People vs the banks: Man beats court eviction and prevents eviction on home repossession

[mark mark]

In light of recent "Common Law" evictions attempted and successfully resisted at
Yorkley Court Community Farm in the Forest-of-Dean
http://tlio.org.uk/yorkley-court-dodgy-eviction-attempt/ and another which was
successful at a site outside Bristol a week before the NATO Summit in Newport, I
point readers to the following interesting story of a civil dispute against
eviction 2 years ago which, whilst not related to common law evictions at-all
(with common law evictions, incredibly, the claimant may remain anonymous),
shows the power of being well-organised.  In this instance documented live on

film, the proponents defending the family being evicted claim they have created
a legal precedent, because they suggest eviction proceedings in civil disputes
against homeowners or rental occupiers are often applied deceitfully without
warrants and the people in this film assert that even with a warrant, the use of
physical force can be illegal (presumably unless it is justified on the warrant
sanctioned by the court).


People vs the banks: Man beats court eviction and prevents eviction on home
repossession
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u8g_tNimjEo


On May 31st 2012, the Bird family were facing eviction and repossession of their
home in Potters Bar by an unnamed banking institution over mortgage repayment
arrears. Supporters of the family stood their ground to defend the family on
their property on the arrival of bailiffs who came to carry out eviction
proceedings. The supporters made clear to the police who were called out by the
supporters that they intended to peacefully resist the eviction.  It soon became
clear in the unfolding situation which was filmed and put on utube that the
bailiffs had no legal right to threaten physical force to enter the property
though this is commonly taken-as-red in these circumstances of a civil dispute
in the same way bailiff's authority is accepted in other eviction scenarios. The

supporters made clear, corroborated by the police sergeant on duty, that the
dispute was a civil matter between both parties (the family and the bank) and
that if the supporters and family refused the bailiffs entry into the property,
they would be trespassing and threat of physical force would be a criminal
matter. The supporters informed police and bailiffs that any attempt at physical
entry would be in contravention of Section 1 (2) of the Protection from Eviction
Act 1977 and they stated their intention to make a criminal prosecution if
physical force was threatened without the serving of a warrant that stated it
would be justified.


In actual fact, no warrant was even produced by the bailiff, only an EX96 which
is not a warrant of any sort, only an internal court memo (which it is believed
is commonly presented by bailiffs as if it was a warrant when they seek entry
into a property).


As you will see in the film, the people defending the Bird family in this
eviction attempt are also campaigning against the banks, making the point that
banks create mortgage credit effectively out of thin-air as the banking system
through the loan-spiral process forever expands (except when it makes
spectacular losses in the world financial markets as we know, getting the public
to finance it's recapitalization as a fait-accompli to avert what would
otherwise be a financial crash and global depression - and yet, instead through
the bailout, isolating that hardship to the poor through the resulting swinging
cuts in public spending).


UPDATE - The live video footage was filmed on THU.31.MAY.2012 after which time
purported high court bailiffs apparently criminally evicted occupants in breach
of the Criminal Law Act 1977 section 6(1) and the Protection from Eviction Act
1977 section 1(2). In so far as the eviction was a criminal act, and the
regulated mortgage contract a void nullity, possession was apparently retaken,
the BARNET bailiffs apparently sacked, and the Bird registered proprietors were
still registered at Land Registry a year on by FRI.31.MAY.2013. Somewhere along
the bank's claim the Bird defendants were apparently denied access to appeal an

apparent fraudulent duplicate possession order made in the BARNET county court
district jurisdiction bound mortgage possession proceedings [County Courts Act
1984 section 1, 2(3), 3(1), 5(3) & 21(3)] and as such there appears to have been
a fatal breach, for the bank & court, of ECHR article 6.