Ancient rights for British citizens to refuse the forced entry of Balliffs

Legacy_user

I signed up to this NO 10 Downing Street Petition and I got an email today telling me the Prime Minister's response. Trouble is that the link doesn't work. Can anyone shed any light on this one please?
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13772.asp

Lenny

Burlesque_Babe

I think the main page should be http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ but the whole site is very very slow....

Burlesque_Babe

Found the petition here

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Bailiff-Violence/

but the link isn't working. I think it's a muck up by the webmaster, I think the link needs fixing.

ZTD

Looks like the whole pm.gov.uk server is on it's knees...

BAILIFFCHASER

Probably have been overwhelemd by people reading the reply.

Homework

I think there is something in Scotland that you can refuse entry

Softstuff

This was the government response:

"The Government's response

The judgment in Semaynes case of 1604 said that "the house of anyone is not a castle or privilege but for himself, and shall not extend to protect any person who flies to it or the goods of any person which are brought there to prevent lawful execution". The judgment then went on to say it was not lawful to break the lock of the door of a common person "to do execution" on behalf of any subject. At that time this only provided protection for the rich - the poor couldn't afford locks. It had already long been settled legal practise that it was perfectly legitimate and lawful, and this remains the case, to push against an open door, lift a latch, turn a key or slide a bolt to enter premises. Prior permission of the occupant is not required before entry may be effected in those circumstances. It ruled that forced entry into premises without prior judicial authority was lawful where goods had been deliberately moved to those premises to avoid seizure.
In reforming bailiff law we are not weakening the protection afforded to vulnerable debtors. However, legitimate judgment creditors who have proven their case through the courts should have the right to have their debts enforced effectively. A judgment debtor should not, therefore, be able to avoid recovery action simply by locking their door and refusing to open it.
The power to force entry in connection with unpaid fines imposed for criminal offences exists by way of Schedule 4A of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. These provisions gave powers to civilian enforcement officers and approved enforcement agencies to use reasonable force to enter and search premises, without the need for further prior judicial authority before doing so, for the purposes of enforcing warrants of arrest, committal, detention and distress issued against those who have defaulted on payment of criminal fines enforced by the magistrates' courts.
These provisions were debated fully at Committee Stage of the Bill in the House of Commons on 6 July 2004 and were agreed unanimously. The amendment was not raised, or therefore debated, during the Report Stage in the House of Commons on 27 October 2004. On the Bill's return to the House of Lords for consideration of the Commons amendments on 2 November 2004, after a brief debate, the amendment was unanimously accepted.
The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and its underlying regulations, will clarify the confusion and inconsistencies that have arisen over many years as to what is and is not regarded as lawful entry. Currently bailiffs have varying powers of entry, including the power to effect entry through windows, skylights, or even, in the case of landlords, to lift the floorboards of premises above to gain access to premises below. It will codify in one place the powers of entry, including re-entry and forced entry, for all types of enforcement agent and for all debts and clarify that entry to domestic premises will only be by normal methods of entry, i.e. doors and French windows.
In addition, during the passage of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 in the House of Commons an assurance was given that the power to apply to use reasonable force to enter domestic premises in civil cases will not be brought into effect until the enforcement industry is independently regulated. These provisions received thorough debate and scrutiny during the passage of the Act through Parliament.
In a recent speech the Prime Minister shared his concerns about the need for additional protections for the liberties and rights of the citizen. He announced that the Home Secretary would be working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to examine the scope of bringing together all existing police powers of entry into a single understandable code. Alongside this the Home Secretary would establish and co-ordinate a wider review of other public authorities powers of entry covering areas such as public health, animal welfare, health and safety and customs and excise. Any change will be accompanied by guidance on how these powers should be exercised, setting out the rights and expectations of the citizen and what recourse they will have if the standards are not met."

System

Thank you softstuff

rog2

lennymfo wrote: »

I signed up to this NO 10 Downing Street Petition and I got an email today telling me the Prime Minister's response. Trouble is that the link doesn't work. Can anyone shed any light on this one please?
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13772.asp

Lenny

The link worked for me, Len. Then I saw Softstuff's post. :rolleyes:

I have to say that I think this government is trying to 'deal' with the whole question of 'Bailiff Powers' in a very covert manner. The latest legislation was 'ushered through' the houses of Parliament on the very day that Gordon Brown was announced as Tony Blair's successor, thereby diverting public attention from the sweeping powers that central government were bestowing on a bunch of 'legalised criminals'.
I appreciate that this legislation will not come into force until the 'highly lucrative' Bailiff Industry is covered by regulation, but, by that time Joe Public will be totally unaware that swathing new powers were bestowed on this particular faction of the criminal fraternity.
I think it is disgusting.

ReductionQueen

So what exactly does this mean? I read it as technically it's now legal for bailiffs force entry, and this condition that the enforcement agencies have to be regulated doesn't seem to have any kind of timescale.

BAILIFFCHASER

ReductionQueen wrote: »

So what exactly does this mean? I read it as technically it's now legal for bailiffs force entry, and this condition that the enforcement agencies have to be regulated doesn't seem to have any kind of timescale.

Bialiffs only have authority to force a door open when it is a magistrates fine/reposession etc. They do not have authority to do this on pcns or council tax/county court judgements etc. Even then the police have to be present.