Jbw Enforcement Ltd !!!!!won!!!!!!! - Page 2

stan5131 · 13th January 2007, 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isiris

I think your sister may have made the incorrect application. When you do the N1 at court, you have to ram it in to the staff it is a monetry claim AND a non compliance claim or they will treat it as something else that costs 180 (Cant remember what it is but I know I have read it on this site). She will have got the 180 back though ?

We spent 45 mins at the court filing counter with a huge queue assembling at the back of us. The young girl was trying to tell us that we needed to fill in a pre action form. We knew from information on this site that we should NOT file this form. She kept going to ask colleagues who were sat at their desks, and we could hear some of them saying "well if they dont know which form they need to fill in, how do they think we should know". None of them had any idea. We explicitly told her we wanted to file for non compliance of Subject Access Request request and compensation at the judge's discretion. She gave us the form and said, it wasnt at the judge's discretion and we had to choose an amount we wanted to claim and pay extra on a rising scale depending on how much compensation we wanted to claim. The paper cost £150 to file and £30 extra to claim £300 compensation. The claim for compensation went up to as much as £400 just to claim a few hundred more.

These people in the courts just dont know what they are doing.

ivorbiggun · 13th January 2007, 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_spam

Right what they are referring to is the protocol for if it is a claim issued thorught the high court. So it does not make sense at all. As forthe complaining i will log this with the law society and also will be producing this in court as the law firm have forgotten one thing !!!! without prejudice!!!!!!!!!

If they are claiming that you haven't followed a protocol from a different court system then it sounds like they're trying to blag it even more in their letter and trying to force you to set aside. Sounds like they've ignored the forms or forgotten about them and are now firefighting.

i_spam · 13th January 2007, 21:39

The relevnt section applies if you are handling the service of the documents yourself. Which i did not do hence cant understand what they are saying or why they are saying it !!!!!!

i_spam · 14th January 2007, 02:16

Here is a link to the letters fired of to oury john in reply to their intimidating letter. Any comments ? please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i_spam/jbw solicitors - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

double click on the pictures to enlarge them.

Isiris · 14th January 2007, 07:50

IMHO

I would not put "We suggest you check your facts" I would try and always take the ethical high ground and not draw myself into a slanging match, however much I would like to.

The idea to report them to Bailiff Watchdog I would also take out. I would mention the OFT and also advise them that you willbe filing a complaint with the Law Society

Hope that helps

i_spam · 14th January 2007, 15:43

What do you think is actually going on ? Are they just picking bits off or are they stalling for time ?

MARTIN3030 · 15th January 2007, 04:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_spam

Right what they are referring to is the protocol for if it is a claim issued thorught the high court. So it does not make sense at all. As forthe complaining i will log this with the law society and also will be producing this in court as the law firm have forgotten one thing !!!! without prejudice!!!!!!!!!

Baliffchaser this is not set in stone.The fact that the latest or last communications that you have from them is not clearly headed without predjudice does not automatically allow for it be be used in your favour.
Earler communications can also reflect this as can discretion.there is also something known as priviledge which can also enter the frame.

hagenuk · 15th January 2007, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by stansfield5131

We spent 45 mins at the court filing counter with a huge queue assembling at the back of us. The young girl was trying to tell us that we needed to fill in a pre action form. We knew from information on this site that we should NOT file this form. She kept going to ask colleagues who were sat at their desks, and we could hear some of them saying "well if they dont know which form they need to fill in, how do they think we should know". None of them had any idea. We explicitly told her we wanted to file for non compliance of S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) request and compensation at the judge's discretion. She gave us the form and said, it wasnt at the judge's discretion and we had to choose an amount we wanted to claim and pay extra on a rising scale depending on how much compensation we wanted to claim. The paper cost £150 to file and £30 extra to claim £300 compensation. The claim for compensation went up to as much as £400 just to claim a few hundred more.

These people in the courts just dont know what they are doing.

Hi

It is important to realise that many County Courts are not familiar with the Data Protection Act and claims for non-compliance.

You should make this claim using an N1 form. Look here for details.

Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - Particulars of claim

I have done four such claims and each time used an N1 and the cost was £30 only.

MARTIN3030 · 15th January 2007, 14:08

Further to my last post......here is something you may find interesting and of course explains in greater detail what I was saying.

Without Prejudice.
“Without Prejudice” documents (which are also “Privileged” documents) are those documents that relate to all negotiations genuinely aimed at a settlement between the parties.
Any communications which are intended to be part of a genuine settlement attempt should be clearly marked “Without Prejudice” at the top of the letter.
The courts have held, however, that the principle of “Privilege” can protect subsequent and even previous letters in the same chain of correspondence. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not necessary that every letter be marked “Without Prejudice” if it is clear that the communication is intended to be part of the settlement negotiations.
The converse of this being that, just because documents are marked “Without Prejudice”, unless they are intended to be part of a genuine settlement attempt they will not actually enjoy “Privileged” status and they will not be protected from disclosure.
“Without Prejudice” correspondence remains “Privileged” even after a compromise has been reached and is generally inadmissible in any subsequent litigation on the same subject matter whether between the same or different parties. However, where the negotiations are successful and the “Without Prejudice” correspondence constitutes a binding contract the correspondence may be produced to prove that such a contract has been entered into (if, say, one party does not comply with the terms of the settlement, and the other wishes to enforce it). (Ref: Rush & Tompkins v Greater London Council (Court of Appeal) 21 December 1987).

i_spam · 16th January 2007, 00:04

Then why is it despite us being legit and so on by sending the Subject Access Request and then the lba etc and after that the summons which are not replied to and then bailiffs move in do people start putting in applications to set aside ? Especially major big companies ?

stan5131 · 16th January 2007, 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by hagenuk

Hi

It is important to realise that many County Courts are not familiar with the Data Protection Act and claims for non-compliance.

You should make this claim using an N1 form. Look here for details.

Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - Particulars of claim

I have done four such claims and each time used an N1 and the cost was £35 only.

Hagen, It WAS a N1 form. I downloaded the form and filled in before going to file. I used poc as per alanfromderby on this site and they still insisted it was £180 even though I told them it should be £35.

hagenuk · 16th January 2007, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by stansfield5131

Hagen, It WAS a N1 form. I downloaded the form and filled in before going to file. I used poc as per alanfromderby on this site and they still insisted it was £180 even though I told them it should be £35.

I think the problem arises because the Court staff are unused to this type of claim.

They doubtless had you file it as a Pre Action Disclosure under CPR Part 31 or a claim under CPR Part 8 and not a simple money claim. Both of these other options attract higher court fees.

It is possible that your court will not have seen one of these claims and therefore it is important to stress that the Information Commissioner has indicated that these claims are to be treated as Small Claims Track - and the fee will be £30. Do not let them give you any other forms to complete.

i_spam · 16th January 2007, 16:44

It easeir if you post the summons in to court with the relevant fee or exemption form. As obviously you can point out under which section you would like the claim to be issued.

i_spam · 17th January 2007, 22:19

Here is the link to the reply to my complaint to the office of fair trading what do you make of this ?

link here :i_spam/OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING JBW ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

DOUBLE CLICK TO ENLARGE PICTURES

i_spam · 21st January 2007, 17:28

If anybody wants to attend the application hearing by jbw to have the judgement set aside then you are all welcome at medway county court
high street chatham kent me4 4dw at 12.30pm on monday the 5th of feburary 2007. recieved notification on friday for this.

CAG Products - We think that these will help you to make your claim or Reclaim your Right These sales also help us to keep helping YOU and keeps this site free of third party adverts!

Small Claims Kit	Small Claims Court Guide New Edition	CallBurner - Skype CallRecorder Review	Last Will & Testament Kit	Fight a Motoring Ticket

Alternatively you could purchase a CAG email address here, or maybe you'd prefer our address labels here
UPDATE: Consumer Forums ConsumerWiki is now LIVE - click here: ConsumerWiki N.B. Please note - due to postage costs these products are only available in the U.K.