bailiffs and forcing Entry Discussion thread

[dx100uk]

discussion thread created

please spa here rather that on a live thread everyone

 

 

dx

[Demitri]

I would hazard a guess that you are not a new user of this forum at all. The use of the word 'EA' always gives you away and where there is doubt.....you only have to look at the hostile way in which you post.

 

What a very strange and peculiar thing to suggest?

 

There are at least 3 other people who use the term "EA" on this thread, including the person that I was responding to.

 

I have no idea who you are, or who you think I am but it's a bit ripe to suggest that I am hostile.

You have been hostile towards me, from your very first post, for no reason (I assume?) other than the fact that I corrected your mistake regarding the position when there are no goods/insufficient goods to take control of. You have further singled me out for a lecture on what I may or may not post and where, despite you not (as far as I can see) being a moderator on this forum.

 

It is no problem to me at all if you want to spit your dummy out over something so trivial as a minor correction.

What I would point out though is that all the hostility appears to be coming from you, and you alone.

[Andyorch]

This is the Discussion Forum...

 

Andy

[Demitri]

I quite agree and as such I would like to know the following:

 

1. Why should a debtor be advised to enter into a repayment plan once it has been satisfied that there are no goods on the premises that can be controlled?

 

2. What advantage is there for the debtor to do so?

 

3. Is the debtor obliged to do so?

 

4. Is it in the debtors best interests to do so?

 

5. Is the forum aware of Regulation 24 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013?

 

6. Would a bailiff company want to force entry before following protocol?

 

7. Would a bailiff have the power/authority to make a decision on whether forced entry may be made?

 

8. Is it a reasonable excuse that authority can not be given because the visit takes place at 6am?

 

9. Is it a reasonable excuse that authority should not be sought because we don't know if the debtor is going to be at home when the visit takes place?

 

10. Should we not request that no goods levies/nulla bona be returned to the courts?

 

I'm really confused here as I would like clarification as to whether the purpose of the forum is to advise debtors or whether the purpose is to assist bailiffs (that is EA's for those who are confused)

[brassnecked]

discussion thread created

please spa here rather that on a live thread everyone

 

 

dx

Spar DX I would go to a Spa to partake of the healh giving waters.

You spar with a fellow boxer.

 

In the meantime, imagine a bailiff trying to Take Control of the waters in a spa, and having them chucked over him shorting his BWC.

[Demitri]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/if-he-cant-spring-you-nobody-can-1347699.html

[Demitri]

Richard was responsible for much case law that is applicable today.

 

Debtors cannot simply be committed to prison for council tax because they have not dealt with bailiffs. This is a direct result of Richard's work and a legacy that he has left for debtors.

 

Richard exposed many unlawful and illegal warrants, no end of debtors who were illegally and unlawfully jailed, including many vulnerable, sick and poor people.

 

Richards line of work was not the most lucrative, far from it.

 

Richard left his mark and anyone who aspires to help and/or advise debtors should look at Richards work for inspiration.

[dx100uk]

yes and not do what a certain person does by charging fees for stupid letters and court attendances that only costs debtors more.

and don't work

[Demitri]

yes and not do what a certain person does by charging fees for stupid letters and court attendances that only costs debtors more.

and don't work

 

stupid letters are indeed a waste of money but I don't think she goes to court. nor does a "certain person"

 

He went to court last month when he couldn't get a solicitor,

due to them all being booked in other court cases. He got the debtor his car back and costs.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Peterbard]

Richard was responsible for much case law that is applicable today.

 

Debtors cannot simply be committed to prison for council tax because they have not dealt with bailiffs. This is a direct result of Richard's work and a legacy that he has left for debtors.

 

Richard exposed many unlawful and illegal warrants, no end of debtors who were illegally and unlawfully jailed, including many vulnerable, sick and poor people. I

 

 

 

 

Richards line of work was not the most lucrative, far from it.

 

Richard left his mark and anyone who aspires to help and/or advise debtors should look at Richards work for inspiration.

This is nonesense, even for you.debtors have never seen imprisoned for not dealing with bailiffs,thete is no such offence.

[Demitri]

Also, I do not have a television.

i do not watch TV.

I work 12, 14 hours helping people who have bailiff issues.

I post about two people who do nothing to help debtors whatsoever.

I post nothing about you or your forum other than that.

[Demitri]

This is nonesense, even for you.debtors have never seen imprisoned for not dealing with bailiffs,thete is no such offence.

 

You have told debtors yourself that if they don't pay and choose to sit it out that they run the risk of imprisonment

 

When you've answered your previous nonsense, I will give you a more detailed response, if the admin have not banned me by then.

[Peterbard]

You have told debtors yourself that if they don't pay and choose to sit it out that they run the risk of imprisonment

 

When you've answered your previous nonsense, I will give you a more detailed response, if the admin have not banned me by then.

 

Not for failing to deal with the bailiff, not e en for the debt. I hope you don't advise anyone,because your knowledge of enforcement is none existent.

[Demitri]

Not for failing to deal with the bailiff, not e en for the debt. I hope you don't advise anyone,because your knowledge of enforcement is none existent.

 

Yeah that's right.

 

I am paid to work on enforcement issues full time, 6 or even 7 days a week but my knowledge is "none existent" [sic]

 

I rarely advise anyone these days as I don't have the time. I leave it to the "experts" like you

[Peterbard]

Yeah that's right.

 

I am paid to work on enforcement issues full time, 6 or even 7 days a week but my knowledge is "none existent" [sic]

 

I rarely advise anyone these days as I don't have the time. I leave it to the "experts" like you

 

Good move.