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 Let's forget about all his classics about AOEs and imprisonment for council tax and quoting repealed legislation that he got from Tameside Council, let's just look at the past couple of weeks: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?