Before Christmas, a family friend had a visit from the
bailiffs. For various complicated personal reasons, the
local authority thought she had not paid a council tax
bill. She had, only they had not registered it properly
under the correct name. When the bailiff arrived at her
home, she was out and her son answered the door. He walked
in without a by-your-leave and proceeded to make an inventory
of her possessions before departing.
As can be imagined, she was horrified by this violation
of her family's privacy. The local council, on checking
its records, acknowledged its mistake and apologised.
And that was that. Since a complete stranger had entered
her home for no good reason, does that not constitute
an affront, even if the door was opened by someone in
the house? After all, an Englishman's home is his castle,
isn't it? Apparently not. The powers of bailiffs to enter
homes and seize property are wider today than they have
ever been and are about to be strengthened further.
We will be hearing a lot more of the bailiff in coming
months. About 75,000 homes will be repossessed this year
and hundreds of thousands of people will face action for
unpaid debts. Local authorities are also using bailiffs
to pursue council tax defaulters, with more than a million
visits last year. If you want a job, here is one that
will last while all around are losing theirs.
(Article continues below)
Inevitably, it preys upon the misery of others; but someone
has to do it. The issue, really, is how they do it and
in what circumstances. Anyone who watched Little Doritt
on television recently will know of Dickens's obsession
with bailiffs that derived from the indebtedness of his
father. But even the most rapacious bailiff in one of
his novels did not have the power of his modern counterpart.
Neckett in Bleak House had to be invited in to serve his
warrant for debt on Skimpole. This is because, for centuries,
bailiffs were unable forcibly to enter a home under a
common law right of citizens established in around 1300
and reaffirmed on many occasions by the courts, as in
the Semayne's judgment in 1604 from which the "Englishman's
castle" concept derives, and by successive governments
throughout history.
In 1760, William Pitt (the Elder) made a famous declaration
of this right. "The poorest man may in his cottage
bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be
frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it.
The rain may enter. The storms may enter. But the king
of England may not enter. All his forces dare not cross
the threshold of the ruined tenement."
This right to refuse forced entry held for centuries
until the Labour government, with its cavalier disregard
for personal privacy, came along. In 2004, it introduced
the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which contained
a power to force entry in connection with unpaid fines
imposed for criminal offences. This was a significant
departure from the common law that merited a wide debate;
yet it was included in a measure that, on the face of
it, had nothing to do with bailiffs. The Government maintains
that it was fully considered by Parliament; but it depends
what you mean by fully. The Bill was in its final day
in committee when ministers tabled "urgent"
new proposals to show they were "getting tough"
with fine dodgers.
