wonkeydonkey
-
Posts
3,157 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by wonkeydonkey
-
Now to the Writ........a writ lasts for 12 months. thereafter the creditor can for a small charge, seek to renew it as many times as they feel it neccessary. The writ is obtained by way of the County Court Judgment and is made to the address on that Judgment, with that being the last known address of the debtor, as long as you are named correctly eg Mary Mary it will be valid.
-
Hi ..... It is easy for you to say 'I have nothing worth taking' but since they will not simply take your word for it you are you are between a rock and a hard place. Basically you can refuse to allow them into your home then make a proposal to a payment plan in writing to the HCEO and submit a Common Financial Statement to support the amount you see to be affordable to you. They in turn must pass your offer to the creditor for acceptance. BUT they would be obliged to inform the creditor they have not been able to gain access to establish there are rubens paintings on the walls or a bentley parked in the garage. If you fail to have your offer accepted the only other option open to you would be a n N245 variation order to the Court, once again you will need to provide evidence your offer is the only amount affordable to you.(CFS). Should you decide to put your offer through the Court I would strongly advise you also request a stay of execution to the writ pending the outcome of your application.
-
What amused me most is the FACT I am not even a member of the board, I only view as a 'GUEST' which suggests they really are paranoid. I am going home tomorrow so my IP address will change, is he really going to check out every 'guests' IP in an attempt to see if they are 'friend or foe'.... what a wally he is.
-
Unless you want to read about it in the members area of the board in question!!!!
-
I seem to have struck a raw nerve....... could it be because he has been caught telling porkies again?? You have been permanently banned from this board. Please contact the Board Administrator for more information. A ban has been issued on your IP address.
-
Under the Chatton House Rules....really? so does that mean the 'notes' displayed elsewhere are untrue? Would there be a list of the attending delegates available anywhere?
-
Yes but, I fail to see where the 'reporter' of the published notes and comments fits in to the scheme of things Who Should Attend? Local Authorities Bailiffs and Enforcement Officers Relevant Government Departments The Enforcement Industry The Legal Profession The Judiciary The Advice Sector Businesses Voluntary Organisations Charities Landlords Local Housing Authorities Teams in Housing Associations Housing Services Management Teams Housing Management Officers Housing Finance Professionals Income Officers Income Management Officers Social Housing and Support Officers Housing Trusts Family Support Officers Community Development Teams Community Involvement Officers Community Engagement Officers Customer Involvement Managers Health and Safety Officers Tenancy Management Officers Principal Officers – Health and Housing The Police
-
I know where they have appeared ...but I was looking for a comparison version to obtain the truth.
-
Anyone have details to notes for this?
-
It's quite funny really how they expect congratulations on their 'successes' from member of this site but they won't let the very same people post on their site.......catch 22
-
For the record and in reply to the questions posted elsewhere "I have not seen this telephone call publicised. Where was it publicised and who publicised it? Wonkey Donkey is another ****** who seems more concerned with getting Jason into trouble than she is with being happy that he helped a debtor. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things that the name Bailey was used?" It was publicised on the forum you write on, it was published by Jason himself, if you find it has swiftly been removed...just ask and I will get a copy over to you. Why would anyone who proclaims to be a LAW FIRM want to use any other name than his own, unless they have something to hide. P.S. This thread is not the place for questions posed elsewhere and I will not be making further comment on it. As the poster of the above is well aware, I cannot reply to him on the site in question. Therefore if he wishes to receive answers to further questions I suggest he tries using one of his many user names for this site and he will eventually be able to put his questions to me via PM.
-
You are required to give your true name to the court when acting as an MF and in the past I have been asked to provide not only my full name but also my full address. I see it mentioned the name used by the debtor when making reference to the MF is not his true name.I sincerely hope that was not the name given to the Court. In a recent publicised telephone recording of interaction beween the same gentleman and Marstons he was again asked to identify himself along with the company he represented, he took to give a false surname while also claiming the 'company' he represented to be a LAW FIRM.
-
Very good post BA this clears up the 'myth' that the said fees have not been approved by parliament.
-
I wonder what would happen if the poor debtor engaged the services of the MF in question and later refused to pay him, would he claim against them and send the bailiffs in to collect? After all he is flogging a service he is not personally qualified to carry through. Add MF to that track record of his imaginary qualifications (exposed to be a pack of lies by cag members) and it is mind boggling. I pity the poor debtors who think they are going to recoup the costs of those telephone consultations and 'legal' services provided by him.
-
A transcript of the case would be interesting, it would be good to get the Judges perspective on the attending MF and to see if their costs were awarded
-
do these relate to your previous posts frpm 2011/12
-
Watching from the sidelines over the past weeks, I allowed myself to get excited with the thought we had at long last determined if bailiffs can take control of goods to recover their fees. Disappointment set in when after several weeks no evidence was forthcoming to support this major Judgment. 'we have a judgment of Murgatroyd vs. Wilkinson 2015 which Judge Mathews QC determined bailiffs cannot take control of goods to recover fees. Paragraph 58 of Schedule raises it's ugly head and bites the bailiff on the arse. For those unfamiliar with Murgatroyd vs. Wilkinson. It was a case a county court case last month. W owed M judgment and W settled to M but M had transferred the judgment to the High Court The judgment confirmed the operation of Paragraph 58 of Schedule 12 means bailiffs cannot take control of goods to recover fees.' A simple copy of the Judgment (personal details removed) would go a long way to giving it credability.
-
You must furnish the defendants (Andrew James) with the particulars of your claim or the claim could be struck out. Was the pcn addressed to the Ltd company and sent to the business address? is your car registered at the business premises as opposed to your home address?
-
I couldn't agree more....this thread was started to show people posting notices to remove implied rights of access were seen to be ineffective, it has never been suggested they were UNLAWFUL to use, so why take the subject matter of track?
-
Yes...you will need to follow their complaints procedure through to the end as they must be given the opportunity to investigate your complaint and address it. Once you have done that and if you are still dissatisfied with the result you can escalate it up to the HCEOA.
-
Well that says it all!!! Simon Williamson's main business is the running of an auction house with the 'enforcement business' being nothing more than a side line of which he has little 'expertise'. They are members of the HCEOA therefore, once you have complained direct to monkey's you can then go to the organ grinder if you don't get a satisfactory reply.
-
It would be the creditor who decides if they want to explore the possibility of going down the bankruptcy route, it is a very costly way forward for them and akin to them 'cutting of their nose to spite their face' as they will still not get a penny. If you refuse the attending officer entry they will eventually have to return the writ to their client marked unenforcable, the creditor will then have to decide where they want to go with that. It is possible they will just farm it out again to another HCEO a writ is valid for 12months but can be renewed on request.
-
Load of bull**it, if you refuse to let them in they can do nothing, it would be for the creditor to explore other (very costly) options of enforcement not the attending officer. Among the options available would be a charging order on your home (if owned by you) or application for bankruptcy (save you a fortune if they went that route) In the meantime you can apply to stay execution of the writ using form N244, the grounds would be your pending filing for bankruptcy. If your circumstances show you to be in receipt of certain benefits you can also file form ex160 for fee remission to obtain the stay.
-
Shergroup
wonkeydonkey replied to wonkeydonkey's topic in Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions
I was curious to see if it was a voluntary winding up or if not, who brought the action?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS