Hi
I have had the Bailiffs call at my home this evening,They came for
none payment of council tax totaling £1026.Apperently my wife had
signed a walking agreement a couple of weeks ago,i told them i couldnt
pay the full amount but offered £250 they said this was not acceptable
and wanted the full amount,If i didnt pay this they will be visiting
tomorrow with a van to take the items they have on the walking
agreemenp.My question is is there anything i can do to stop them
tomorrow or can they just turn up and enter my home and take my
goods.Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
Many Thanks
Paul

On 3 Nov, 20:45, steven appleby  wrote:
> Hi
> I have had the Bailiffs call at my home this evening,They came for
> none payment of council tax totaling £1026.Apperently my wife had
> signed a walking agreement a couple of weeks ago,i told them i couldnt
> pay the full amount but offered £250 they said this was not acceptable
> and wanted the full amount,If i didnt pay this they will be visiting
> tomorrow with a van to take the items they have on the walking
> agreemenp.My question is is there anything i can do to stop them
> tomorrow or can they just turn up and enter my home and take my
> goods.Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
> Many Thanks
> Paul

I'm afraid I know nothing about bailiffs other than what Google told
me, so I can't help much.  However, if you have a car it's probably
best to park it somewhere out of sight of your house tomorrow - if it
isn't on your drive or your street, it's tricky for the bailiffs to be
sure it's yours (registered keeper of a vehicle isn't always the same
as the owner).

Do you accept that you owe the council £1026?  You have the right to
try to negotiate with your creditor (and they pretty much have the
right to tell you to pay the full amount) but you *might* get a more
sympathetic ear from the council than the bailiffs.  You could
certainly try calling the council with your offer to pay £250.

What does the walking agreement actually say?  What goods were listed
on it?  Often walking agreements will say that the debtor agrees to
pay £x per week/month; if that's the case they might go away
temporarily if you pay the £x (but IANAL and I'm not 100% whether
paying the £x would make matters better or worse).

steven appleby wrote:
> Hi
> I have had the Bailiffs call at my home this evening,They came for
> none payment of council tax totaling £1026.Apperently my wife had
> signed a walking agreement a couple of weeks ago,i told them i couldnt
> pay the full amount but offered £250 they said this was not acceptable
> and wanted the full amount,If i didnt pay this they will be visiting
> tomorrow with a van to take the items they have on the walking
> agreemenp.My question is is there anything i can do to stop them
> tomorrow or can they just turn up and enter my home and take my
> goods.Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
> Many Thanks
> Paul

Steven,

Have a look at this link, it may be of some help.

http://www.debtnation.co.uk/walking-possession-agreement.html

Cash

On 3 Nov, 20:45, steven appleby  wrote:
> Hi
> I have had the Bailiffs call at my home this evening,They came for
> none payment of council tax totaling £1026.Apperently my wife had
> signed a walking agreement a couple of weeks ago,i told them i couldnt
> pay the full amount but offered £250 they said this was not acceptable
> and wanted the full amount,If i didnt pay this they will be visiting
> tomorrow with a van to take the items they have on the walking
> agreemenp.My question is is there anything i can do to stop them
> tomorrow or can they just turn up and enter my home and take my
> goods.Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Well if your wife did indeed sign a walking possession agreement, then
they are entitled to recover those goods listed on the agreement, by
breaking in if necessary. Also, you are not allowed to hide or dispose
of the goods listed, although you can hide or dispose of any goods not
listed.

Beyond that, really the only way to stop them taking goods is to pay
your taxes.

On Nov 4, 11:15 am, "Cash" <.............\\@...............//.com>
wrote:
> steven appleby wrote:
> > Hi
> > I have had the Bailiffs call at my home this evening,They came for
> > none payment of council tax totaling £1026.Apperently my wife had
> > signed a walking agreement a couple of weeks ago,i told them i couldnt
> > pay the full amount but offered £250 they said this was not acceptable
> > and wanted the full amount,If i didnt pay this they will be visiting
> > tomorrow with a van to take the items they have on the walking
> > agreemenp.My question is is there anything i can do to stop them
> > tomorrow or can they just turn up and enter my home and take my
> > goods.Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
> > Many Thanks
> > Paul
>
> Steven,
>
> Have a look at this link, it may be of some help.
>
> http://www.debtnation.co.uk/walking-possession-agreement.html
>
> Cash

But bailiffs acting with respect to council debts may have more
draconian powers than with private and trade debts.

In article ,
steven appleby   wrote:
>I have had the Bailiffs call at my home this evening,They came for
>none payment of council tax totaling =A31026.Apperently my wife had
>signed a walking agreement a couple of weeks ago,i told them i couldnt
>pay the full amount but offered =A3250 they said this was not acceptable
>and wanted the full amount,If i didnt pay this they will be visiting
>tomorrow with a van to take the items they have on the walking
>agreemenp.My question is is there anything i can do to stop them
>tomorrow or can they just turn up and enter my home and take my
>goods.

Surely they can only do this for goods owned by your wife.  Any goods
which are your property cannot be seized.  In practice though bailiffs
are very unscrupulous.  I don't know what advice the newsgroup may be
able to provide with respect to trying to prevent the bailiffs seizing
goods which your wife had permitted to be listed on the agreement but
which in fact also belong to you.

You should probably contact the council and make your L250 offer to
them.  They will be able to call off the bailiffs.  Try and get your
councillor involved too, if you think you have a sympathetic case.

Also you should have a very firm talk with your wife to make sure that
she (a) never lets bailiffs in the house no matter what (b) doesn't
sign anything without your agreement.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

"steven appleby"  wrote in message 
news:f6d2480f-44cb-4088-9204-4e2e1ee93126@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Hi
I have had the Bailiffs call at my home this evening,They came for
none payment of council tax totaling £1026.Apperently my wife had
signed a walking agreement a couple of weeks ago,i told them i couldnt
pay the full amount but offered £250 they said this was not acceptable
and wanted the full amount,If i didnt pay this they will be visiting
tomorrow with a van to take the items they have on the walking
agreemenp.My question is is there anything i can do to stop them
tomorrow or can they just turn up and enter my home and take my
goods.Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
Many Thanks
Paul

-----------------------------------------

Not good news really, first off (you've not given much notice) I'd suggest 
posting here www.consumeractiongroup.com  *for help, make sure you use the 
bailiff's section of the forum.

If your wife has let the bailiffs in, which she must off done if they have a 
walking agreement, then they are legally entitled to break in if you don't 
let them in or are not there. So you're a bit stuffed. Move any car that is 
in your or your wife's name, park it well away.

Next, understand that they will not be reasonable, their only interest is in 
making money, they do not care about sob stories, they've heard/seen it all 
before, they just want to make money. By turning up with a van tomorrow 
there will be extra charges and anything that they take will be sold for a 
pittance.

For advice in the future, never let them in and always keep your 
doors/windows locked. My advice for now is, try and get as much money 
together as you can and pay them off. If you can offer them half now and the 
rest in a week, they may decide that that is easier than removing your 
goods, although you'll still have to pay for them turning up with a van 
tomorrow.

* Here's the direct link 
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/

In message 
, 
steven appleby  writes
>Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

However tempted you may be, do not arm yourself with a chainsaw to 
defend your goods and chattels.

What I do not understand is why your local council has not used other 
and more efficient means to recover the debt.

-- 
< Paul >

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:gfq*lmdVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article 
> ,
> steven appleby   wrote:
>>I have had the Bailiffs call at my home this evening,They came for
>>none payment of council tax totaling =A31026.Apperently my wife had
>>signed a walking agreement a couple of weeks ago,i told them i couldnt
>>pay the full amount but offered =A3250 they said this was not acceptable
>>and wanted the full amount,If i didnt pay this they will be visiting
>>tomorrow with a van to take the items they have on the walking
>>agreemenp.My question is is there anything i can do to stop them
>>tomorrow or can they just turn up and enter my home and take my
>>goods.
>
> Surely they can only do this for goods owned by your wife.  Any goods
> which are your property cannot be seized.

Rubbish, the Council Tax will be jointly owned.


> In practice though bailiffs
> are very unscrupulous.  I don't know what advice the newsgroup may be
> able to provide with respect to trying to prevent the bailiffs seizing
> goods which your wife had permitted to be listed on the agreement but
> which in fact also belong to you.
>
> You should probably contact the council and make your L250 offer to
> them.  They will be able to call off the bailiffs.

They will not call off the bailiffs

> Try and get your
> councillor involved too, if you think you have a sympathetic case.

He will not get involved.

> Also you should have a very firm talk with your wife to make sure that
> she (a) never lets bailiffs in the house no matter what (b) doesn't
> sign anything without your agreement.
>

Horse, bolt, door.

On 4 Nov, 00:30, "Road_Hog"  wrote:
>
> Next, understand that they will not be reasonable, their only interest is in
> making money, they do not care about sob stories, they've heard/seen it all
> before, they just want to make money. By turning up with a van tomorrow
> there will be extra charges and anything that they take will be sold for a
> pittance.

In many cases bailiffs are dealing with people who by hook or by crook
simply don't want to pay their bills. And I can hardly conceive how a
person can accidentally get into a position of owing the taxman over a
grand, and have the bailiffs at his door, and the obvious cause of the
situation is that such a person simply doesn't want to pay his bills.
Of course, if you can outwit the bailiff then fair enough, but I
hardly think the bailiff can be personally criticised for turning up
under these circumstances and demanding money in a manner consistent
with his lawful powers.

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:c5da5b75-5cd7-4178-82e9-71bfb7612720@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Nov, 00:30, "Road_Hog"  wrote:
>>
>> Next, understand that they will not be reasonable, their only interest is 
>> in
>> making money, they do not care about sob stories, they've heard/seen it 
>> all
>> before, they just want to make money. By turning up with a van tomorrow
>> there will be extra charges and anything that they take will be sold for 
>> a
>> pittance.
>
> In many cases bailiffs are dealing with people who by hook or by crook
> simply don't want to pay their bills. And I can hardly conceive how a
> person can accidentally get into a position of owing the taxman over a
> grand, and have the bailiffs at his door, and the obvious cause of the
> situation is that such a person simply doesn't want to pay his bills.
> Of course, if you can outwit the bailiff then fair enough, but I
> hardly think the bailiff can be personally criticised for turning up
> under these circumstances and demanding money in a manner consistent
> with his lawful powers.

The OP asked for advice, he didn't ask for me to judge or comment on his 
finances. If you lost your job and you had a choice of paying the taxman or 
your mortgage, which would you choose?

Anyway, I wasn't criticising the bailiff, the OP asked what he can expect 
(can they just turn up and take the stuff) and I told him what to expect.

Ian Jackson wrote:

> In article
> ,
> steven appleby   wrote:
> > I have had the Bailiffs call at my home this evening,They came for
> > none payment of council tax totaling =A31026.Apperently my wife
> > had signed a walking agreement a couple of weeks ago,i told them
> > i couldnt pay the full amount but offered =A3250 they said this
> > was not acceptable and wanted the full amount,If i didnt pay this
> > they will be visiting tomorrow with a van to take the items they
> > have on the walking agreemenp.My question is is there anything i
> > can do to stop them tomorrow or can they just turn up and enter
> > my home and take my goods.
> 
> Surely they can only do this for goods owned by your wife.  Any
> goods which are your property cannot be seized.  In practice though
> bailiffs are very unscrupulous.  I don't know what advice the
> newsgroup may be able to provide with respect to trying to prevent
> the bailiffs seizing goods which your wife had permitted to be
> listed on the agreement but which in fact also belong to you.
> 
> You should probably contact the council and make your L250 offer to
> them.  They will be able to call off the bailiffs.  Try and get your
> councillor involved too, if you think you have a sympathetic case.
> 
> Also you should have a very firm talk with your wife to make sure
> that she (a) never lets bailiffs in the house no matter what (b)
> doesn't sign anything without your agreement.

Its council tax so as husband and wife they will both be responsible
for its payment

Paul C. Dickie wrote:

> In message
> ,
> steven appleby  writes
> > Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> However tempted you may be, do not arm yourself with a chainsaw to
> defend your goods and chattels.
> 
> What I do not understand is why your local council has not used
> other and more efficient means to recover the debt.

If its got to the point of bailiffs being bought in then its a long
standing non payment not an oversite for a couple of months .

The op needs to have a serious chat with his wife to find out if he
has any more surprises

Road_Hog wrote:

>>
>> Surely they can only do this for goods owned by your wife.  Any goods
>> which are your property cannot be seized.
>
> Rubbish, the Council Tax will be jointly owned.

Possibly the OP was not included on the Summons? (Any number of reasons for 
that, eg he was not notified to the council as being resident.) The 
alternative is of course that his wife has been hiding correspondence.  In 
any case, the OP should certainly ask the bailiffs for sight of the court 
order to check that he is personally liable before allowing them to cart off 
his goods.

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:c5da5b75-5cd7-4178-82e9->
> In many cases bailiffs are dealing with people who by hook or by crook
> simply don't want to pay their bills. And I can hardly conceive how a
> person can accidentally get into a position of owing the taxman over a
> grand, and have the bailiffs at his door, and the obvious cause of the
> situation is that such a person simply doesn't want to pay his bills.

It may on the surface be "obvious" however this ignores the fact that 
Council tax is dispropotionate and unfair and a huge amount of money to 
front up for someone on low income.

Yes I know that if you are feckless and have no job or money in the bank you 
can claim relief, but for those that were foolish enough to save some cash 
for the inevitable rainy day, this does not apply.

Les.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:50:10 +0000, "Les." 
wrote:

>It may on the surface be "obvious" however this ignores the fact that 
>Council tax is dispropotionate and unfair and a huge amount of money to 
>front up for someone on low income.
>
>Yes I know that if you are feckless and have no job or money in the bank you 
>can claim relief, but for those that were foolish enough to save some cash 
>for the inevitable rainy day, this does not apply.
>
>Les. 

I agree...£120 a month I pay( Glasgow Band D) and that is WITH the
single household deduction ....and as for the Council Tax Benefit you
don't exactly need a large income to not qualify for it .... If it had
not been for Scottish Labour and the Tories then perhaps Scotland
would have been on it's way to get Local Income Tax to replace it .

In article <hcqisb$vee$1@aioe.org>, Road_Hog  wrote:
>"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
>news:gfq*lmdVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> Surely they can only do this for goods owned by your wife.  Any goods
>> which are your property cannot be seized.
>
>Rubbish, the Council Tax will be jointly owned.

Are you sure this is true ?  I don't know how this "walking posession"
works but I would guess the wife's agremeent can't bind the husband.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:45:11 +0000, "GB" 
wrote:

>Possibly the OP was not included on the Summons? (Any number of reasons for 
>that, eg he was not notified to the council as being resident.) 

In which case more CT will be owed if the single household reduction
had been granted .

Ste  writes:

> In many cases bailiffs are dealing with people who by hook or by crook
> simply don't want to pay their bills. And I can hardly conceive how a
> person can accidentally get into a position of owing the taxman over a
> grand, and have the bailiffs at his door, and the obvious cause of the
> situation is that such a person simply doesn't want to pay his bills.

Some councils adopt the policy that if you miss the payment deadline for
two council tax payments in a year, you lose the right to pay by
installments and the full amount becomes due immediately.  That's a very
quick and easy way to suddenly find you owe the taxman over a grand, if
you live in an expensive house or you do it early in the financial year.


-dan

Usenet Nutter wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:45:11 +0000, "GB" 
> wrote:
>
>> Possibly the OP was not included on the Summons? (Any number of
>> reasons for that, eg he was not notified to the council as being
>> resident.)
>
> In which case more CT will be owed if the single household reduction
> had been granted .

Yes, quite possible, but it's not a helpful comment because the OP asked 
what he should do about the bandits coming today.




-- 
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their
first trip.

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:Xax*T9fVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> Are you sure this is true ?  I don't know how this "walking posession"
> works but I would guess the wife's agremeent can't bind the husband.

She can sign an agreement for her goods and any goods that are jointly owned 
but they can't touch his goods.

Adrian Boliston wrote:

> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
> news:Xax*T9fVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> 
> > Are you sure this is true ?  I don't know how this "walking
> > posession" works but I would guess the wife's agremeent can't
> > bind the husband.
> 
> She can sign an agreement for her goods and any goods that are
> jointly owned but they can't touch his goods. 

Unless the order was against both  the op and his wife

On 4 Nov, 08:35, "Road_Hog"  wrote:
>
> The OP asked for advice, he didn't ask for me to judge or comment on his
> finances.

To be honest I'm not judging on his finances either. If he can get
away without paying his bills in general, then that is fine, and we
here could probably help him to do it.



> If you lost your job and you had a choice of paying the taxman or
> your mortgage, which would you choose?

The taxman, every time. Because when his bailiffs come knocking they
knock with a battering ram. And what is more, for a person in genuine
financial straits, it is often a mere formality to have the mortgage
put into abeyance or paid by the DWP.



> Anyway, I wasn't criticising the bailiff, the OP asked what he can expect
> (can they just turn up and take the stuff) and I told him what to expect.

You did seem to be characterising the bailiff in an unnecessarily
harsh light given the circumstances. "They will not be reasonable",
"they only want to make money", etc. I'm not aware of any situation
where bailiffs will be instructed without a very long period in the
interim during which the creditor is quite reasonable and willing to
accept installments etc. The fact that it has got to bailiffs is
normally a sign that the debtor has been totally unreasonable from an
objective point of view (even if one can have sympathy for the
debtor's personal circumstances).

On 4 Nov, 11:50, "Les."  wrote:
> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> news:c5da5b75-5cd7-4178-82e9->
>
> > In many cases bailiffs are dealing with people who by hook or by crook
> > simply don't want to pay their bills. And I can hardly conceive how a
> > person can accidentally get into a position of owing the taxman over a
> > grand, and have the bailiffs at his door, and the obvious cause of the
> > situation is that such a person simply doesn't want to pay his bills.
>
> It may on the surface be "obvious" however this ignores the fact that
> Council tax is dispropotionate and unfair and a huge amount of money to
> front up for someone on low income.

I totally agree that it is a large and disporportionate sum for the
poor to pay. But it doesn't go away by ignoring it.



> Yes I know that if you are feckless and have no job or money in the bank you
> can claim relief, but for those that were foolish enough to save some cash
> for the inevitable rainy day, this does not apply.

Your entitled to claim full benefits if you have no income and have
anything less than £16,000 in the bank. And if you have that much in
the bank, then there is no excuse for not paying your poll tax.

On 4 Nov, 13:15, Ian Jackson  wrote:
> In article <hcqisb$ve...@aioe.org>, Road_Hog  wrote:
> >"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
> >news:gfq*lmdVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> >> Surely they can only do this for goods owned by your wife.  Any goods
> >> which are your property cannot be seized.
>
> >Rubbish, the Council Tax will be jointly owned.
>
> Are you sure this is true ?  I don't know how this "walking posession"
> works but I would guess the wife's agremeent can't bind the husband.

It can. The goods that can be seized are those of the debtor named on
the order. However, any responsible person in charge of the premises
can sign a WPA on behalf of the debtor.

wrote in message news:87d43yh32q.fsf@lsip.4a.telent.net...
> Ste  writes:
>
>> In many cases bailiffs are dealing with people who by hook or by crook
>> simply don't want to pay their bills. And I can hardly conceive how a
>> person can accidentally get into a position of owing the taxman over a
>> grand, and have the bailiffs at his door, and the obvious cause of the
>> situation is that such a person simply doesn't want to pay his bills.
>
> Some councils adopt the policy that if you miss the payment deadline for
> two council tax payments in a year, you lose the right to pay by
> installments and the full amount becomes due immediately.  That's a very
> quick and easy way to suddenly find you owe the taxman over a grand, if
> you live in an expensive house or you do it early in the financial year.

agreed, but they still don't send the baliffs in for months

tim


Path: individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "tim...." 
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Subject: Re: bailiffs
X-Posted-Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:47:48 -0000
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:50:31 +0000
Message-ID: 
References: 	<hcqhoj$udo$1@aioe.org>	 
X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net NlApeDgsJxcj/j0a1bedswUgm/3K2tapc+SO573ueDmVkOj8yx
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-Ulm-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html
X-Ulm-Info-1: Submissions              uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-2: Technical complaints only      sysadmin (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-3: Human moderators uk-legal-moderated-request@usenet.org.uk
X-Comment: The moderators express no opinion about this article.
X-Robomod: {R}UUM ©2003       Richard Ashton richard (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Robomod-Trace: 8165820091104195032auto
Approved: uk-legal-moderated moderators 


 wrote in message news:87d43yh32q.fsf@lsip.4a.telent.net...
> Ste  writes:
>
>> In many cases bailiffs are dealing with people who by hook or by crook
>> simply don't want to pay their bills. And I can hardly conceive how a
>> person can accidentally get into a position of owing the taxman over a
>> grand, and have the bailiffs at his door, and the obvious cause of the
>> situation is that such a person simply doesn't want to pay his bills.
>
> Some councils adopt the policy that if you miss the payment deadline for
> two council tax payments in a year, you lose the right to pay by
> installments and the full amount becomes due immediately.  That's a very
> quick and easy way to suddenly find you owe the taxman over a grand, if
> you live in an expensive house or you do it early in the financial year.

agreed, but they still don't send the baliffs in for months

tim

On 4 Nov, 17:10, "Adrian Boliston"  wrote:
> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>
> news:Xax*T9fVs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> > Are you sure this is true ?  I don't know how this "walking posession> > works but I would guess the wife's agremeent can't bind the husband.
>
> She can sign an agreement for her goods and any goods that are jointly owned
> but they can't touch his goods.

That's actually not true. The only goods that can be seized are those
of the debtor named on the order. If the wife is named solely, then
goods that belong wholly to her can be seized, as can jointly owned
goods (with half the proceeds of jointly owned goods returned to the
husband). If the husband is named solely, then the goods that belong
wholly to him can be seized, as can jointly owned goods (with half the
proceeds of jointly owned goods returned to the wife). If both are
named on the order, then goods belonging to either of them can be
seized.

As for the WPA, any responsible person on the premises can sign (and
it need not be one of the debtors).

Ste wrote:

> As for the WPA, any responsible person on the premises can sign (and
> it need not be one of the debtors).

I thought that the basis if a WPA is that you are signing a pledge not 
to dispose of or remove the goods listed.

If a third party signs the order and the owner then removes listed goods 
then surely the bailiffs would have little comeback against the owner of 
the goods if the owner has not been notified that those goods are 
subject to a WPA.

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:3bf56438-49f2-42f6-b8f3-926ceac5d535@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Nov, 08:35, "Road_Hog"  wrote:
>>
>> The OP asked for advice, he didn't ask for me to judge or comment on his
>> finances.
>
> To be honest I'm not judging on his finances either. If he can get
> away without paying his bills in general, then that is fine, and we
> here could probably help him to do it.
>
>
>
>> If you lost your job and you had a choice of paying the taxman or
>> your mortgage, which would you choose?
>
> The taxman, every time. Because when his bailiffs come knocking they
> knock with a battering ram. And what is more, for a person in genuine
> financial straits, it is often a mere formality to have the mortgage
> put into abeyance or paid by the DWP.


 Not so, especially if you have one person workin and one not, you'll get 
nothing towards your mortgage. Mortgage companies have a far superior weapon 
to come in and take your house and throw you on the streets, which bailiffs 
cannot do. Also apart from very special curcumstances (with a court warrant) 
they can't break into your house (unless you've already let them in, walking 
agreement etc.)


>
>> Anyway, I wasn't criticising the bailiff, the OP asked what he can expect
>> (can they just turn up and take the stuff) and I told him what to expect.
>
> You did seem to be characterising the bailiff in an unnecessarily
> harsh light given the circumstances. "They will not be reasonable",
> "they only want to make money", etc. I'm not aware of any situation
> where bailiffs will be instructed without a very long period in the
> interim during which the creditor is quite reasonable and willing to
> accept installments etc. The fact that it has got to bailiffs is
> normally a sign that the debtor has been totally unreasonable from an
> objective point of view (even if one can have sympathy for the
> debtor's personal circumstances).

There are two (well more, but I don't want to complicate this) types of 
bailiffs, the County Court bailiffs who chase private debts (loans, credit 
cards etc.) and those that chase up what I would call government debt 
(Council tax, parking fines etc.). The former are paid by the court and are 
the sort of bailiff that you are thinking about, they will negociate, they 
are employed and reasonable.

The latter work on charges and commission, don't recover any money, don't 
get paid. Go and read the forum I listed in my first post, they're often on 
par with dodgy wheel clampers. I've posted the link again here, for you. 
Please read some of the posts and come back and tell me if you think it 
sounds reasonable.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/

On 4 Nov, 21:35, Adrian Boliston  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > As for the WPA, any responsible person on the premises can sign (and
> > it need not be one of the debtors).
>
> I thought that the basis if a WPA is that you are signing a pledge not
> to dispose of or remove the goods listed.

No, the purpose of the WPA is merely to acknowledge that a levy has
been carried out. It is not a contractual arrangement of any kind.


> If a third party signs the order and the owner then removes listed goods
> then surely the bailiffs would have little comeback against the owner of
> the goods if the owner has not been notified that those goods are
> subject to a WPA.

I forget now what offence is committed by removing seized goods from
the premises. I expect it would be a defence for the owner to say that
he did not know of the levy. However, the bailiffs still have a right
to possess the goods, and I expect that the owner would have to
deliver up the seized goods once he found out that they were subject
to a levy, or else commit an offence. However, don't quote me on this
yet. If this particular situation is of specific interest, I'll spend
some time tomorrow to look up and confirm it.

On 4 Nov, 23:25, "Road_Hog"  wrote:
> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> > On 4 Nov, 08:35, "Road_Hog"  wrote:
>
> >> If you lost your job and you had a choice of paying the taxman or
> >> your mortgage, which would you choose?
>
> > The taxman, every time. Because when his bailiffs come knocking they
> > knock with a battering ram. And what is more, for a person in genuine
> > financial straits, it is often a mere formality to have the mortgage
> > put into abeyance or paid by the DWP.
>
>  Not so, especially if you have one person workin and one not, you'll get
> nothing towards your mortgage.

How can a family be in such dire financial straits while there is
still at least one employed earner in the family? If the mortgage
alone is too big to be serviced by one income, then its time to
downsize/downgrade.



> Mortgage companies have a far superior weapon
> to come in and take your house and throw you on the streets, which bailiffs
> cannot do. Also apart from very special curcumstances (with a court warrant)
> they can't break into your house (unless you've already let them in, walking
> agreement etc.)

Nonsense. The taxman has more powers than *anyone* to put you on the
streets, and what is more mortgage companies will often bend over
backwards for people who have hit genuinely unfortunate circumstances.



> >> Anyway, I wasn't criticising the bailiff, the OP asked what he can expect
> >> (can they just turn up and take the stuff) and I told him what to expect.
>
> > You did seem to be characterising the bailiff in an unnecessarily
> > harsh light given the circumstances. "They will not be reasonable",
> > "they only want to make money", etc. I'm not aware of any situation
> > where bailiffs will be instructed without a very long period in the
> > interim during which the creditor is quite reasonable and willing to
> > accept installments etc. The fact that it has got to bailiffs is
> > normally a sign that the debtor has been totally unreasonable from an
> > objective point of view (even if one can have sympathy for the
> > debtor's personal circumstances).
>
> There are two (well more, but I don't want to complicate this) types of
> bailiffs, the County Court bailiffs who chase private debts (loans, credit
> cards etc.) and those that chase up what I would call government debt
> (Council tax, parking fines etc.).

Yes, we'll keep the issue as simple as possible. But essentially the
difference is between debts arising from civil proceedings, and debts
that arise from criminal proceedings.


> The former are paid by the court and are
> the sort of bailiff that you are thinking about, they will negociate, they
> are employed and reasonable.

Listen, I've talked to both kinds (on behalf of others), and found
both quite reasonable. Of course perhaps they are more reasonable with
me because 'I know things', but the fact remains that most of them are
simply saying to the debtor "I've come to collect a debt which you
have stubbornly refused to pay". The very fact that bailiffs have even
been instructed proves that there has already been either a civil or
criminal process, and both of those processes involve opportunities
for the debtor to say to a judge "I can't pay in full, but I can
afford £x..." and invariably any reasonable offer of payment will be
accepted.

Of course, debt collectors are another matter, but that's not relevant
here.



> The latter work on charges and commission, don't recover any money, don't
> get paid. Go and read the forum I listed in my first post, they're often on
> par with dodgy wheel clampers. I've posted the link again here, for you.
> Please read some of the posts and come back and tell me if you think it
> sounds reasonable.
>
> http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/

I haven't read every post, but the only one I did find of bailiff
misconduct was where a bailiff had been instructed by mistake (after a
catalogue of mistakes by the court) and wouldn't take "order set
aside" for an answer. Indeed, most of the posts on that forum seem to
be from people who by their own admission have failed to pay first
time around, have failed to pay court-ordered installments, and who
are offering advice on how to outwit the bailiff or negotiate a new
installments order.

Ste wrote:
>
> That's actually not true. The only goods that can be seized are those
> of the debtor named on the order. If the wife is named solely, then
> goods that belong wholly to her can be seized, as can jointly owned
> goods (with half the proceeds of jointly owned goods returned to the
> husband).

Let me see now. My wife and I went shopping, and we bought a sofa. Well, 
actually I handed over my credit card. So, the sofa is mine, not joint?

It's difficult to see how a bailiff can prove these things one way or 
another, and I as a householder am entitled to stop the bailiff removing 
stuff that belongs to me personally, with force if necessary.

"GB"  wrote in message 
news:4af2ea53$0$2528$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

> Let me see now. My wife and I went shopping, and we bought a sofa. Well,
> actually I handed over my credit card. So, the sofa is mine, not joint?
>
> It's difficult to see how a bailiff can prove these things one way or
> another, and I as a householder am entitled to stop the bailiff removing
> stuff that belongs to me personally, with force if necessary.

Shows the importance of keeping receipts for expensive items.

I'm not sure they can take "basic household items" like beds, sofas, washing 
machines etc

"GB"  wrote in message 
news:4af2ea53$0$2528$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Ste wrote:
>>
>> That's actually not true. The only goods that can be seized are those
>> of the debtor named on the order. If the wife is named solely, then
>> goods that belong wholly to her can be seized, as can jointly owned
>> goods (with half the proceeds of jointly owned goods returned to the
>> husband).
>
> Let me see now. My wife and I went shopping, and we bought a sofa. Well,
> actually I handed over my credit card. So, the sofa is mine, not joint?
>
> It's difficult to see how a bailiff can prove these things one way or
> another, and I as a householder am entitled to stop the bailiff removing
> stuff that belongs to me personally, with force if necessary.
>

You have prove that it belongs to you, not the bailiff, but as it's Council 
Tax it will be a joint bill so it doesn't matter.

No you are not entitled to stop a bailiff with force once he has a walking 
possession order, in fact he is allowed to break into your house if you 
don't let him in.

"Road_Hog"  wrote in message 
news:hcusi8$rjb$1@aioe.org...

> You have prove that it belongs to you, not the bailiff, but as it's 
> Council
> Tax it will be a joint bill so it doesn't matter.
>
> No you are not entitled to stop a bailiff with force once he has a walking
> possession order, in fact he is allowed to break into your house if you
> don't let him in.

All residents are jointly liable except in cases where one or more residents 
are full time students, in which case the liability only rests with the non 
student residents.

GB wrote:

> Ste wrote:
> > 
> > That's actually not true. The only goods that can be seized are
> > those of the debtor named on the order. If the wife is named
> > solely, then goods that belong wholly to her can be seized, as
> > can jointly owned goods (with half the proceeds of jointly owned
> > goods returned to the husband).
> 
> Let me see now. My wife and I went shopping, and we bought a sofa.
> Well, actually I handed over my credit card. So, the sofa is mine,
> not joint?
> 
> It's difficult to see how a bailiff can prove these things one way
> or another, and I as a householder am entitled to stop the bailiff
> removing stuff that belongs to me personally, with force if
> necessary.

So you sit on your sofa and your wife sits on hers 

If your married then domestic goods such as sofas are assumed to
belong to husband and wife

"steven appleby"  wrote in message 
news:f6d2480f-44cb-4088-9204-4e2e1ee93126@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Hi
I have had the Bailiffs call at my home this evening,They came for
none payment of council tax totaling £1026.Apperently my wife had
signed a walking agreement a couple of weeks ago,i told them i couldnt
pay the full amount but offered £250 they said this was not acceptable
and wanted the full amount,If i didnt pay this they will be visiting
tomorrow with a van to take the items they have on the walking
agreemenp.My question is is there anything i can do to stop them
tomorrow or can they just turn up and enter my home and take my
goods.Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

This may help you.

http://www.bankrupt.co.uk/Bailiffs-right-of-entry.htm

Peter Crosland

Adrian Boliston wrote:
> "Road_Hog"  wrote in message
> news:hcusi8$rjb$1@aioe.org...
>
>> You have prove that it belongs to you, not the bailiff, but as it's
>> Council
>> Tax it will be a joint bill so it doesn't matter.
>>
>> No you are not entitled to stop a bailiff with force once he has a
>> walking possession order, in fact he is allowed to break into your
>> house if you don't let him in.
>
> All residents are jointly liable except in cases where one or more
> residents are full time students, in which case the liability only
> rests with the non student residents.

We keep going round the same point - it depends who was summonsed. If there 
is something of mine in the house, the bailiffs can't take it unless I was 
on the summons and a court order was issued against me.


-- 
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their
first trip.

steve robinson wrote:
>>
>> Let me see now. My wife and I went shopping, and we bought a sofa.
>> Well, actually I handed over my credit card. So, the sofa is mine,
>> not joint?
>>
>> It's difficult to see how a bailiff can prove these things one way
>> or another, and I as a householder am entitled to stop the bailiff
>> removing stuff that belongs to me personally, with force if
>> necessary.
>
> So you sit on your sofa and your wife sits on hers

No. She sits on one of mine.

>
> If your married then domestic goods such as sofas are assumed to
> belong to husband and wife

Do you have a reference for that? I accept it seems reasonable.



-- 
Take it easy on the kid, SilverFox316; everybody kills Hitler on their
first trip.

On 5 Nov, 15:10, "GB"  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
>
> > That's actually not true. The only goods that can be seized are those
> > of the debtor named on the order. If the wife is named solely, then
> > goods that belong wholly to her can be seized, as can jointly owned
> > goods (with half the proceeds of jointly owned goods returned to the
> > husband).
>
> Let me see now. My wife and I went shopping, and we bought a sofa. Well,
> actually I handed over my credit card. So, the sofa is mine, not joint?
>
> It's difficult to see how a bailiff can prove these things one way or
> another, and I as a householder am entitled to stop the bailiff removing
> stuff that belongs to me personally, with force if necessary.

It will all come down to what interest in the goods a court determines
the debtor to have. Certainly in the household of a long-time married
couple, I think a court would determine that almost everything in the
house was jointly owned. On the other hand if the couple lived
separately, or had only been partners for a matter of weeks or months,
then I think the court would be more willing to accept that the goods
belonged to a specific partner.

Remember that in the context of a partnership, the person who pays for
goods, or whose income pays for the goods, does not necessarily have
an exclusive interest in those goods.

On 5 Nov, 16:00, "Adrian Boliston"  wrote:
> "GB"  wrote in message
>
> news:4af2ea53$0$2528$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> > Let me see now. My wife and I went shopping, and we bought a sofa. Well,
> > actually I handed over my credit card. So, the sofa is mine, not joint?
>
> > It's difficult to see how a bailiff can prove these things one way or
> > another, and I as a householder am entitled to stop the bailiff removing
> > stuff that belongs to me personally, with force if necessary.
>
> Shows the importance of keeping receipts for expensive items.
>
> I'm not sure they can take "basic household items" like beds, sofas, washing
> machines etc

That's correct, they can't take goods "necessary for basic domestic
needs". They can't take fixtures either, like fitted kitchens or other
fitted furniture that makes up the fabric of the building. Nor can
they wrest from you anything that you currently have on your person.

Peter Crosland  posted
>
>http://www.bankrupt.co.uk/Bailiffs-right-of-entry.htm

Who are they? I can't find anywhere on that site that says who they are. 
There isn't even a Contact Us page. It could be a loan shark in an 
attic.

-- 
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.

In article <BQeatoFsK$8KFwDD@obviously.invalid>, on Fri, 06 Nov 2009
10:00:41 +0000, Big Les Wade wrote:

| Peter Crosland  posted
| >
| >http://www.bankrupt.co.uk/Bailiffs-right-of-entry.htm
| 
| Who are they? I can't find anywhere on that site that says who they are. 
| There isn't even a Contact Us page. It could be a loan shark in an 
| attic.

http://whois.domaintools.com will very quickly point you in the right
direction of the owner.

I suppose the moderators would not approve of me posting any more
identifying information.

--
David Postill

David Postill  posted
>
>In article <BQeatoFsK$8KFwDD@obviously.invalid>, on Fri, 06 Nov 2009
>10:00:41 +0000, Big Les Wade wrote:
>
>| Peter Crosland  posted
>| >
>| >http://www.bankrupt.co.uk/Bailiffs-right-of-entry.htm
>|
>| Who are they? I can't find anywhere on that site that says who they are.
>| There isn't even a Contact Us page. It could be a loan shark in an
>| attic.
>
>http://whois.domaintools.com will very quickly point you in the right
>direction of the owner.

It gives the owner's alleged name, but that's of no interest. It doesn't 
give any information about what he does, or what authority he might have 
to pronounce on bankruptcy matters. He could be anybody.

-- 
Les

On 6 Nov, 17:50, Big Les Wade  wrote:
> David Postill  posted
>
>
>
> >In article <BQeatoFsK$8KF...@obviously.invalid>, on Fri, 06 Nov 2009
> >10:00:41 +0000, Big Les Wade wrote:
>
> >| Peter Crosland  posted
> >| >
> >| >http://www.bankrupt.co.uk/Bailiffs-right-of-entry.htm
> >|
> >| Who are they? I can't find anywhere on that site that says who they are.
> >| There isn't even a Contact Us page. It could be a loan shark in an
> >| attic.
>
> >http://whois.domaintools.comwill very quickly point you in the right
> >direction of the owner.
>
> It gives the owner's alleged name, but that's of no interest. It doesn't
> give any information about what he does, or what authority he might have
> to pronounce on bankruptcy matters. He could be anybody.

Well the page you refer to certainly seems to be an accurate statement
of a very nuanced area of law.

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:50:05 +0000, Big Les Wade  wrote:

> David Postill  posted
>>
>> In article <BQeatoFsK$8KFwDD@obviously.invalid>, on Fri, 06 Nov 2009
>> 10:00:41 +0000, Big Les Wade wrote:
>>
>> | Peter Crosland  posted
>> | >
>> | > http://www.bankrupt.co.uk/Bailiffs-right-of-entry.htm
>> |
>> | Who are they? I can't find anywhere on that site that says who they are.
>> | There isn't even a Contact Us page. It could be a loan shark in an
>> | attic.
>>
>> http://whois.domaintools.com will very quickly point you in the right
>> direction of the owner.
>
> It gives the owner's alleged name, but that's of no interest. It doesn't 
> give any information about what he does, or what authority he might have 
> to pronounce on bankruptcy matters. He could be anybody.

A "serial entrepreneur" http://www.entrepreneur.co.uk/about who appears to
register what he hopes are interesting and valuable domain names and then
puts up somewhat relevant materials in order to place those names into use.

IMO the purpose of that site may not be there to provide anyone with
valuable or reliable information but perhaps the material is there as
filler to place into use the site's domain name.

www.internetentrepreneurs.co.uk
www.entrepreneur.co.uk
www.classicvehicleinsurance.co.uk
www.businessideas.co.uk
www.lastminuteideas.co.uk
www.congratulations.co.uk
www.mobrule.co.uk
www.gowyc.co.uk

etc.

Tony

Ste  posted
>On 6 Nov, 17:50, Big Les Wade  wrote:
>> David Postill  posted
>> >| Peter Crosland  posted
>> >| >http://www.bankrupt.co.uk/Bailiffs-right-of-entry.htm
>> >|
>> >| Who are they? I can't find anywhere on that site that says who they are.
>> >| There isn't even a Contact Us page. It could be a loan shark in an
>> >| attic.
>>
>> >http://whois.domaintools.comwill very quickly point you in the right
>> >direction of the owner.
>>
>> It gives the owner's alleged name, but that's of no interest. It doesn't
>> give any information about what he does, or what authority he might have
>> to pronounce on bankruptcy matters. He could be anybody.
>
>Well the page you refer to certainly seems to be an accurate statement
>of a very nuanced area of law.

I suspect it's just copied from other free sites. It repeats many of the 
canards we have discussed on the group, for example the one about 
bailiffs being allowed to climb in through open windows, or being 
allowed to force entry to any property they have entered in the past.

-- 
Les
If creating a police state saves just one child, then it will all have been
worthwhile.

On 7 Nov, 17:20, Big Les Wade  wrote:
> Ste  posted
>
> >Well the page you refer to certainly seems to be an accurate statement
> >of a very nuanced area of law.
>
> I suspect it's just copied from other free sites. It repeats many of the
> canards we have discussed on the group, for example the one about
> bailiffs being allowed to climb in through open windows, or being
> allowed to force entry to any property they have entered in the past.

What canards? Bailiffs *are* allowed to climb in through open windows
(there is endless caselaw going back hundreds of years dealing with
the very issue), and they *are* allowed to re-enter for the purposes
of distraining further goods under the same warrant, and they *are*
allowed to force entry if you *deliberately* refuse to allow them re-
entry for that purpose.

Another one which I bet you didn't know is that they can, apparently,
enter by taking up the floorboards of a flat above (although I suspect
this will have been in the days before people had plasterboard
ceilings, or indeed any ceiling as distinct from the floorboards of
the room above).

Ste wrote:

> On 7 Nov, 17:20, Big Les Wade  wrote:
> > Ste  posted
> > 
> > > Well the page you refer to certainly seems to be an accurate
> > > statement of a very nuanced area of law.
> > 
> > I suspect it's just copied from other free sites. It repeats many
> > of the canards we have discussed on the group, for example the
> > one about bailiffs being allowed to climb in through open
> > windows, or being allowed to force entry to any property they
> > have entered in the past.
> 
> What canards? Bailiffs are allowed to climb in through open windows
> (there is endless caselaw going back hundreds of years dealing with
> the very issue), and they are allowed to re-enter for the purposes
> of distraining further goods under the same warrant, and they are
> allowed to force entry if you deliberately refuse to allow them re-
> entry for that purpose.
> 
> Another one which I bet you didn't know is that they can,
> apparently, enter by taking up the floorboards of a flat above
> (although I suspect this will have been in the days before people
> had plasterboard ceilings, or indeed any ceiling as distinct from
> the floorboards of the room above).

They would of course need the permission of the flat owner above

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:50:09 +0000, Ste  wrote:

>Your entitled to claim full benefits if you have no income and have
>anything less than £16,000 in the bank. And if you have that much in
>the bank, then there is no excuse for not paying your poll tax.

The amount of cash in the bank is probably not the usual reason for
folk not getting CTB ..It's the ridiculously low levels that need to
be met by your income to exclude you from getting it .

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:50:31 +0000, "tim...."
 wrote:

>
> wrote in message news:87d43yh32q.fsf@lsip.4a.telent.net...
>> Ste  writes:
>>
>>> In many cases bailiffs are dealing with people who by hook or by crook
>>> simply don't want to pay their bills. And I can hardly conceive how a
>>> person can accidentally get into a position of owing the taxman over a
>>> grand, and have the bailiffs at his door, and the obvious cause of the
>>> situation is that such a person simply doesn't want to pay his bills.
>>
>> Some councils adopt the policy that if you miss the payment deadline for
>> two council tax payments in a year, you lose the right to pay by
>> installments and the full amount becomes due immediately.  That's a very
>> quick and easy way to suddenly find you owe the taxman over a grand, if
>> you live in an expensive house or you do it early in the financial year.
>
>agreed, but they still don't send the baliffs in for months
>

Before Warrant Sales in Scotland were abolished Glasgow City Council
policy ( as it still is and may be for all Councils) was ...2
reminders and the full amount became due...virtually immediately after
it was referred for a Summary Warrant and that added on a further 10%
( what good that was sposed to do is anyones guess)  and negotiations
had to be done with the Sheriffs Officers it was assigned to

Road_Hog wrote:

> Rubbish, the Council Tax will be jointly owned.

So why is it only addressed to the person with the first initial closest 
to the letter A?

Dave

On 8 Nov, 14:40, "steve robinson" 
wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 7 Nov, 17:20, Big Les Wade  wrote:
> > > Ste  posted
>
> > > > Well the page you refer to certainly seems to be an accurate
> > > > statement of a very nuanced area of law.
>
> > > I suspect it's just copied from other free sites. It repeats many
> > > of the canards we have discussed on the group, for example the
> > > one about bailiffs being allowed to climb in through open
> > > windows, or being allowed to force entry to any property they
> > > have entered in the past.
>
> > What canards? Bailiffs are allowed to climb in through open windows
> > (there is endless caselaw going back hundreds of years dealing with
> > the very issue), and they are allowed to re-enter for the purposes
> > of distraining further goods under the same warrant, and they are
> > allowed to force entry if you deliberately refuse to allow them re-
> > entry for that purpose.
>
> > Another one which I bet you didn't know is that they can,
> > apparently, enter by taking up the floorboards of a flat above
> > (although I suspect this will have been in the days before people
> > had plasterboard ceilings, or indeed any ceiling as distinct from
> > the floorboards of the room above).
>
> They would of course need the permission of the flat owner above

Indeed. In that particular case I think the judgment creditor lived
upstairs.

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:D9WdnasB3MAgoGrXnZ2dnUVZ8g1i4p2d@bt.com...
> Road_Hog wrote:
>
>> Rubbish, the Council Tax will be jointly owned.
>
> So why is it only addressed to the person with the first initial closest 
> to the letter A?
>
> Dave

No idea, but when the bailiff's knocking on your door, it isn't exactly a 
priority on your mind.

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:7c0f6037-280c-482b-93da-da3cbcefdaa9@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> Another one which I bet you didn't know is that they can, apparently,
> enter by taking up the floorboards of a flat above (although I suspect
> this will have been in the days before people had plasterboard
> ceilings, or indeed any ceiling as distinct from the floorboards of
> the room above).

I'd imagine any fire would spread and wipe out the entire block in minutes!

Thankfully most block floors seem to be concrete rather than just boards 
these days.

On 10 Nov, 09:40, "Adrian Boliston"  wrote:
> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> news:7c0f6037-280c-482b-93da-da3cbcefdaa9@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Another one which I bet you didn't know is that they can, apparently,
> > enter by taking up the floorboards of a flat above (although I suspect
> > this will have been in the days before people had plasterboard
> > ceilings, or indeed any ceiling as distinct from the floorboards of
> > the room above).
>
> I'd imagine any fire would spread and wipe out the entire block in minutes!

Yes, but that case was from 1812, before building codes. I found the
case incidentally: Gould v Bradstock. Apparently it involved a mill
owner who had an apartment above the mill, which was separated from
the mill by only a wooden floor, and when the tenant of the mill
failed the pay the rent, the mill owner entered the mill to distrain
goods by taking up the floor of his apartment.