Really?

Post Reply
User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#71 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Jul 2017 13:59

His 'intelligent' reply has arrived:
Do you think the debtor has just sent the SD out of the air, or do you think he was advised of the charge and says he did not know about it p[previously, you decide?
Your brain(if you can call it that), seems to be lacking any logical process, I can’t help you with that I am afraid.

If he is genuinely not able to understand, then he should plead not guilty and the charge will be examined in court. THis has nothing to do with not completing the required form.
No Mr Shifter - the SD has been sent after the bailiffs have sent a letter or knocked on the door, trying to collect a debt for HMCTS. The bailiff will have no info on what the fine was for will they? The debtor would have no info, paperwork or evidence as to what the fine is for. Can you think of any situation within our court system that is right and just for the defendant to not know the charge and evidence against them before entering a plea?

You really must think before you blindly post.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#72 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Jul 2017 14:16

Aaah, the latest rational reply has plopped in:
I mean how old is this idiot, has ever worked has he not amassed any knowledge of his own and is this why he has no option but to hang on the coat tails of morons like Jason and Mark.

Look at his signature, income tax is not income related to a person’s business you moron. Income tax is a tax on personal income.

Now anyone who ever worked would know this surely. He is a blob of flesh sitting in his nappy next to his computer screen. Whos only form of joy is calling people names on the internet. his rants against people who are disabled are just displaced anger relating to his own circumstances.
Chimp, chimp, chimp, please understand. Income tax is based on what a person grosses in their employment. You then deduct certain elements: if you're self-employed then you deduct your expenses, costs, depreciation, and so forth, then deduct your personal allowance - you are then taxed on the remainder. If you are employed then in most cases it's just your personal allowance that's deducted, but things such as travel expenses will also be deducted - then the employee is taxed on the remainder.

So please understand that income tax is exactly what it says - tax on your income. It is against all of your income after certain allowances are deducted.

My rants against the disabled? Which one's are those again? Please refresh our memories. Oh and I still see that you believe a defendant pleads either "innocent" or "guilty". Take some time to think - you must have seen enough episodes of Rumpole to know what the correct phrases are. Perhaps someone over there will eventually have a quiet word, but I doubt it.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12965
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#73 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Jul 2017 19:02

He is very angry with you for some reason.

As far as we are concerned, we can give the client a section 14 letter and he can send it to court. It doesn't matter what court service does with it. If the client gets a summons, then he must attend. He doesn't have to attend because a court employee wants to "book an appointment".

Commenting on someone else comments is only good if the contrary advice is correct.

It's fortunate he does not appear to know your name or address, otherwise, he would resorting to his legendary ad-hominem attacks and posting them to Google by now. In the last 10 months of his life, he has created over 1200 A4 pages of it.

He is easily identifiable elsewhere on the internet from his grammar, spelling and the use of brackets enclosing sarcastic afterthoughts. Add another 220 A4 pages, and you get a 11Kg bundle of rantings. I feel sorry for the poor bugger that will have to go through all that.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#74 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Jul 2017 20:04

jasonDWB wrote:
16 Jul 2017 19:02
He is very angry with you for some reason.
I know, good innit? He is so easy to wind up, always biting. It's his inferiority complex that drives it, coupled with knowing that I will always paint him into a corner.

It's fortunate he does not appear to know your name or address, otherwise, he would resorting to his legendary ad-hominem attacks and posting them to Google by now.
Funny.... I thought at least two of them claim they know who I am, so I would assume they would've shared it around by now. I wonder when they're going to spill the beans? It's not as if I haven't asked.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#75 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Jul 2017 21:39

And still no-one has the desire to correct his latest idiotic insistance..... "Will the defendant rise..... how do you plead, innocent or guilty?"
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12965
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#76 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Jul 2017 22:36

I won't be correcting him. He will have other things to be more concerned about.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#77 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Jul 2017 12:20

He seems to think I've said something different to this:
Most businesses incur expenses when generating income and most of these can be deducted from its income
See the word there Shifter? It appears twice..... income. Income tax is based on your income, no ifs, no buts. Obviously that income is subject to certain deductions before it's taxed - expenses, personal allowance, etc. Whether you're employed or self-employed, you must first start with your total income, deduct what you're allowed to and pay tax on the rest. The Government sites describe this quite simply.... "Income Tax is a tax you pay on your income."
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#78 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Jul 2017 16:34

The latest example of how Mr Shifter has an inate inability to read and understand what other's have written. There's a thread on here where the OP has said an aold debt with Capitol One is with the HCEO, who is demanding £770. I pointed out that this would seem to indicate that it's a CCA debt and originally under £600, and saying that either of these would mean the HCEO could not enforce the debt. Mr Shifter feels the need to post this:
You do know that consumer credit agreements can’t be transferred up to high court I hope.

They really are the Abbott and Costello of the FMoTL movement. LOL
Hmmmm.... seeing as this precisley what I was pointing out, I cannot fathom what his argument is. I replied to his odd post by saying this is exactly why I'm questioning why the HCEO is enforcing. His reply (which for some reason was posted beneath a reply made 4 months ago):
Why would you question what is contained in the legislation and has been recognized for many years?

It is just another illustration of your joint and individual incompetence, and lack of knowledge.
I'm sorry, but this man, along with his illiteracy, buffoonery and nastiness is, as has been pointed out, suffering from some sort of mental illness. He is arguing against this site even though what he argues is what we've already said. He's arguing against something by agreeing with it. The man is beyond help.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12965
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#79 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Jul 2017 17:27

He played the FMOTL card again.

Bored already...
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#80 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Jul 2017 17:38

It's bewildering why he believes it's a FMOTL thing for us to ask why an HCEA is enforcing a CCA debt. I think he's run out of ideas.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1937
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#81 Re: Really?

Post by Michelle » 17 Jul 2017 22:32

I posted about HCEOs not enforcing CCA debts because that's the way it is, nothing freemanesque about it.
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#82 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Jul 2017 09:50

He seems to think that he corrected us on the matter, so let's look at the timeline....
  • 10:20 - OP posts, makes comment that this is for £770 and a Capital One debt

    11:00 - Pote replies asking for clarification of the original debt (without HCEA fees) and confirmation that this is for a credit card (assumes it is but wants confirmation)

    12:30 - Sched12 makes a post but doesn't highlight anything about the HCEA's right to enforce

    12:50 - Pote replies to Sched12 that since this is a probably CCA debt and likely to be under £600, either one of those standing alone would mean the HCEA cannot enforce

    14:00 - OP confirms it's for a CCA debt and the original debt is below £600

    14:30 - Michelle confirms this means the HCEA cannot enforce

    15:30 - Mr Shifter posts his first comment "You do know that consumer credit agreements can’t be transferred up to high court I hope." followed by some insult.

    Today, 9:30, Shifter claims that he corrected us.
What a silly billy.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12965
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#83 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Jul 2017 14:35

He is not correcting anyone. He is just throwing insults. That is all he has been doing for the last year of his life.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#84 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 19 Jul 2017 16:04

I'm sorry, but the man is clearly a feckin' moron. On a thread today, the OP said that the EA has added additional items to the CGA after she signed it, posting an image of the copy she signed plus an image of what the EA now says is the CGA with 6 extra items added. These are listed as "Unit", "TV", "Wardrobe" etc. The OP says the EA has never been upstairs so why 'wardrobe' is on there is anyone's guess. The additional items are not identified any further, no serial numbers, no makes, no colours, no materials.

Now, along comes the imbecile and says this is perfectly valid, that an EA can add items after the CGA has been signed. He cites reg 24 of TCG2013:
(2) The enforcement agent may enter the premises on a second or subsequent occasion only—
(a) if the enforcement agent has reason to believe that, since the occasion of the enforcement agent’s last entry, there have been brought on to the premises further goods of the debtor of which control has not yet been,
This regulation is about forced entry and has nothing to do with a CGA. Why on earth he believes this to be the case is incomprehensible, like everything else he spews out. What is wrong with the man? I wonder if someone over there will, for once, just once, tell this buffoon that he is 100% wrong?

Until then, for the record, Peterbard aka Dodgeball insists it's perfectly valid for a bailiff to add items to a CGA after it has been signed and without the knowledge of the debtor.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12965
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#85 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 19 Jul 2017 18:27

He is winding you up by deliberately giving out wrong advice.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#86 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 19 Jul 2017 19:07

He absolutely believes what he says is correct - he's again said there's no such thing as a 'vulnerable household'. Perhaps he needs to explain that to z2k, charities and Parliament who all use the term when discussing debt and bailiffs.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12965
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#87 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 19 Jul 2017 19:10

He gives wrong advice to wind other people up.

I'd leave him to his pasture.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#88 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 19 Jul 2017 20:48

He's given his usual learned reply, but in reply to what is hard to comprehend as he's posted it in the middle of replies from 12 days ago.
I should put that bottle down you’ve had enough. LOL

silly attempt to distract attention from your silly errors, by changing the subject, Pote.

May work in the primary school environment you inhabit, not in the rest of the world.
You have to feel sorry for the gerbil on the wheel inside his skull. Perhaps he'll make an attempt to clarify at some point.

Notice no-one has yet to correct him on his CGA tripe.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 192
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#89 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 19 Jul 2017 20:54

Nothing that clown comes out with surprises me. I just feel that it is pointless trying to correct such idiocy as it has no bearing or influence on anything or anyone. You have to remember that the chimp is virtually housebound and his whole life revolves around these pathetic internet spats. It gives him an incentive to want to get out of bed every morning. Stop reading his garbage and you won't feel the need to respond. Cut off his oxygen supply and he'll have to find something else to waste his last few years on.

Meanwhile in Lala land, the nutcase who claims that EAC2s should be a last resort is trying very hard to impress again.
6 November 2015: To be classed as vulnerable as far as enforcement is concerned, the debtor must be in a position (due to circumstances or a condition) to not fully manage their own financial affairs or to not understand what is happening. Examples I can think of are recently bereaved or mentally disabled.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3177&p=43656&hilit ... ity#p43656


30 November 2015: By and large, when it comes to bailiff enforcement, vulnerability is usually reserved for extreme cases. An example could be where the individual is unable to manage his or her own affairs etc
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... nerability

Lest we forget that she had previously told a debtor on LB that he belonged to a "vulnerable household" because his wife was pregnant.


Worryingly (and of "EAC2 last resort" proportions, she actually thinks this:
If a person is considered vulnerable, the enforcement regulations provide some protection from bailiff action. However, such protection is only possible if the bailiff/enforcement company are aware of the vulnerability at the earliest possible stage.
She actually believes that there is some time limit on vulnerability. In essence, she is claiming that if the bailiff realises on the 2nd visit that a person is clearly vulnerable, he is not obliged to do anything because protection is only available at the earliest possible stage and that boat has long sailed.


She has a slightly better reading ability than the chimp (but not by much) but I'd be hard pressed to pick which one of the two is the most stupid. They are both absolute idiots.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#90 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 19 Jul 2017 21:01

You're actually wondering which of the two is the most stupid? For sheer buffoonery and illiterate understanding there can only be one winner. His latest CGA statement is one of his best.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 192
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#91 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 19 Jul 2017 21:16

Point taken - It has to be the chimp I suppose.

I haven't read his CAG statement but if he thinks that goods can be added onto the list after it has been signed by both parties, I agree that it is up there with "on block" and "imprisonment for CT is not coercive". As I said in the other post though, what is the point in wasting effort in reading his nonsense, let alone correcting it. It isn't even funny any more. That time could be put to far better use than wasting it on a loser like the chimp.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#92 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Jul 2017 09:52

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Let’s face it the two have them have given up the chance of any credibility by going back to the, “pay the court direct” nonsense.
Lest we forget some of his recent assertions....
  • Taking control of goods and selling them doesn't mean actually taking control of goods and selling them.....

    Asking for an attachment of earnings is debt avoidance.....

    An HCEA can apply for a warrant to force entry into a private household if he can see goods through the window......

    Income tax is not a tax on your income......

    A Magistrate Court warrant will already have EA fees included......

    A bailiff can add items to a CGA after the debtor has signed it without the debtor knowing.....
Oh and a bit of housekeeping - my recent post the thread where the OP paid direct does not advise paying the court direct - it says that HMCTS have no legal compulsion to pass on the OP's payment but to now expect an irate bailiff. Remember what Newlyn's solicitor said on authorities passing direct payments on to bailiffs? A legal nonsense I believed he called it.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#93 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Jul 2017 22:18

Oh, I never said anything as silly as, asking for an AOE is debt avoidance, I presume this is Mushroom taking the thing out of context again.
On 6th Jun 17, 12:54 PM he said:
Attachments of earnings are considered to be something of a panacea for debt amongst some forums. I suspect because it represents a further opportunity to avoid addressing the debt.
The debtor has a copy of the TCG, so how this can be accomplished is a bit of a mystery.
Indeed she did - she posted both copies and the EA's copy had additional items added.
However in the case mentioned the warrant had defaulted and the bailiff was attending to recover.
The TCG was dead, the bailiff could have drawn a picture of Donald Duck on it if he wanted.
So the EA pulls out the signed CGA and blithely adds more items, giving the impression that the debtor had signed for those items as well, and he believes that's ok?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#94 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Jul 2017 10:05

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Got him in full indignant mode this morning, teeth gnashing, eyes bulging, posting one after the other, talking to himself..... careful not to pop those kidneys now.
I did not say

“Tax on income is not income tax”. Discuss

What I actually said was:

“Income tax is calculated on personal income, not business income. You see why it is pointless arguing with you. I will be instructing you on how to do your shoe laces shortly.”
No.... on 29th June 2017 18:32, Mr Shifter said....
tax on a bailiffs income is not income tax
I told him to switch the word 'bailiff' for any other profession to see how ridiculous that sounds, but he decided to continue to paint that floor. If he wants to teach me tying shoelaces, I think I'll stick to loafers.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#95 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Jul 2017 10:14

Next one...
I said that bailiffs can legally apply for a warrant to force entry, which they can.
Chimp, chimp, chimp, chimp, chimp, chimp, chimp (that's seven this time)..... what you actually argued is that an HCEA can get a warrant to force entry into a debtor's home at the first visit, believing that reg28 of the TCG2013 regs allowed this. You argued that even though the reg says four conditions must be met, the HCEA can simply choose any of the four. You still haven't acknowledged you're wrong on that.

You then agreed with the newsagent when he said that if the HCEA can see goods of high value inside, a warrant can be issued. Sadly, the CAG mods have removed that embarrassment, no doubt to avoid misinforming the public.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#96 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Jul 2017 10:25

It continues.....
He is still on about his CGA. If he knew anything about agreements he should know that if there is a default, by either party the agreement is terminated, it has no further effect.

Really I was not referring to that in any case. I said that additional goods can be taken when a CGA is made, which it can. It does not have to be part of the original agreement, this is in the regulations I showed.

In a case where additional goods are seized, it would be in the debtor’s interest to add them to a CGA in any case, because if he didn’t the bailiffs only option would be to take them away.
What he said was in reply to this post I made:
That CGA is worthless as it doesn’t identify the goods clearly. The bailiff cannot add further goods afterwards, that is a massive no-no.
He decided:
Regulations, however, say a big yes yes.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013 ... on/24/made

(2) The enforcement agent may enter the premises on a second or subsequent occasion only—
(a)if the enforcement agent has reason to believe that, since the occasion of the enforcement agent’s last entry, there have been brought on to the premises further goods of the debtor of which control has not yet been,
So he argues that reg24 says an EA can just add items to a CGA willy-nilly. Bear in mind that reg24 is about repeated entry, not CGA's, then you can see what an ignoramus he is.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 192
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#97 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 21 Jul 2017 11:17

It gets better. Just reading that recently bumped thread on CAG, the unhinged crank with 11 years experience told a debtor that a bailiff could obtain permission to force entry under paragraph 15 of Sch12. The newsagent then told the debtor that he needn't worry because bailiffs only do this if the debtor owns a mansion.

And these idiots have the front to criticise Jason.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#98 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Jul 2017 15:15

He really has a hatred for people with illness or disability, such a sad, twisted little fungi.
The evidence is building up on him after this and the disgusting racist remark he made on CAG the other week.
No Shifter, I have a hatred for illiterate blundering buffoons such as yourself no matter what their disabilities, race, gender or sexual preferences are. If you're an idiot then you're an idiot no matter what, and you dear sir are an idiot. :lol:

Ah yes, my *ahem* 'racist' comment - whatever came of that? I thought I was meant to be having the old bill at the door by now. Funny how no-one ever considered it racist until someone with chips on both shoulders decided they would declare it so some six weeks later. You, as is typical, then jumped on their bandwagon, the two of you acting all indignant. :lol: :lol: You are such a plum.

So come on Shifter, present this 'evidence'. If you want to know my ID, just ask Shirley or her friend Bailiff-can-take-my-hire-purchase-car - they both claim to know who I am.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12965
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#99 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Jul 2017 15:24

He got his kicks being anonymous until he was outed as "getoufofdebtfools".
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#100 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Jul 2017 17:29

Hey Mark, if you're popping in, apparently we take the chimp seriously. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have they learnt nothing?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#101 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Jul 2017 18:33

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

How on earth can someone make reference to the KKK then spell the last part 'Clan'? Good God man, does your ignorance know no limits?

Apparently he believes I live in Nottingham. Oh dear. :lol:
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#102 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Jul 2017 18:45

Anyway, on to their latest dog's dinner - stat decs.
When an SD is sent the plea must be sent with it, this is in the CPR, if it is not the SD will not be considered.
If the debtor is in any doubt of his guilt, for whatever reason, all he has to do is plead innocent, the truth of the matter will be decided at the hearing.
However, if he does this the fine given to a guilty decision will far exceed the one he would have received on an initial guilty plea.
As said earlier the reason for this is to speed the procedure, in line with the general function of the rules.
Followed by -
That makes sense, a guilty plea is meant to carry a lesser sentence, otherwise everyone would just have a shot at pleading not guilty. It’s an incentive to dispose of matters swiftly and without wasting court time and resources.
So the choice is plead not guilty, then have a trial to see the evidence. What if after seeing the evidence you then realise you are guilty.... oops too late, you've been found guilty and the sentence is higher. Can I change my plea? Of course, but as you didn't plead guilty at the earliest opportunity you get no credit. Next.

Or.... well I don't know what the charge is, or the evidence but I'll plead guilty anyway as I don't want to waste court time.

Does that sound like any sort of justice? Bear in mind that a plea is meant to be added to the SD if the proceedings are under the SJP, how can the defendant know if it is under the SJP or not if he doesn't even know what he's accused of? Really, you 'tards over there need to think things through. Thankfully you're keeping yourself occupied over there rather than offering constructive advice on a forum. God help anyone who follows your advice to just plead guilty and move on.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6394
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#103 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Jul 2017 20:28

Why is Shifter having a conversation with himself under different name? I mean, I know he's lonely and isolated, but it's sooooooo sad. :lol: :lol: :lol:
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 12965
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#104 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Jul 2017 21:09

When an SD is sent the plea must be sent with it, this is in the CPR, if it is not the SD will not be considered.
The law doesn't say the SD has to be "considered".

Section 14 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

We've been here five years now, and still, none of them can read the legislation. Their interpretation is wrong and they don't even bother to read the inquiry an OP is asking.

Talking to himself is beyond any form of stupidity.

He just had his phoney Youtube account banned.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

JimUk1
Posts: 192
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#105 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 22 Jul 2017 09:56

Pote Snitkin wrote:
21 Jul 2017 17:29
Hey Mark, if you're popping in, apparently we take the chimp seriously. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have they learnt nothing?
I don't think that there is anyone out there, with the possible exception of "Leakie" who takes the chimp seriously any more. I have regular PM exchanges with various people and they all refer to him as "The Chimp". Here he is in full chimp mode to be taken "seriously":
There is no misinformation on here, at least not written by my hand
I think that part of his mental disorder, coupled with his limited intelligence actually drives his mind to believe that is true. Let's forget about all his classics about AOEs and imprisonment for council tax and quoting repealed legislation that he got from Tameside Council, let's just look at the past couple of weeks:
The point is that the bailiff is not telling lies when he says that he can apply for a warrant to force entry, as the power does exist
Some lie, others are just as clueless as the chimp is and probably genuinely believe that such a facility exists

BA is right, it was just something I thought must be borne in mind when you say the bailiff is misrepresenting his powers etc.
BA is rarely right, unless it is to share some trivial gossip that one of her bailiff friends has told her. If the bailiff threatens to force entry when he cannot, this is in breach of National Standards and is a clear case of misrepresenting his powers.

I think that we are all aware of the legislation regarding forced entry
Actually, you weren't. You were barking up the wrong tree until someone pointed you in the direction of Regulation 28. The newsagent and the crank were both claiming that Par15 is connected to forced entry, when clearly it isn't. It is obvious to anyone reading that you were anything BUT aware of forced entry. To make matters worse, the newsagent has been telling debtors that HCEOs cannot force entry to a residential address for a business debt - They can if they have reasonable belief that the business is being operated from there.

There is sufficient leeway under section 28 of the regulations for the judge to issue a warrant if he thinks it is in the interest of justice to do so.
There is absolutely no leeway whatsoever. It would have been futile to implement conditions a to d if the facility was open to anyone. Regulation is very specific in who can apply to force entry.

there is a very fine line indeed. It is essentially down to the bailiff's judgment when he considers negotiation in regard to the proposed CGA has failed, and when the more aggressive second stage needs to commence
There is of course no fine line and it certainly IS NOT down to the bailiff to decide (although this is what is happening). Legislation is clear as to when ES1 ends and ES2 begins.

What I attempted to show was that although the payment to the court appears in the original debt owed under the writ, it is enforced and added to the costs account so it will appear in that column, along with other charges like fees in the breakdown.
It absolutely does not. It appears as the sum to be recovered (sum owed to the debtor) The costs of enforcement are those incurred by the enforcement agent. You have never seen one of these breakdowns in your life and part of your mental deficiency has allowed your mind to assume that the fee is listed as a cost. It was a guess, a guess that failed, like many of your claims. This is why people laugh at you and do not take you seriously, as demonstrated in my final example:
In fact, it will only be charged once
To which another poster (Lookingforinfo) replied:
If there has been no double charge Dodgeball, why is the OP apparently being reimbursed?
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

Post Reply