Bailiff attending today *** A FALSEHOOD THREAD ***

[wonkeydonkey]

I put salt out to get rid of the slugs and they don't like it at all.....but then again I am allegedly "mentally deranged" so perhaps I need to seek another way to remove the slimy creatures...any gardening guru's on hand to give advice?

 

WD

[tomtubby]

From the many emails and messages that I have received today it would seem that a lot of people are very concerned as to what happened on this thread last night. I had no idea myself until about 9am.

 

As can be seen from the original post, it would seem that the poster had serious concerns with a bailiff and was threatened with police and a locksmith and eventually it "seemed" that she was forced to pay when police attended with the bailiff etc. A lot of people who gave up their own time to assist were very concerned for her safety. However, it would seem that the "poster" had joined the site so as to attract my attention and to openly attack me on the forum.

 

The post that he left on the site last night (which was removed by the moderators) was very hostile indeed and stemmed initially from a post that I had made last week on this forum in relation to Removal of Implied Right of Access notices and where I had posted details of a very recent case in the County Court where a debtor had downloaded such a notice from the internet and posted the notice outside of his home. Bailiffs ignored the notice. The debtor (again using the "advice" from the internet) issued a claim for "trespass" in the County Court a few weeks ago. The Judge dismissed the claim and the debtor was ordered to pay the bailiff companies costs. The Judge also advised the debtor that he had been foolish to rely upon information on the internet.

 

Given the seriousness of this judgment, I have volunteered to write a Newsletter on this subject for CAG. I mentioned this in my post on another thread.

 

A day or so after posting details on CAG a "new" poster started a "thread" on another forum praising the Removal of Implied Right of Access Notices and claiming that they were like a secret weapon that stops bailiffs from coming to your home. Given the importance of the subject matter and; knowing that a debtor had lost a claim in court when he tried to sue for trespass, I posted a reply on the other forum with a link to the thread here on CAG.

 

Within a few hours of my post being made on the other forum it is fair to say that " all hell broke loose" and the thread on that forum quickly ran to 17 pages with continual personal attacks against me by the person who had started the thread.

 

What became obvious was that the new "poster" was clearly trying to advertise these notices and encourage debtors to use them and he was not happy at all that I was making it known to the public that such notices were not a magic formula. The other forum team decided to remove the entire thread and it would seem that they also banned the person who had started the thread as well.

 

It now transpires that the person who had started the thread on the other forum and who was banned by them then registered on this site and started this particular thread (that you are now reading).

 

How do I know this?

 

During the early hours of yesterday, the poster released a very nasty post against me and in that post he confirmed that he had started the thread on the other forum about the Removal notices and that I was to blame for him being banned from that site.

 

What was difficult to grasp was that he said that he had used a Removal of Implied Right of Access notice when he had a bailiff visit 4 years ago and that IT WORKED !!!

 

Who was he?

 

I am not sure but worryingly, this afternoon the SITE ADMIN member on a small "advice" forum (which I do not intend mentioning although many people on here are aware of the particular site) confirmed that he had been banned from the other forum. Interestingly, in the same post he once again openly attacked me and two other posters on this forum.

 

What was the motive?

 

It is clear beyond any doubt that this all stems from my post last week (which was copied on the other forum) which casts doubt on the effectiveness of these notices. That particular forum actively encourages debtors to display such notices and, as they also charge a fee for their "claim pack" ( if the debtor wishes to take legal action for trespass) I can only assume that they do NOT want me or CAG to let the public know of the pitfalls of displaying such notices.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I have volunteered to write a Newsletter for this forum on the subject of these notices and I will also start a "Sticky" on the subject as well.

Edited May 11, 2013 by ims21

[brassnecked]

What is clear, is that the poster who was trying to use the threads on both forums to "advertise" these notices, and therefore by proxy the site selling the packs is no better than the bailiffs who try to impose unlawful fees on a desperate and skint debtor. A WOIRA can be useful for certain people, including TV Licensing Capita salespeople and door knockers, Muck Hall, Snotcall etc canvassers and cold callers indeed the police issue no cold calling signs which have the same effect. Unfortunately they are as much use as a chocolate fireguard with bailiffs, so are snake oil in that circumstance.

[unclebulgaria67]

What would sort out the issue of specialist online 'advice' sites, is to make it a requirement for them to be subject to regulation by a relevant body. As time goes on, more and more sites will be set up offering advice on sorts of issues and when it goes beyond a free forum with just helpful information or advice, then I think it needs regulation.

 

If you think about it, when people are giving out advice about legal issues with bailiffs and then charging for a service of some variety, they are doing so without qualifications or regulation. If I were in this business, I think I would be very careful about the advice I was providing, if I were selling any service on the back of it. You can imagine if someone complained to 'Watchdog' or other consumer programme about the advice they were offered by an unregulated business, how this may affect the business.

 

Lack of regulation about the nature of advice and what service is being offered, is a factor behind these arguments. I don't think CAG or any other free advice forum should be drawn into these arguments. I know Tomtubby has always been careful with the advice they give and they stick to CAG rules. It is a pity that the other site have posted in the way they have, as I don't think it does them any favours. If they are happy with the advice and service they provide, then why be bothered with what is posted elsewhere.

[brassnecked]

Be careful what you wish for, any legislation could be badly framed and pull CAG into the net as surely as the Hacked Off and politico stitched up Levison press controls would have dragged one man blogs into paying the fee to register and being bound by the regulations until they realised their boo boo. But something needs to sort the wheat from the chaff.

[tomtubby]

There is something else that I should also mention:

 

I rarely visit the other site ( I think I have posted a total of around 70 posts) but last friday a person on CAG contacted me regarding a very serious post where a lady had been contacted by a bailiff from Marston Group in relation to arrears of a court FINE. The bailiff had also applied an admin fee of £85 and a one off visit fee of £215 ( making a total of £300 for their fee). The seriousness of the post was that the lady had received notification of the letter from her husband who was at home. The lady herself had been admitted to hospital the day before and was being monitored on the labour ward as she was pregnant with twins !!!

 

The expectant mother had a laptop with her and had posted a question on the other site. It was clear that she was vulnerable and the query was very serious indeed. A PM was sent to her and she authorised me to speak with Marston Group on her behalf. To be fair to Marston Group they had not known of her pregnancy or that she was in the labour ward. Within 10 minutes of making contact with her I was able to get back to her to advise her that Marston Group had agreed to deduct the "visit fee" of £215 and allowed her to pay the balance of the fine and the £85 admin fee over 2 payments.

 

The lady was delighted and the following day ,I was also delighted when I opened my emails to find a beautiful picture of her newborn twins.....one with a blue hat and other with a pink one!!!

 

A few days ago she thanked me on the other forum. Sadly, the thread was disrupted by the poster who had also posted on the thread regarding the removal notices and this time, his attack was aimed at the allegation that she should not have paid the admin fee of £85 and he then changed the subject to concentrate on my business and why I have a premium rate telephone number.

 

I believe that it was after this that he was banned from the other site

 

What is noteworthy is that the SITE ADMIN person on the "advice" forum who boasted yesterday that he had been banned also started ranting about the premium rate number that I have. More proof I suppose of the identity of the person responsible for the dreadful actions on this site yesterday.

 

Maybe I have the wrong person:

 

In my post here yesterday I had stated that the SITE ADMIN guy at that particular forum has boasted that HE had been banned. His username has the initial MN.

 

At not time have I mentioned anyone else.

 

It is noteworthy that late last night the person who RUNS the site and who is known to many on here made a post to say on his forum that CAG had indicated that HE was responsible for making the post on here and he posted a link of this thread.

 

At NO TIME had I ever mentioned that person and his comment is very interesting indeed as it would appear to indicate that he and the SITE ADMIN are really the SAME PERSON.

 

Given the frequency by which posts disappear from his site , I have kept a screen shot of the page.

 

 

 

 

What was noteworthy on the other site was that a short while after they had removed the entire thread

 

( which by the way I wished they had not done as there was a lot of information on the thread regarding these Removal of Implied Right of Access notices which would have been of interest to anyone considering displaying such a notice.

Edited May 11, 2013 by ims21

[ims21]

Ok, as promised this thread is now closed.

 

The thread will remain visible since in the early part there is some useful information for those who may be faced with this type of situation in the real world.

 

Once again, thank you to all of those who gave their time, experience and expertise on this thread.