Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post Reply
User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1492
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#1 Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Andy » 17 Nov 2014 17:40

This is what we already know however with what we have seen at times, with some officers enforcing bailiffs entry to homes etc, I thought I would be nice to hear it from someone who is in-the-know.

The first minute or so of the video captures exactly what you need to hear "the bailiff will not be kicking your door in - it's a criminal offence"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rimuL2V ... freload=10
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6673
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#2 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Nov 2014 17:57

This needs to stay in a prominent place on the site to stop it dropping down the board.

Nice one Andy. Cam... you getting this?

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1492
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#3 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Andy » 17 Nov 2014 18:39

Perhaps Amy or someone can edit it as a sticky or whatever?
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13381
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#4 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Nov 2014 19:17

I don't think stickies are necessary because the law is clear on a power to break entry. Only last week a client on DWB said a police sergeant told him any fine that is a criminal fine allows breaking entry. The IPCC is now investigating this because the sergeant may have been confused with section 8 of the PACE 1984 but it does not extend to bailifff companies to have audience with a magistrate.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1492
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#5 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Andy » 17 Nov 2014 22:09

Yes, but this can be used as concrete proof for future people who ask the question. Debtors are more likely to be at ease from actually seeing the police force say so on camera than read it somewhere, have it discredited by the dark side and be left feeling like they've been hit over the head with a brick.

Here you are - there you go.
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4095
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#6 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Amy » 18 Nov 2014 09:40

Andy wrote:Perhaps Amy or someone can edit it as a sticky or whatever?
Done.

unclebulgaria67
Posts: 6
Joined: 27 Jan 2013 14:03

#7 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by unclebulgaria67 » 18 Nov 2014 20:34

It should be noted that it is not a Police Officer on the video, but a PCSCO. What they have said is correct, apart from that if there was a criminal fine outstanding, the bailiff can force entry with Magistrates approval. In this case it appears that the fine was paid in the time required, so the bailiff and Magistrates would be in spot of bother if there was forced entry.

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1492
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#8 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Andy » 18 Nov 2014 21:22

Thanks Amy.
2nd Year University Law Student.

HC1
Posts: 34
Joined: 11 Mar 2013 11:48

#9 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by HC1 » 21 Sep 2016 11:12

To be clear there are circumstances when a bailiff CAN use force to gain entry having only a warrant of control with no need to obtain any specific order or warrant to do so.

The first, as noted by Unclebulgaria67, but not as noted needing any additional magistrates' approval (in law) is when executing a warrant of control issued under Section 76 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 (e.g. for an unpaid fine imposed by a magistrates court). The power to do so is contained in Schedule 4A of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 and noted at paragraphs 17 and 18 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. This means that no prior [peaceable] entry is necessary; force may be used on the first attendance.

Force may also be used to re-enter premises to inspect or remove controlled goods; this means that a lawful entry would have been previously made to take control of goods. It is also necessary to issue a 'Notice of intention to re-enter premises' giving two clear days notice before doing so. The Notice clearly advises that the bailiff may use force to enter.

Hope this helps clarify matters.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13381
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#10 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Sep 2016 11:20

This is an old thread & we know the legislation.

The cases we bring to court is for breaking entry after the sum adjudged has been paid into court the paragraph 59 notice is given to the enforcement agent.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

HC1
Posts: 34
Joined: 11 Mar 2013 11:48

#11 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by HC1 » 21 Sep 2016 11:27

Red herring - the issue was whether force could be used and in the circumstances noted it can. You are now bringing up another issue about paying the 'fine' direct and leaving the bailiff's fees outstanding. You maintain this absurd position that paying the fine makes the warrant void which is simply not the case as is clearly noted in the legislation.

I would be very interested to know about any court decisions that confirm paying the fine and not the fees (as set out in The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014) means the warrant no longer has effect. Do you have any such evidence?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13381
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#12 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Sep 2016 11:36

Don't need evidence. Its the law. As you work predominately in court fine recovery, I'll give the legal grounds for an court fine.

Once the fine has been paid, and provided the bailiff has not exercised any of the four methods of taking control of goods of the debtor in Paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 12, the enforcement power under the warrant of control ceases to have effect



A warrant of control for the recovery of unpaid magistrates' courts fines is issued under section 76 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980; which states;

  • Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and to section 132 below F1, where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a magistrates’ court, the court may issue a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum or issue a warrant committing the defaulter to prison.




The warrant only confers an enforcement power to recover the "sum adjudged".

Bailiffs cannot enforce unpaid fees because they are not the sum adjudged -because Paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 12 of the TCE Act 2007 states;
  • (3)The property in all goods ceases to be bound when any of these happens—


    (a)the amount outstanding is paid, out of the proceeds of sale or otherwise;

    (b)the instrument under which the power is exercisable ceases to have effect;

    (c)the power ceases to be exercisable for any other reason.


Paragraph 31 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 states;

  • Enforcement agents must not seek to enforce the recovery of fees where an enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable.


The "amount outstanding" is defined in Paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6673
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#13 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Sep 2016 11:54

Shall we ask Barclay?

HC1
Posts: 34
Joined: 11 Mar 2013 11:48

#14 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by HC1 » 21 Sep 2016 12:55

Jason

I don’t know why you are so blinkered in this matter and while I’m sure you will dismiss what I have to say I’ll say it anyway.

First, you need to update your version of Section 76 which was amended by Schedule 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It should now read:

76(1): Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and to section 132 below, where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a magistrates’ court, the court may issue a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum
Importantly, you do not include 76(2)(a) which now states:

76(2)(a): Where it appears on the return to a warrant of control that the money and goods of the defaulter are insufficient to pay the amount outstanding, as defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

While 76(2) is about the prerequisite for the issue of a warrant of commitment is does give a clue regarding the ‘amount outstanding’ and points to paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12.

This states that the ‘sum outstanding’ is the sum of these—
(a) the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);
(b) any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

The sum of means the two added together (a + b). b clearly notes the amounts recoverable under paragraph 62 which, again clearly, are the costs of “enforcement-related services”. These are defined in The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

So, the enforcement power enables a warrant of control to be issued to recover the sum (fine), and the warrant of control, through the taking control of goods regulations enables costs to be recovered.

The first ‘enforcement related service’ is the compliance stage and the regulations provide a compliance stage fee (currently £75.00) which is triggered when the enforcement agent receives the warrant of control. So, from the onset, and in accordance with paragraph 53 of Schedule 12, the ‘amount outstanding’ is the sum of the fine plus the compliance stage fee. There is no need to take control of goods or indeed a need to issue a Notice of Enforcement for the compliance stage fee to exist and, therefore, paying the fine only will always leave at least £75.00 outstanding.

Furthermore because regulations dictate how monies recovered are distributed and the compliance stage fee must be paid before anything else, then if you pay the value of the fine only, the first £75.00 must be paid to the compliance fee leaving £75 outstanding on the fine.

Before you argue that paying direct to a creditor is not ‘proceeds, Paragraph 50 of Schedule 12 defines proceeds as (a) proceeds of sale or disposal of goods’ OR ‘money taken in exercise of the power’.

Any payment made to the enforcement agent or the creditor by or on behalf of the debtor once a warrant is issued is clearly money paid under compulsion of the enforcement power and subject to the taking control of goods procedures.

As noted, I know you will argue that black is white on this and so I shall not respond once you disagree as it will be pointless. I would, however, advise anyone relying on your argument to get an independent legal view before exposing themselves to additional and unnecessary costs!

It seems to me that simply regurgitating the same old and quite frankly lame argument simply confirms my belief that there are no cases which have successfully confirmed your position and argument in this matter. But, if there are, then please let us all know and I will then accept your view!

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13381
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#15 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Sep 2016 13:17

HC1 wrote:Jason

I don’t know why you are so blinkered in this matter and while I’m sure you will dismiss what I have to say I’ll say it anyway.

First, you need to update your version of Section 76 which was amended by Schedule 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It should now read:

76(1): Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and to section 132 below, where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a magistrates’ court, the court may issue a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum
Importantly, you do not include 76(2)(a) which now states:

76(2)(a): Where it appears on the return to a warrant of control that the money and goods of the defaulter are insufficient to pay the amount outstanding, as defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
That is correct.

50(3) includes costs of enforcement and the sum adjudged. It doesn't say anything about "fees".

If Parliament intended para 50(3) to include fees, then it would say so.

It states;
  • (3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

    • (a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

      (b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).


If Parliament said it must include Fees then it would say:
  • (c) any fees applicable under the schedule prescribed by regulations




HC1 wrote: While 76(2) is about the prerequisite for the issue of a warrant of commitment is does give a clue regarding the ‘amount outstanding’ and points to paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12.

This states that the ‘sum outstanding’ is the sum of these—
(a) the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);
(b) any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

The sum of means the two added together (a + b). b clearly notes the amounts recoverable under paragraph 62 which, again clearly, are the costs of “enforcement-related services”. These are defined in The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

So, the enforcement power enables a warrant of control to be issued to recover the sum (fine), and the warrant of control, through the taking control of goods regulations enables costs to be recovered.

The first ‘enforcement related service’ is the compliance stage and the regulations provide a compliance stage fee (currently £75.00)

It is not a enforcement related service. The law defines "enforcement" under section 62 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which states;

  • taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money




HC1 wrote: which is triggered when the enforcement agent receives the warrant of control. So, from the onset, and in accordance with paragraph 53 of Schedule 12, the ‘amount outstanding’ is the sum of the fine plus the compliance stage fee.
That is not what Paragraph 53 says.

It states;

  • (3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

    (a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

    (b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).



HC1 wrote: There is no need to take control of goods or indeed a need to issue a Notice of Enforcement for the compliance stage fee to exist and, therefore, paying the fine only will always leave at least £75.00 outstanding.

Furthermore because regulations dictate how monies recovered are distributed and the compliance stage fee must be paid before anything else, then if you pay the value of the fine only, the first £75.00 must be paid to the compliance fee leaving £75 outstanding on the fine.

Before you argue that paying direct to a creditor is not ‘proceeds, Paragraph 50 of Schedule 12 defines proceeds as (a) proceeds of sale or disposal of goods’ OR ‘money taken in exercise of the power’.

I don't follow how you interpret "proceeds of enforcement" to be anything other than just that.



HC1 wrote:
Any payment made to the enforcement agent or the creditor by or on behalf of the debtor once a warrant is issued is clearly money paid under compulsion of the enforcement power and subject to the taking control of goods procedures.

As noted, I know you will argue that black is white on this and so I shall not respond once you disagree as it will be pointless. I would, however, advise anyone relying on your argument to get an independent legal view before exposing themselves to additional and unnecessary costs!
It happens all the time. The result is always the same.

HC1 wrote: It seems to me that simply regurgitating the same old and quite frankly lame argument simply confirms my belief that there are no cases which have successfully confirmed your position and argument in this matter. But, if there are, then please let us all know and I will then accept your view!
There are plenty. Its stropped before the money is obtained and the bailiffs gets time out unraveling it all at court.

If the property is broken into then the bailiff company is shelling out defending it when it could have walked away from it. When the fine "sum adjudged" is paid, he is no longer a "debtor" in Schedule 12, so the bailiff is liable under the Torts Act and ends up with even more time out.

The risk remains with the bailiff and his (commercial) firm. Not with the debtor who has paid his dues as ordered by the court.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

HC1
Posts: 34
Joined: 11 Mar 2013 11:48

#16 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by HC1 » 21 Sep 2016 15:53

Jason

I said I wouldn't respond but I will take you up on one point - after which your argument falls down anyway:

You agree that paragraph 50(3) includes COSTS of enforcement and the sum adjudged but argue this is something other than enforcement agent fees as it does us the word 'FEES'. Semantics!

As you say, paragraph 53 says: (b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

If you then look at paragraph 62 it clearly explains what the (costs) are:

Costs
62(1) Regulations may make provision for the recovery by any person from the debtor of amounts in respect of costs of enforcement-related services.

(2) The regulations may provide for recovery to be out of proceeds or otherwise.

(3) The amount recoverable under the regulations in any case is to be determined by or under the regulations.

(4) The regulations may in particular provide for the amount, if disputed, to be assessed in accordance with rules of court.

(5) “Enforcement-related services” means anything done under or in connection with an enforcement power, or in connection with obtaining an enforcement power, or any services used for the purposes of a provision of this Schedule or regulations under it.

So, clearly 'costs' are those in relation to enforcement-related services. That's there in black and white. And, also in black and white, 'enforcement related services' include anything done in connection with an enforcement power (such as enforcement agent services). The regulations made under this are of course The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2016......

This cannot be argued against. It's there in black and white and what Parliament intended! Do you think Parliament intended for enforcement agents to undertake the work for nothing?!

HC1
Posts: 34
Joined: 11 Mar 2013 11:48

#17 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by HC1 » 21 Sep 2016 15:55

Sorry - wrote to quickly the fees regs are of course 2014

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13381
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#18 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Sep 2016 16:30

A lot of bailiffs have tried the same legal argument, the reason it fails is the law only provides for costs. Fees are not costs. They are just that, fees.

Parliament works to benefit the taxpayer, not the commercial interests of bailiff companies. It doesn't say bailiffs must work for nothing. They allowed for bailiffs to take and sell debtors goods and remunerate themselves from the "proceeds".

Parliament does not provide for remuneration for work that is not successful.

You win some. You lose some.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6673
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#19 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Sep 2016 17:05

Any payment made to the enforcement agent or the creditor by or on behalf of the debtor once a warrant is issued is clearly money paid under compulsion of the enforcement power and subject to the taking control of goods procedures.
That's what the courts have been instructed to say by bailiff companies. It is word for word a passage from an article by Paul Caddy and it is the bailiff's point of view.

What about someone who never knew that a warrant had been issued - perhaps by being in hospital. Is any money they pay under the 'compulsion' of enforcement? What about a blind person? What if it was paid whilst the NOE was in the post, or they paid it then the NOE was delivered an hour later? Are all of these scenarios 'paying under compulsion'?

Mr G, you are talking rot and you know it. A bailiff can recover his fees from proceeds using the sch12 procedure, yes? Please read the very first line of sch12 to see how legislation interpret's that.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13381
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#20 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Sep 2016 17:09

Money paid under compulsion is not "proceeds of enforcement".

Paul only came up with that when a member bailiff company lost a fee reclaim case and wanted to find another way to defeat paragraph 6(3)(a) of Schedule 12.

That is why the skeleton argument in the fee reclaim pack goes to great length to explain the legal definition of "enforcement", the dictionary definition of "proceeds". The court is aware of the difference between fees and costs.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

HC1
Posts: 34
Joined: 11 Mar 2013 11:48

#21 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by HC1 » 21 Sep 2016 17:11

Jason

I give up - let me know when you win a court case otherwise it's one view v another!

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13381
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#22 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Sep 2016 17:14

I only follow what parliament says. In fact a skeleton argument can only carry what legislation actually says, not what my opinion thinks it should say.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6673
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#23 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Sep 2016 17:16

Maybe Barclay knows something?

Tony72
Posts: 29
Joined: 11 Sep 2016 21:13

#24 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Tony72 » 09 Oct 2016 14:03

Since when did Parliament work for the benefit of taxpayers as opposed to businesses?

Yes I know what they should do but it is many years since we had a government of any hue that worked in favour of the average man

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#25 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by stopbailiff » 10 Oct 2016 09:57

HC1 wrote:Jason

I don’t know why you are so blinkered in this matter and while I’m sure you will dismiss what I have to say I’ll say it anyway.

First, you need to update your version of Section 76 which was amended by Schedule 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It should now read:

76(1): Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and to section 132 below, where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a magistrates’ court, the court may issue a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum
Importantly, you do not include 76(2)(a) which now states:

76(2)(a): Where it appears on the return to a warrant of control that the money and goods of the defaulter are insufficient to pay the amount outstanding, as defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

While 76(2) is about the prerequisite for the issue of a warrant of commitment is does give a clue regarding the ‘amount outstanding’ and points to paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12.

This states that the ‘sum outstanding’ is the sum of these—
(a) the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);
(b) any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

The sum of means the two added together (a + b). b clearly notes the amounts recoverable under paragraph 62 which, again clearly, are the costs of “enforcement-related services”. These are defined in The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

So, the enforcement power enables a warrant of control to be issued to recover the sum (fine), and the warrant of control, through the taking control of goods regulations enables costs to be recovered.

The first ‘enforcement related service’ is the compliance stage and the regulations provide a compliance stage fee (currently £75.00) which is triggered when the enforcement agent receives the warrant of control. So, from the onset, and in accordance with paragraph 53 of Schedule 12, the ‘amount outstanding’ is the sum of the fine plus the compliance stage fee. There is no need to take control of goods or indeed a need to issue a Notice of Enforcement for the compliance stage fee to exist and, therefore, paying the fine only will always leave at least £75.00 outstanding.

Furthermore because regulations dictate how monies recovered are distributed and the compliance stage fee must be paid before anything else, then if you pay the value of the fine only, the first £75.00 must be paid to the compliance fee leaving £75 outstanding on the fine.

Before you argue that paying direct to a creditor is not ‘proceeds, Paragraph 50 of Schedule 12 defines proceeds as (a) proceeds of sale or disposal of goods’ OR ‘money taken in exercise of the power’.

Any payment made to the enforcement agent or the creditor by or on behalf of the debtor once a warrant is issued is clearly money paid under compulsion of the enforcement power and subject to the taking control of goods procedures.

As noted, I know you will argue that black is white on this and so I shall not respond once you disagree as it will be pointless. I would, however, advise anyone relying on your argument to get an independent legal view before exposing themselves to additional and unnecessary costs!

It seems to me that simply regurgitating the same old and quite frankly lame argument simply confirms my belief that there are no cases which have successfully confirmed your position and argument in this matter. But, if there are, then please let us all know and I will then accept your view!
Rules of statutory interpretation, 'sum' is to be given its every ordinary day meaning. So what is 'sum' likely every ordinary day meaning? Sum = particular amount. It is likely it cannot be math definition therefore but a legal definition, ie sum not to mean 'the total of more than one sum, so not A & B = C.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#26 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by stopbailiff » 10 Oct 2016 10:01

jasonDWB wrote:I only follow what parliament says. In fact a skeleton argument can only carry what legislation actually says, not what my opinion thinks it should say.
Parliament makes the law as legislator, and the court judiciary's role is to interpret legislation. So, the job belongs to the court judiciary to interpret the law that Parliament makes and not Parliament who makes it.

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1994
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#27 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Michelle » 10 Oct 2016 10:42

Tony72 wrote:Since when did Parliament work for the benefit of taxpayers as opposed to businesses?
Parliament's role is to balance the need for businesses to make a profit (otherwise they would disappear leaving a big hole in the economy) with the rights of the individual consumers. At least in principle.
Tony72 wrote:Yes I know what they should do but it is many years since we had a government of any hue that worked in favour of the average man
Even "New Labour" worked against the average man and in favour of the big bad banks. CaMoron was probably the worst of all, what his government did in terms of access to justice and cuts to the most vulnerable is unspeakable. :evil: :evil: :evil:
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#28 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by stopbailiff » 10 Oct 2016 10:53

The Tories kept going on about 'the deficit' which is different from debt.

Tony72
Posts: 29
Joined: 11 Sep 2016 21:13

#29 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Tony72 » 14 Oct 2016 16:25

I am not quite sure what the difference between deficit and debt has to do with this discussion

Economically a deficit will lead to debt but Keynesian theory says that this is perfectly acceptable at times

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6673
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#30 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Pote Snitkin » 14 Oct 2016 16:36

Member 'stopbailiff' is best ignored.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#31 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Oct 2016 09:33

Best ignored, you say. You pathetic little specimen always resort to ad hominem, little weasel! I was offering my opinion for 9 months on Legalbeagles, er because I possess a wide knowledge. Ban him! both you and Jason say when I say something a little challenging for your conventional thinking brains. I have studied far more law formally than any you have. Jason quotes human rights act but does not understand how it operates. Yet you say ban me! Not one of you understand that statute has an hierarchal order and some statutes have more priority ie constitutional acts (inter alia TCEA 2007 being no exception), and constitutional common law, not that any of you will remotely understand these 'challenging concepts.'

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13381
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#32 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Oct 2016 09:37

stopbailiff wrote: Jason quotes human rights act but does not understand how it operates.'
Where?

& why drag me into all this?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#33 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by stopbailiff » 15 Oct 2016 09:43

Because Jason, when you don't agree with me you say the same thing as Pote, ie ban me. Being objective, Jason, in my view you're good if not excellent at general bailiff law in what I have observed thus far. However, you do not understand other statutes or its hierarchy where relevant, including Human Rights Act. I do however understand these concepts pretty much inside out as it were, because I studied public law and incidentally criminal law in a joint course.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4095
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#34 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Amy » 15 Oct 2016 10:09

stopbailiff wrote:Best ignored, you say. You pathetic little specimen always resort to ad hominem, little weasel! I was offering my opinion for 9 months on Legalbeagles, er because I possess a wide knowledge. Ban him! both you and Jason say when I say something a little challenging for your conventional thinking brains. I have studied far more law formally than any you have. Jason quotes human rights act but does not understand how it operates. Yet you say ban me! Not one of you understand that statute has an hierarchal order and some statutes have more priority ie constitutional acts (inter alia TCEA 2007 being no exception), and constitutional common law, not that any of you will remotely understand these 'challenging concepts.'
You really do need to stop this attitude of yours.

Rein it in or I will do so for you.

Try, just for one day, if you could be even a tad less arrogant.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6673
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#35 Re: Police confirm bailiff cannot break entry

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Oct 2016 10:17

stopbailiff wrote:Because Jason, when you don't agree with me you say the same thing as Pote, ie ban me. Being objective, Jason, in my view you're good if not excellent at general bailiff law in what I have observed thus far. However, you do not understand other statutes or its hierarchy where relevant, including Human Rights Act. I do however understand these concepts pretty much inside out as it were, because I studied public law and incidentally criminal law in a joint course.
And you don't seem to understand that legislation cannot cover every possible scenario and that is where regulations help with the details.
I studied public law and incidentally criminal law in a joint course.
Show us the certificates.

Post Reply