Good afternoon,
I am just going through my records and I have found a Lever Arch File full of print offs from this website.
I have written down the above case and it reads:
A bailiff must leave a proerty when asked to do so. If they do not this equals Trespass - this is then Aggravated Trespass. And then any subsequent Levy made becomes invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages. Morris v Beardmore 1980 71 cr. App. 256
Can anyone confirm this is correct or incorrect. If it is correct does this just apply to private bailiff companies not High Court etc...
Many thanks as always
LL
ROBSON + ANOTHER V HALETT 1967
Re: ROBSON + ANOTHER V HALETT 1967
On April 6 2014, the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA) Came into force and pretty much re-write the rule-book on bailiffs. The law on bailiffs and trespass now falls under Paragraph 66(1) which states:
If a person other than the debtor suffers a loss, material and non material, they can sue for trespass to goods as the restriction in Paragraph 66 only applies to debtors. That was discovered in a 2017 claim when a bailiff company unsuccessfully defended a claim from a non-debtor claimant. because the judge agrees that the bailiff was only excluded from trespass in an action brought by a debtor.
If the address attended is not an enforcement address on the warrant or other enforcement power, the occupant can sue for trespass, provided the occupant is not the debtor.
If an action is being brought, the claimant can only bring it against the bailiff personally, and the creditor. They cannot sue a bailiff company. The creditor claims redress from the bailiff company as they are in a contract which the debtor or third parties are not party.
A common scenario is a bailiff taking a car not belonging to the debtor and a court finds at an interpleader claim the car belongs to the claimant. He can sue for trespass to goods for the number of days the car was detained and the costs of safety checks to ensure the car is safe to drive and carry passengers on the road. The action is a trespass to goods claim.
I have several cases where a bailiff acting unlawfully refused to leave the property and the client recovered £50 a minute for the first hour then £500 for each subsequent hour, but I don't know what regulation the claim followed because I referred it to a solicitor who didn't share the statements with me. both cases involved a bailiff enforcing a High Court writ.
I have a current claim involving an aggravated trespass claim, for a drive-by clamping event for a PCN warrant with a previous address, but the claim has not been decided by the court, and the bailiff company has made minimal offers "insulting the claimant" to settle but the claimant applies for all their losses, not a discount.
However, if you read the heading of Paragraph 66, it states:66(1)This paragraph applies where an enforcement agent—
(a)breaches a provision of this Schedule, or
(b)acts under an enforcement power under a writ, warrant, liability order or other instrument that is defective.
(2)The breach or defect does not make the enforcement agent, or a person he is acting for, a trespasser.
Remedies available to the debtor
If a person other than the debtor suffers a loss, material and non material, they can sue for trespass to goods as the restriction in Paragraph 66 only applies to debtors. That was discovered in a 2017 claim when a bailiff company unsuccessfully defended a claim from a non-debtor claimant. because the judge agrees that the bailiff was only excluded from trespass in an action brought by a debtor.
If the address attended is not an enforcement address on the warrant or other enforcement power, the occupant can sue for trespass, provided the occupant is not the debtor.
If an action is being brought, the claimant can only bring it against the bailiff personally, and the creditor. They cannot sue a bailiff company. The creditor claims redress from the bailiff company as they are in a contract which the debtor or third parties are not party.
A common scenario is a bailiff taking a car not belonging to the debtor and a court finds at an interpleader claim the car belongs to the claimant. He can sue for trespass to goods for the number of days the car was detained and the costs of safety checks to ensure the car is safe to drive and carry passengers on the road. The action is a trespass to goods claim.
I have several cases where a bailiff acting unlawfully refused to leave the property and the client recovered £50 a minute for the first hour then £500 for each subsequent hour, but I don't know what regulation the claim followed because I referred it to a solicitor who didn't share the statements with me. both cases involved a bailiff enforcing a High Court writ.
I have a current claim involving an aggravated trespass claim, for a drive-by clamping event for a PCN warrant with a previous address, but the claim has not been decided by the court, and the bailiff company has made minimal offers "insulting the claimant" to settle but the claimant applies for all their losses, not a discount.
-
LUCYLOCKET
- Posts: 0
- Joined: 18 Jun 2014 12:44
Re: ROBSON + ANOTHER V HALETT 1967
Superb information - many thanks to you Schedule 12!