Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNORE

[Milo]

CIVEA ( Civil Enforcement Association) represent theinterest of most bailiff companies in England & Wales and on 17th May 2013on their news page they posted an article concerning the Removal of ImpliedRight of Access notices that many debtors are encouraged to display on theboundary of their property in the belief that such a notice will stop a bailiffvisiting the property.

As you will see from the news article (link below) CIVEA ( not surprisingly)consider such notices are "nonsense" but most importantly; thearticle confirms that they have advised their members to "disregard suchnotices and continue with enforcement action"

CIVEA are acknowledging that a debtor could if they wish, institute courtproceedings against the bailiff for trespass and warning also of the risk ofsignificant costs that could be imposed against the complainant.

http://www.civea.co.uk/news-24.htm



I will post back with "word" copy of the article.

[Milo]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

Below is a copy of the article from the CIVEA website:


17th May 2013

"There are currently numerous websites and forums which advise debtors to display notices on their property stating that they have withdrawn consent for the bailiff to attend that property and that any future attendance will constitute a trespass.

Such advice is nonsense; bailiffs executing a court warrant have an express right of access which cannot be withdrawn by the debtor. CIVEA is advised that member companies should disregard such notices and continue with enforcement action.

Whilst it would be open to any debtor, in such a situation, to institute court proceedings against the bailiff for trespass they would thus risk significant costs being awarded against them to cover the expense of defending such a pointless and inevitably unsuccessful action. As always, it would be prudent to seek advice from a fully qualified legal practitioner before embarking upon court proceedings"

[CleverClogs]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

Thank you.

It serves to prove - if there had ever been any doubt - towards whom CIVEA is inherently biased.

[vinnie76]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

Thank you.

It serves to prove - if there had ever been any doubt - towards whom CIVEA is inherently biased.

Hi there Clever Clogs, thank you for sharing this information. Do you advice that we still use it or not? Or were you simply highlighting that the trade association CIVEA is biased to the people who complain about bailiffs?

How I understand it is if this sent and show on the property the police can be called to remove them or even the person who posted it can tell them diplomatically to 'go away', and know they are doing so within their legal rights, right?

I think the real issues and confusing here is how do you as the commoner enforce your rights...the law so that the bailiffs actually respect them and do not cross them? This is regarding this as well as other matters such as bailiffs levying a vehicle you USE but do not OWN?!!

[wales01man]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

Looks like this needs testing in a court of law problem being someone has to have their so called rights infringed and enough proof to go to court with.
Problems being
!,Who is going to put themselves and their money up for the case?
2, The bailiff companies have a lot of their powers and ability to make money removed if this course of action is legal they would no doubt fight it .
As with the PPI saga a long drawn out legal process would ensue and what would be the result?

[bluebottle]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

What CIVEA appears to have conveniently omitted to tell their members is that their advice would only hold fast if a bailiff has a right in law to encroach on a property.

Right in law is a powerful weapon against those who assert they have a right to encroach onto land, property or interfere with goods and vehicles.

To cite an example -

A certificated bailiff arrives at a person's home, knowing that a distress warrant has been issued in respect of a person named on the warrant and allegedly residing at that address. However, the bailiff then discovers the person residing at the address stipulated on the warrant is not the person named on the warrant who has moved to another address.

Up until that point, the bailiff has a right in law to be there due to the endorsements on the warrant. However, once the bailiff discovers that the person named on the warrant no longer resides at that address, the bailiff's right in law to be there ceases, as the warrant only permits the bailiff to attend that address to deal with the person named on the warrant.

If the bailiff follows the law to the letter, they will return the warrant to the court of issue or refer the matter back to the creditor. However, the reality is that some certificated bailiffs will not do so and carry on with enforcement action regardless. Where this happens, the onus is then on the bailiff to prove they have a right in law to encroach on land or property or interfere with goods or vehicles. This would also apply should a bailiff go away on the first visit, but then return having been made aware the person whom they were seeking no longer resided there.

My view on the CIVEA article Milo has posted on this thread is that CIVEA is doing its members no favours whatsoever by encouraging them to continue with enforcement action regardless or lead them to believe a CIVEA member would win a civil claim for trespass and be awarded significant costs in their favour.

CIVEA has, at best, been somewhat naive, at worst, reckless, in telling its members to carry on regardless. Advising its members to proceed with caution when faced with notices removing a right of implied access would, in my opinion, be a far more sensible course of action to recommed its members take until such time as it is established a bailiff has a right in law to encroach on land or property or interfere with goods or vehicles.

[enquirer]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

A certificated bailiff arrives at a person's home, knowing that a distress warrant has been issued in respect of a person named on the warrant and allegedly residing at that address. However, the bailiff then discovers the person residing at the address stipulated on the warrant is not the person named on the warrant who has moved to another address.

A fine distinction ...

If a WOIRA has been issued, then the bailiffs warrant-derived right to be there ceases the moment that he becomes aware that X does not reside there. He must leave immediately.

If a WOIRA has not been issued, then even though the bailiff is aware that X does not reside there, the implied right of access remains and he has the right to knock on the door and ask after X. It is then that he is told to leave and must do so.

[Milo]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

Sorry everyone but it would seem that I had forgotten to update this thread.

As some frequents posters will know, I also post on Consumer Action under the user name of Tomtubby. I used the name Milo on here when first registering purely in memory of my beautiful cat who was killed. ( My avatar picture on CAG is of Milo).

Over on CAG I started a thread a few months ago regarding the Removal Of Implied Right of Access Notices and where a debtor had decided to sue Rossendales bailiffs for ignoring the notice. The thread is here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...es-legal-costs

PS: The debtor LOST his court case and furthermore.....he was ordered to pay the bailiffs legal costs !!

[bizzybob]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

I think suing for trespass or more would only have a chance, if it were Bluebottles scenario above, and/or, the bailiff in full knowledge the debtor had moved on continued to enforce and clamped or removed aka stole the current occupants car irrespective of whether a WOIRA was up or not. .

[CleverClogs]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

what would be the result?

Fewer lawyers would starve. :grin:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

How I understand it is if this sent and show on the property the police can be called to remove them or even the person who posted it can tell them diplomatically to 'go away', and know they are doing so within their legal rights, right?

I believe you would do better to nail several cloves of garlic to your gate.

They may or may not repel bailiffs, but at least they should keep any vampires away.

[bluebottle]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

Having looked at the thread on CAG, I find myself agreeing with Judge Pugh. The debtor was incredibly naive and, certainly, misguided in what they did.

With regard to dealing with a certificated bailiff who, despite knowing they have no right in law to be on land or at a property or to interfere with goods or a vehicle, carries on with enforcement action regardless, it will be the legislation under which the warrant the bailiff is relying on has been issued that will determine what redress, if any, the debtor or third party, whichever the case may be, has against the bailiff and/or the creditor.

[bluebottle]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

I think suing for trespass or more would only have a chance, if it were Bluebottles scenario above, and/or, the bailiff in full knowledge the debtor had moved on continued to enforce and clamped or removed aka stole the current occupants car irrespective of whether a WOIRA was up or not. .

If a trespass is serious and involves a trespasser causing damage to land or property or goods or vehicles, then an aggrieved party has a right to seek redress under Civil Law (compensation/damages) or Criminal Law (reparation), whichever the case may be. A simple trespass does not, IMHO, warrant the seeking of damages, but were the trespass to be repeated, then the aggrieved party may have grounds for seeking an injunction to prevent further trespass.

For a certificated bailiff to clamp or remove a vehicle they knew they had no right in law to clamp or remove would be sheer madness, not to mention unlawful and, possibly, illegal conduct. It would make absolutely no difference whatsoever, IMO, if a Notice of Withdrawal of Right of Implied Access was displayed or not. Absence of a right in law to carry out any act or series of acts would, IMHO, be far more persuasive in securing redress or restraint against a trespasser on land or property or unlawful interference with or unlawful detention or removal of goods or vehicles. Notwithstanding, a creditor as well as their enforcement agent would be subject to legal restraint as well as civil liability.

[Lula]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

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 susequent levy made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages , Morris v Beardmore (1980) 71 Cr App 256

[FlamingParrot]

Re: Removal of Implied Right of Access notices.....Bailiffs advised by CIVEA to IGNOR

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 susequent levy made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages , Morris v Beardmore (1980) 71 Cr App 256

Have you seen my other post here? http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...544#post570544

Making a claim for damages can turn out to be rather co$tly for the claimant!