I have already made several submissions to the EmploymentTribunal about this issue and a judge is dealing with my claim. The day of the hearing is approaching and I should received a reply from this judge shorty. However, I would like to send to the tribunal a last email before this judge takes his decision so that to increase the chance that his decision will be on my favour. it is why I need to know the law which deals with this issue so that my last email will me as efficient as possible

Schedule 1, Rule 32 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution And Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 which says: “Requirement to attend to give evidence 32. The Tribunal may order any person in Great Britain to attend a hearing to give evidence, produce documents, or produce information.” However, the important point is that the Respondent does not have any witnesses who will give evidence from abroad and itself it is located in the UK which means that it is not indispensable that this hearing is conducted from outside the jurisdiction. I have not found information on the Internet about this issue of signing up to complywith UK law/jurisdiction I would like to know the following about this issue: 1. Does an official form need to be signed 2. Can this signing up be made orally during this hearing or a document needs to be signed 3. Can this signing up be made electronically 4. How long in advance of this hearing should this signing up be made because I think that it will not be acceptable that during this hearing one party without any warning informs suddenly the tribunal and the other party that he is conducted this hearing from outside the jurisdiction in a country far away from the UK

There will be a video hearing in the Employment Tribunal. The Respondent wants that its representative who is located abroad conducts this hearing from outside the jurisdiction I would like to know the following: Is it an automatic right or does the Respondent has to make a formal application supported by evidence to the Employment Tribunal to have permission that its representative conducts this video hearing from abroad? Should the tribunal grants this permission only when there is no other possibility when the Respondent is located abroad or it has a witness who is located abroad because this in the case of the respondent who can if it wishes uses a representative which is located within the jurisdiction and not one who is outside the jurisdiction? For the reason that this will cause me the following detriments: There will be transmission of image and sounds of me outside the jurisdiction what I do not like 2. The Respondent's representative would not have any deterrent not to record this hearing because it could not be prosecuted because it is located outside the jurisdiction The quality of the transmission could not be good because the huge distance between the United Kingdom and the foreign country from which the Respondent’s representative intends to conduct this hearing I would like to oppose that the Respondent’s representative conducts this hearing from outside the jurisdiction so I need know also which law deals with this issue

The law is stated in The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004 SCHEDULE 3 FEES CHARGEABLE BY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS In order to end this debate can someone tell me where in this schedule 3 that I reproduce below it is stated that a HCEO can charge a fee each time he makes an attendance even if no goods has been seized ? The fees chargeable by enforcement officers on execution of writs are as follows. Value Added Tax, if payable, may be added to the fees specified. A. Fees chargeable on execution of writs of fieri facias 1. Percentage of amount recovered For executing a writ of fieri facias, the following percentages of the amount recovered: (a)on the first £100 5 per cent (b)above £100 2.5 per cent 2. Mileage Mileage from the enforcement officer’s business address to the place of execution and return, in respect of one journey to seize goods and, if appropriate, one journey to remove the goods 29.2 pence per mile, up to a maximum of £50.00 in total 3. Seizure of goods For each building or place at which goods are seized £2.00 4. Making enquiries or dealing with claims for rent or to the goods (1) For making enquiries as to claims for rent or to goods, including giving notice to parties of any such claims a sum not exceeding £2.00 (2) For all expenses actually and reasonably incurred in relation to such work including any postage, telephone, fax and e-mail charges a further sum not exceeding £2.00 5. Taking possession, removal and storage of goods (1) Where a person is left in physical possession of goods seized £3.00 per person per day (2) Where an enforcement officer takes walking possession under a walking possession agreement in the form set out in Schedule 4 to these Regulations £0.25 per day (Fees 5(1) and 5(2) are payable in respect of the day on which execution is levied, but fee 5(1) may not be charged where a walking possession agreement is signed at the time of levy. Fees 5(1) and 5(2) may not be charged after the goods have been removed.) (3) For— (a)the removal of goods; (b)the storage of goods which have been removed; and ©where animals have been seized, their upkeep while in the custody of the enforcement officer, whether before or after removal the sums actually and reasonably paid 6. Sale of goods by auction (1) To cover the auctioneer’s commission and expenses, where goods are sold by auction or work has been done with a view to sale by auction: (a)when goods are sold by auction on the auctioneer’s premises, the following percentages of the sum realised— (i)on the first £100 15 per cent (ii)on the next £900 12.5 per cent (iii)above £1,000 10 per cent (b)when goods are sold by auction on the debtor’s premises, 7.5 per cent of the sum realised plus expenses actually and reasonably incurred. (2) When no sale takes place either by auction or private contract, but work has been done by the auctioneer or enforcement officer in preparing for a sale by auction, including the preparation of a detailed inventory of the goods seized— (a)if the goods have been removed to the auctioneer’s premises, 10 per cent of the value of the goods; (b)if the goods have not been removed from the debtor’s premises, 5 per cent of the value of the goods plus expenses actually and reasonably incurred. 7. Sale of goods by private contract Where an enforcement officer sells goods by private contract— (a) the following percentages of the proceeds of sale— (i)on the first £100 7.5 per cent (ii)on the next £900 6.25 per cent (iii)above £1,000 5 per cent; and (b)when work has been done in preparing for a sale by auction, including the preparation of a detailed inventory of the goods seized, an additional sum not exceeding 2.5 per cent of the value of the goods plus expenses actually and reasonably incurred. B. Fees chargeable on executing writs of possession or delivery 8. Mileage Mileage from the enforcement officer’s business address to the place of execution and return, in respect of one journey 29.2 pence per mile, up to a maximum of £25.00 in total 9. Writs of possession (1) Where an enforcement officer executes a writ of possession of domestic property within the meaning of section 66 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988(1), 3 per cent of the net annual value for rating shown in the valuation list in force immediately before 1st April 1990 in respect of the property seized, subject to paragraph (3). (2) Where an enforcement officer executes a writ of possession to which paragraph (1) does not apply, 0.4 per cent of the net annual value for rating of the property seized, subject to paragraph (4). (3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), where the property does not consist of one or more hereditament which, immediately before 1st April 1990— (a)had a separate net annual value for rating shown on the valuation list then in force; and (b)was domestic property within the meaning of section 66 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, the property or such part of it as does not so consist shall be taken to have had such a value for rating equal to two-fifteenths of its value by the year when seized. (4) For the purposes of paragraph (2), where the property does not consist of one or more hereditaments having a separate net annual value for rating, the property or such part of it as does not so consist shall be taken to have such a value equal to its value by the year when seized. 10. Writs of delivery For executing a writ of delivery, 4 per cent of the value of the goods as stated in the writ or judgment. C. General fees 11. Copies of returns For a copy of any return indorsed by the enforcement officer on a writ of execution £5.00 12. Miscellaneous For any matter not otherwise provided for, such sum as a Master, district judge or costs judge may allow upon application.

According to the law what matter is what is stated in the acts of parliament and not the alleged good practice and guidelines especially if they cost efficiency because of the loss of the advantage of surprise. Miscellaneous charge may vary but could be charged only once irrespectively of how many attendances have been made I suppose that HCEO is himself a HCEO For a question of confidentiality I prefer not say which company I have hired. Moreover this is irrelevant because I think that all companies behave in the same way

In my post 6 I explained that a HCEO can charge mileage only once when he seizes the goods and when he takes them away if applicable A HCEO can gain access to a property even if the debtor denies him entry for example by jumping a fence and entering in the property by a back door which could be unlocked. Obviously on condition that the advantage of surprise has not been lost. Most of HCEO must be reluctant to do this even if it is their job because of the risk of being mistaken for a burglar. There is a lot of debate about how much force could be used against a burglar (without forgetting any possible rottweiler). A HCEO could do this only if he thinks that there are enough valuable goods which are worth taking such risk. I still not know the law which may force a HCEO to leave the paperwork at the property of a debtor each time he makes an attendance even if he does not seize any goods and it is what matters

I have hired a HCEO and I am not sure he has done his best and I am wondering if I have to pay the abortive fee. And I need to know the law about whether or not a HECO is forced to leave the paperwork at the property of the debtor each time he makes an attendance even when he does not seize any goods because by doing so he losts the advantage of surprise

It is well known that the interest in a county court judgement is 8% without the need of leaving any paperwork at the property. All this is assumption and as long as we do not know the law precisely we can be sure of nothing. Very often people do things by habit but what matters is the law

The other fees could be also charged only once irrespectively of how many attendances have been made In some cases the HCEO should already have some idea of how much they can recover from a specific property and whether or not it could be more or less than the £72 abortive fee HCEO are not miracle workers but nevertheless they can do more or less efforts according to how much they expect to recover from a specific property. They can for example enter in a house by the back door which is often unlocked after having entered in the garden through a gate which could be unlocked or by jumping it. I still not know the law which may force the HCEO to leave the paperwork at the property of the debtor each time he makes an attendance even if he does not seize any goods. As long as we do not have this information we can be sure of nothing

I have found out that in Schedule 3 of The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004 it is stated the following 2. Mileage Mileage from the enforcement officer's business address to the place of execution and return, in respect of one journey to seize goods and, if appropriate, one journey to remove the goods 29.2 pence per mile, up to a maximum of £50.00 in total Hence according to this piece of legislation a HCEO cannot charge for all the attendance he makes. Hence if he has really a legal obligation to leave the paperwork each time he makes an attendance even if he does not seize any goods this should be stated in another piece of legislation or an act of parliament and it will good to know which It is important to keep the advantage of the surprise for the maximum of time possible because the debtor can lock his front door, lock his back door, lock the door of his garden or of his garage and remove goods from the property or park their car far away or change the ownership of their car if they know that a HCEO will come An HCEO can climb fence, enter through unlock door etc. but not all do this and a lot do only a minimum effort because anyway they know that they can charge an abortive fee of £72 which is higher than the maximum £50 to which I made reference above Hence to be certain we need to know which act of parliament forces the HCEO to leave the paperwork each time he makes an attendance even when he does not seize any goods.

The form 55 is a notice of seizure what means that something has been seized. However I would like to know which law forces the HECO to leave the paperwork at the property of the debtor at each attendance even if no goods have been seized.

One of the advantages of hiring a HCEO instead of a County Court Bailiff was that the HCEO did not have the obligation to give advance warning to the debtor of his arrival. However this advantage is lost when the HCEO leaves the paperwork at the property of the debtors when he make an attendance. Hence I would like to know if the HCEO had to leave the paperwork each time he makes an attendance or he has to do this only when he seizes goods. Usually HCEO makes a maximum of three visits. Hence I would like to know if a HCEO can leave the paperwork at the property of the debtor only during his last visit so that he can keep the advantage of the surprise the longer possible I think that there has been a change in law recently and that now the HCEO like the County Court Bailiff has to give advance warning of his arrival but my query concern the regulations before this change in law

The problem is that my educational institution could used this as an excuse to reject the complaint that I intend to make and refuse to change its mind and allow me to re-sit this examination. You could be right but this would be after the complaint that I intend to make is over.

I would like to say which educational institution it is and which course it is but how could I be sure that someone from this institution does not use also this forum. However I welcome any good arguments that I can use in my complaint that I am preparing to make it change its mind. Moreover concerning the question of “caro” I do not understand his reasoning. I think that my educational institution must let me to resit this examination because it makes it available to anyone unless there has been some malpractice during the examination. So why not also to me. We have to take into account also that it is a charity incorporated by Royal Charter and like all the charities it has a charitable duty to promote the well-doing of the people and it does not do by preventing me from re-sitting this examination without any legal reason. It acts rather like a bully.

I have looked myself in depth in the regulations of my educational institution. As I say in my post I have been through all the steps of its grievance procedure and I have even had a court case against it. Hence I know very well these regulations. It is stated in its regulations that we can resit except if we have committed a malpractice during an examination. All this is ‘education law’ I have to find a good source of information about this subject like a website or a book or maybe a member of your forum who has already been in a similar situation