Bailiff powers to enter multiple properties

[Spankymonkey]

Can anyone confirm what powers bailiffs have to enter multiple properties off the same writ?

Paragraph 14 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (6) states premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives.

This means that a bailiff could force his way past a new tenant into a property where the debtor no longer resides, and be immune from trespass because he ‘believed’ the debtor lived there. Don’t these writs have to specify an address? And even if they do, can’t the bailiff just enter any property he wants off a hunch and then claim he ‘believed’ it was a place the debtor usually lives?

[zeke]

Bailiffs cannot apply any kind of force against a person to enter a property or premises: http://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Boo ... euver.html


The writ specifies the enforcement address. But a bailiff can enter any address where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business. A further provision allows bailiffs to apply for entry to premises not specified on the writ or in Paragraph 14(6) on application to the court for a separate power. Paragraph 15 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Bailiffs cannot enter any property on the strength of a "hunch". Paragraph 18 - entry to non-relevant premises, Paragraph 36 - damages: Huntress Search vs Canapeum Ltd. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cg ... od=boolean

[Syd Snitkin]

What type of writ is it?

If it's a normal writ of control, he may enter any property he believes is relevant - this would reasonably be an address associated with the debtor. The writ must have an address but this doesn't need to be the debtor's current address, it will be the last known address.

However, the bailiff has no authority to force his way past anyone, nor can he force entry with a locksmith.

[Spankymonkey]

But what constitutes belief is not clearly defined, short of that which it is not: such as a hunch. This means that the bailiff could follow up any 'line of enquiry', not have to show the warrant, enter the occupants home via threats of a prosecution for obstruction,then have a look round for ID or letters to decide whether or not he has come to the right place. Then when he gets back to the office he could retrospectively pull together whatever he needs to show he had the appropriate level of 'belief' to avoid a potential claim of trespass in the unlikely event the poor occupant tries to sue.

This does not relate to any specific case, I'm merely trying to understand what prevents bailiffs from abusing a writ of control in this way.As far as I can tell there isn't anything.

[zeke]

There are laws preventing a bailiff abusing his position to enter property he knows or ought to know he does not have a right to enter.

Other than the Huntress test, it's legislation that governs whether premises may be entered.

Its difficult to comment on a hypothetical case because I draft documents on actual evidence and witness statements. When I come to draft the legal arguments, I follow Paragraph 14 - 30 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 because that is the only definitive guide on whether a bailiff can enter, apply force to enter or break and enter using a locksmith.

Create your hypothetical scenario and apply this article to it: http://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Loc ... Entry.html