Worzel Gummidge]

I dont think Cretin, is an exceptionable way to refer to anyone.

By that statement you are saying that 'cretin' is not open to objection. Spot on.

Check the meaning of words you donut.

LOL spelling again.

[Tuco]

I think what Tuco is trying to say is that a bailiff can't enter your property for council tax (private - not commercial) unless you let them in.

It's more a case of refusing them entry before they even arrive. CT is a civil matter and the only power that schedule 12 gives the bailiffs is the power to take control of goods. They have no absolute right of entry. You can refuse access at any time and also demand they leave, as long as they haven't taken control of anything.

Worzel posts what is convenient for his argument at that given time and changes his mind on any issue simply to oppose what the BHF says.

Sorry you cannot withdraw permission to attend:
14(1)An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

So what right did they rely on pre Schedule 12 then?

I have your 3 conflicting templates if it helps?

Even post Schedule 12, you can still place in writing that permission to enter is refused. Unless a door is left unlocked, a bailiff can't enter then in any case. It saves all the argy bargy of confrontation at the door. If there's no car outside, the bailiff is fcuked.

What is your opinion if a boundary is protected by a perimeter fence and a locked gate?

[Skeleton]

Come on Mods, Droopy drawers is now back as well. Its like kids being let out of school at playtime. We have been here before, the personal attacks have already begun.

[Bungle]

I dont think Cretin, is an exceptionable way to refer to anyone.

By that statement you are saying that 'cretin' is not open to objection. Spot on.

Check the meaning of words you donut.

So we have Tuco and now Droopy. Just one more, and we will have the whole trio from the Bailiff Help Forum.

[Skeleton]

I dont think Cretin, is an exceptionable way to refer to anyone.

By that statement you are saying that 'cretin' is not open to objection. Spot on.

Check the meaning of words you donut.

So we have Tuco and now Droopy. Just one more, and we will have the whole trio from the Bailiff Help Forum.

Exactly. Anyone including the regulars (do not bother Tuco) explain what this has got to do with BTBATB? It is yet another childish spat spilling over from places you know you would be instantly banned from.

[Droopy]

Thing is Peter (if we're using names), the procedure gives a limited power - the bailiff may enter, but he has no absolute right to enter.

For example, he may enter and find the only occupant is a 12 year old girl, therefore he must leave. He may enter and find the only occupant is a man with Down Syndrome and again he must leave. He may enter and discover himself in the middle of a wake, so once again should leave. He may enter and immediately be told to leave by the homeowner.

In the last scenario, by your reckoning, the bailiff can wait a couple of minutes then try the door again, even though he knows he will be denied access. Such behaviour could lead to a breach of the peace.

The only thing I agree with is that Tuco is wrong to say a CT bailiff has no greater power than a DCA or a member of the public. A bailiff can seize anything outside the property. However he has no right of entry.

[Flipper]

Bungle. Droopy and Tuco are not the worry, ask Bungle what she's done with info from here. Funny how her posting style changes when she thinks her clients won't see it. She's obsessed and only uses BTBATB to drum up some business to fund her £1 million mansion paid for from money earned from vulnerable debtors.