caledfwlch
-
Posts
1,922 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by caledfwlch
-
Why exactly DO Utility Companies prefer to use HCEO's for personal debt? When dealing with a personally owed debt, then the HCEO has no more powers than an EA. Even the various "Bailiff Porn" shows at the start big up how much more powerful and important and special HCEO's are than EA's but then, when they toddle off to visit a personal debtor, have to admit that in personal debt they have no more powers, like they have with commercial debt. Just seems very odd, unless they hope to trick the debtor into panicking thinking they have more powers, or its to punish the debtor by increasing enforcement fees.
-
Channel 5's Neighbour's from hell shows that perfectly sane people do the most bizarre and petty things, over sleights, both real and percieved. It's why the OP should go to the Police and request a Harassment Order be applied for - a huge amount of Harassment in these situations is low level stuff that is not even a crime, and the standards and proof required for the orders seems to be very low, because they aren;t a criminal conviction, but "advice" but breaching the advice could lead to prosecution. They have shown harassment orders given where the nature of the harassment is stuff like the electrician who would test his vehicles lights before heading off to work every morning at 5am, it just so happens that the way he would park his van meant the lights would light up his opposite neighbours windows, across the street.
-
Help with Housing Association
caledfwlch replied to MrJohnW's topic in Local Authority, Council Tax and Business Rates Issues
I thought that as Housing Associations have taken over Council Housing (though some didn't and started from scratch) that A Secure Tenancy with one, would be carried through to another? hence, if you make use of the legal right to swap "council" homes with one HA, whilst the terms and conditions of the second HA may differ, and you would sign an agreement with them, you would still be a secured tenant? -
You can tell that the CC Charge has been brought in against the wishes of a huge chunk, perhaps even a majority of the Judiciary, by the fact that unlike a Fine, Magistrates/Judges have absolutely no leeway to reduce or waive the Charge. They knew full well many would waive or hugely reduce it for vulnerable defendants who will struggle to pay a fine, never mind the CCC. It is possibly the most unjust law enacted in decades, it has no function except to act as a massive hammer to frighten and intimidate people into pleading guilty, even if innocent, but evidence availability makes a not guilty finding less than certain. Combined with the huge reductions to legal aid, and a modern Police culture that sees Constables openly lying and perjuring the Court daily, it feels more like North Korea than the UK. It really does seem that the best course of action if you know your likely to be getting a fine in court soon, is to sell your levyable goods to a friend and have them stat dec it, so at least if there are struggles with getting a Magistrate to agree an affordable payment structure, or a payment is missed, Enforcement Agents wont be able to harm you. People need to be advised that if doing that, to continue making payments to the Court, even if less than agreed to avoid the possibility of a Custodial Sentence for non payment - Bailiff Proofing your home and making no payments is a sure fire way to Prison I would imagine, but bailiff proofing and making payments, make it far less likely, Judges and Magistrates are under pressure to deal harshly with non/wont pays, and making payments should help.
-
Not wrong, but WTC should only be scrapped if in conjunction with the imposition of a living wage. Scrapping it wont cause Employers to immediately raise wages - they know full well that if employees were to walk out, they would be unable to claim benefits while searching for a new job, as they walked out of the previous one. It would be a blinking game, and I doubt Employers would blink first. Totally agree that WTC is a benefits handout for Employers, not Staff, and was arguing that point on a political forum. Regarding a Living Wage, Employers will scream and wail and gnash their teeth, and shriek that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, we're doomed, Doomed I tells ya!" Except, they did the same for Minimum Wage didn't they, and their threats and Fretting never came to pass.
-
Magna Carta still relevant ?
caledfwlch replied to Peterbard's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
A Written Constitution is just as alterable and editable as any other legislation - it's why the USA came up with "Amendments" so that the Federal Government can change rights. The Right to Bear Arms is a constitutional Right of the American People, but it would not be unlawful to produce an amendment outlawing them - the Constitution does not specify what Arms it allows, its just a right to bear them, but Federal and State enacted Legislation and amendments restricts those Arms - like a fully automatic Assault Rifle, or machine gun is illegal, and under local legislation in many States, it is an offence to carry hidden Firearms, so you can walk around with an Assault Rifle on your back, but would be in big trouble in a stop and search if they found a pistol in an armpit holster. A time when there is such a panic over Terrorism is absolutely not the time that Citizens Rights should be amended. -
Should we leave the EU..
caledfwlch replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
And of course, the ECHR and the European Human Rights Court are actually nothing to do with the European Union itself. Funny how Cameron doesn't want a referendum on the ECHR, presumably because he doesn't want to come clean on what would very likely become known, after its enactment as "The British Bill of Rights We Used to Have" Governments never like giving, only taking, and a Bill of Rights would without question strip away many Rights all in the name of "Terrorism" -
Amusingly, I can see this as not being terribly good for the Enforcement Companies. Concentrix's only loyalty to its shareholders, and making profit for them it's reason for existing. Any Contracts they choose to hand out to Enforcement Agencies are bound to be designed to take a lot of profit from the EA's and put it into Concentrix's account, and accepting that will be the only way the EA's get a contract. It wouldn't surprise me if they demanded half the fees the EA's charge. And as much of Concentrix's profit will be determined by how many people pay up, I can see fine collection becoming incredibly aggresive and nasty.
-
How is protecting the legal rights of a Debtor, and stopping people acting on a warrant gained by contempt of court, ie lying on oath in any way obstruction? Pre payment meters cost a lot more for the customer to run than a credit meter, even if you dont have a debt, despite the fact that a prepayment meter is cheaper for theutility company to run than a credit meter. My meter charges me 33p a day just for the pleasure of having it, and on top of that each electrical unit I use is charged to me at a higher price than a credit meter.
-
What I would be interested in seeing where forced entry is defined - as we said, when he makes the point about the warrant only allowing the locks to be drilled, if the door is further bolted, the utility people withdraw, so its clearly correct, I just wondered if it is actually in the 1954 gas act or other legislation. In one of his videos, Mark is accused of being a Freeman by some prat or other and denies it, as you have quoted with his point of view, which tallies with mine, the idea of "lawfull rebellion"using better knowledge of the law to defeat those who abuse it, and to "rebel" in ways that are frustrating and annoying to authorities or abusers of authority but totally legal is a wonderful idea, but the movement it has become is a load of rubbish, not just that but a clear danger to innocent people misled by it.
-
It is indeed.
-
British and American "Private Military Contractors" or Mercenary **** who get off on killing people as they used to be known have been operating alongside Her Majesty's Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. Some Police Forces have contracted out both the running of Custody Suites and mobile detention vans for mass arrests on Friday/Saturday evenings. I could well see May ressurecting some of the old New Labour Plans too - such as giving Bouncers and Security Guards the right to apply for a dispensation from their local Court (or Police Chief Constable, I forget which) so that they can give out Fixed Penalty Notices and so on to members of the public.
-
A great idea, but highly unlikely unless Court Staff point to a free phone as the company is based in Belfast and I cant see them cutting into potential profits by putting an admin officer in every court.
-
The youtube channel is under the name of Trial by Social Media, and the guy is based in Lancashire. He hasn't come out with any FMOTL stuff in the videos I have watched. I am sure he mentions in one that he is something to do with the beat the banks and bailiffs facebook page. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI5IqHfQ8rLsqdO9owZ0FGw is the youtube channel, I have only watched the Utility Company stuff though, but he appears to go by what the legislation says - its the thing about not being able to force entry beyond drilling the locks that had me interested and wondering if it would apply to EA's acting on a Fine. BA - the chap's initials are indeed MG, just watching another video which states his name.
-
Bad enough to outsource to a private firm, but to an American one? Do they not realise that the only loyalty a US firm has is to the US, so the FBI etc are going to pretty much have full access to electronic UK Court Records etc, whatever this firm has access to. Now, if the point of this was to attempt to collect fines at a fair and affordable rate, as an alternate to deploying the Bailiff's and thus hitting defaulters with even more fees they cannot afford to pay, exposing them to arrest, custodial sentancing etc then Ok, maybe not such a bad idea. If they will be in control of Enforcement including the right to deploy Bailiffs, then this is a very nasty ****storm waiting to happen. Grief, imagine the likes of Scotcall or Lowells having access to Forced Entry Enforcement and powers of Arrest (if given an arrest warrant) Concentrix are basically a Software/Tech Support company which used to belong to IBM but was sold off. They have no experience of Debt Collection, its as bad an idea as giving a french software company the contract to perform medicals. And their handling of Tax Credits for HMRC makes it pretty clear they are totally unfit as a company to come anywhere near our Justice System. Another area of problems, they are based in Belfast, so staff wont even have a basic understanding of Bailiff's since they havent existed in NI for nearly 45 years, its a totally alien concept to them, and they wont understand how horrific Enforcement can be etc. There is an article on the HMRC Fiasco in the Independent if you google - their staff told the paper that they arent given anywhere near enough training, just told to make multiple decisions per hour - one estimated that 6 out of every 10 letters send accusing the claimant of Fraud were completely bogus.
-
That sounds remarkbly like the defence the Banks used for their infamous Penalty Charges. Amazed there isn't a part of it for "shoe leather" which was famously on one of the big banks list of why a charge was £30.
-
I doubt Facebook has any real significance to the DWP. Can you imagine the look on the Judge's face if they brought a case to trial purely because of what Facebook Profile said - Facebook is notoriously unreliable for information. I know someone claiming benefits, who's public facebook says she is a "Curse Breaker" at "Gringott's Wizarding Bank" where she works under "Bill Weasley" I would so like to see that being presented as evidence in Court. Maybe she could call JK Rowling as a witness! I suspect they use what they can find on FB to kickstart a proper investigation, and it is only what the investigation covers that is used. It isn't reliable for peoples employment etc, But an attempt to prosecute purely on an FB page would be ludicrous. and if your are claiming as a single person like in the linked news article, but your FB says your still with your husband, then more fool you!
-
Should we leave the EU..
caledfwlch replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
Every argument the No campaign made against Scotland going Independent applies to leaving the EU. Look at Norway - a lot of Norwegian Politicians would love it to be in the EU - the problem they have is they have to enact EU legislation that they have no control over or say in, because they dont belong to the EU, but if they didnt enact that legislation, they wouldn't be allowed to trade with the EU, and various other things. So we couldn't leave, and become a powerful trading nation, continuing to trade with the EU, we would simply still have to enact certain stuff, and not even get the billions that the EU sends to Britain for poor areas etc. The Immigration arguments don't stack up either!!! Here are a couple of EU nations who have citizens resident in the UK Germany 126,000 German Nationals in UK Spain 71,000 Spanish Nationals in UK Netherlands 40,000 Dutch Nationals in UK UK Citizens in those Nations: Germany 115,000 Spain 761,000 Netherlands 44,000 So should we leave the EU and send the EU Migrants "home" and they retaliate and send Brits back, we will not only not ease the population, but increase it, France has about 130,000 Brits! And many of those Brits, especially in Spain and France are on local Benefits, and using up local services, especially elderly brits in both. So we would have several hundred thousand Brits coming back, all needing the NHS and benefits system, at least temporarily. We would be exchanging many working EU Migrants, for Brits who wont be working, many of whom will be on pensions. -
The problem is, they should be notifying! They have to send what the MG chap refers to as a "Human Rights Notice" giving a customer the opportunity to turn up in court to argue against a warrant being granted. The one particular video highlights this, as someone in United Utilities office had clearly designed the Notification to be extremely misleading, and as pointed out, there was no way it was a system fault. The Date the warrant was given as going before a Magistrate was 6.10.2015 The date they would then visit to enforce the warrant if granted was 16.06.2015!!! MG realised, they had entered the date it was in court using American dating convention, but the date of visit was in UK dating convention, had it been a system error, both dates would have been in American. Instead it was clearly designed to stop the Debtor from going to court - as BA points out, MG for example gets many if not all these warrants denied. Because he gets the tenant, property owner or Landlord to hire a Corgi Plumber to do a full gas safety check (or electrician for electric meter) and take the certificate to court, which stops a Warrant under the 1954 act being granted, as the new Certificate proves there is no danger of the meter being unsafe, or being fiddled with and used to illegally extract power. A Warrant under the 1986 Act, brought in when payment meters came into being only allows Entry by permission of the Resident, it does not allow a forced entry. The bit I was wondering, whether it could be brought to apply to Enforcement Officers (Except presumably for EA's and HCEO's performing an eviction) is according to MG, the Warrant of Forced Entry only confers on a Locksmith the power to drill the locks - if the door is also bolted from the inside, he or she is not allowed to then use further force, such as a boot or shoulder to smash the bolts off, or smashing a window, if drilling the locks does not work they must withdraw. The proof appears to be in the pudding, as in one video, when as he was told before he even began, the lock drilling failed to gain entry as the home was also secured with the bolts, so he and the British Gas reps were forced to leave. Interestingly from that particular video, it was obvious that young children were inside (they were screaming in terror) and the British Gas rep seemed to believe he did not need to do a risk assessment on the forced entry going ahead, despite the fact kids may be right behind the door and injured.
-
Watching others at the moment. Basically, the energy company know full well there is no health and safety issue - they want entry to replace the meters with payment meters - the problem is, under the 1986 act which allows them to replace meters, they are not allowed to force entry, they can only do so with permission of the debtor. So, they go to court, lie on oath that there is a H&S issue, and get a criminal entry warrant under the 1954 act, ie, there is a suspicion the meter is leaking or gas/electric is being stolen, even though they actually want entry to replace the meter with a payment one. In other words, they are committing fraud and contempt of court every single day, abusing legislation designed to protect health and safety and stop criminals who have fiddled the meters to get free energy, in order to get access and put a payment meter in.
-
This isn't quite Bailiff's as such, but might apply. I have been watching a few videos created by activists who help consumers when Utility Companies turn up with an warrant to force entry and do a meter safety check, or indeed change meter to a pay one. The claim the activists make is that a Warrant of Entry only allows the Locksmith to drill the locks, that they may not use any other means to force entry. In a particular video, the door is secured by bolts as well as locks, and after 20 odd minutes of drilling the Locksmith still cannot get in since the door also has bolts. The Representative of British Gas then starts asking for permission to come in so the locksmith can replace the lock he has spent 20 minutes destroying. Activist: "Will you check the meter if we do that?" British gas Rep: "Yes" so is told to go forth and multiply, the home owner will replace the lock and bill British Gas. The employees and the Locksmith then depart - which suggests that the activist is actually correct, and the warrant of forced entry only allows lock drilling - from the force the locksmith was "accidently" using whilst coming to the end of drilling , it would have not taken much in terms of a big chap putting the boot or shoulder in to break the bolts. So, any thoughts? And would this apply to an Enforcement Agent. Best bit of the video is a Constable admitting he hasn't seen a Warrant, doesn't understand what powers the Warrant would allow, or indeed if using force beyond drilling the locks would be allowed, but he is still going to support British Gas, despite repeatedly claiming to be impartial. And as someone supposedly impartial and only there to prevent a breach of the peace, they went off with British Gas employees several times for private chats. Just to add, these guys, such as the "Trial by Social Media" Chap, do not appear to be Freemen, or in anyway related to that insane ideology.
-
What is there stated reason? Given there are regulators for people who simply have the power to phone up and ask you to pay a debt, you would think an area of business that involved people being able to enter homes and remove property would be far more in need of a regulator. I suppose the big difference is as Bailiff's come under the MOJ as such, the MOJ doesn't like any of its parts to be under scrutiny. There aren't even any real way to complain about a Judge who is clearly either taking bribes or is continually making judgements in error of law.
-
The infamous "removal of implied right to visit" Letter/Poster whilst not applicable to Bailiff's as they are acting under a Court Warrant, IS applicable to the likes of normal debt collectors, tv licence "inspectors" and cold callers. It actually applies also to Police Constables who are not acting under a warrant and do not suspect a crime is taking place, or a wanted suspect is in the home. The thing that amazes me, is the Public aren't upset that many Local Authorities have around 50 members of Staff who can force entry to your home WITHOUT a Warrant - though I suspect the main reason is whilst having the powers, they have rarely, if ever been used against a residential tenant.
-
I imagine the imprisonment of non payers even when they offer a fair repayment plan is due to Magistrates being leaned on, perhaps even bribed by local authority's to "get tough" the MOJ has a bee in its bonnet regarding fines too, hence it seems to me, we have seen both the threat of a custodial sentence, and the issuing of custodials for non payment of fines a lot more. From the info on this thread, it is clear that Magistrates are not applying the law properly - they are not the problem though! A Magistrate is at the end of the day a volunteer with limited training - which is why they have a Legal Clerk/Justices Clerk in the room with them with them, who's job is to check the law, and ensure the Magistrate doesnt make erroneous/unlawful judgements, like sending a defendant to Prison, purely because they didnt like the colour of his shorts, or the fact he appeared in court wearing shorts I did a quick google, and the Clerks are usually qualified barristers/solicitors, and so that leaves imo 2 grounds of attack - having the Legal Clerk investigated for malfeasance in public office, and serious complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as in the cases where people have unlawfully been sent to prison, the Clerks have clearly failed to do their job properly, and should have advised the Magistrate he was behaving unlawfully. Maybe the disciplinary sacrifice of 1 or 2 Clerks will make the others do their job properly.
-
Asda security staff bullying customers
caledfwlch replied to lonestardavid's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
For what it is worth were you to attempt such an arrest, and especially if the victim was innocent, it could well be you finishing your shift early, and going home via a night in the cells. You are NOT allowed to arrest on suspicion. a decent Lawyer would demand the CCTV, and if for example you are on it, not looking at the OP, only reacting to the bell going off, you would be stuffed. Questions would be asked like, why did you not respond the moment you "saw" something get put in the bag, why you werent following the OP until the bell went off and so on. And even if you could successfuly argue an honest mistake, should you have picked on an innocent party who then resisted your attempt at arrest and put you in hospital, you would have no comeback, legal or civil. We have the right to resist wrongful citizens arrest, because if no crime has been comitted, it is not an arrest but assault. Said half decent lawyer upon viewing the CCTV as above, would also probably want charges such as making false allegations brought in.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS