It would appear that this completely unqualified individual is now offering legal services to judgment debtors whereby he claims to be able to "Stop your High Court Writ" for £125.

Having read many of his posts here in the past and on his various websites and forums it is clear that this person has little to no understanding of this area of law and is no doubt costing genuine judgment debtors looking for help.

In the past we have had sight of his assistance and whilst on the most part it is just worthless nonsense on several occasions it has actually cost the debtor considerable sums that would not have been payable without Jason's involvement.

A new page on his website laughably states:

Coming soon end of July 2015.

How it works.

1. Complete a fact-find to see if your writ or circumstances qualify for this service.

2. Complete a short online questionnaire

3. Payment

4. Sign and take (or post) your documents to court

5. Kibosh! Your writ - and the enforcement power - is stopped!

Where possible, I will also get your original county court judgment set aside as well!

It will be interesting to see what the SRA make of this.

It appears He is also in cahoots with a well known freeman called jay bradley (formerly of beat the bailiffs) who has recently set up a ltd company called mary the clamp fairy ltd and is offering his services through a facebook page called the bailiff bible which has the dealing with bailiffs logo on it...

This thread will probably be removed. But my understanding is that there is no law against giving unqualified legal advice online, provided you do not make false claims about qualifications or legal standing. There are also no laws relating to online bailiff advice sites, even if they charge fees.

I think government should look at tightening the law. If you charge fees for advice, these should be subject to appropriate regulation.

As far as the SRA is concerned, they will do precisely nothing, he has no legal qualifications and operates as a Mckenzie.

His fees are £100 to draft a skeleton and £500 to speak at a hearing, the fact that in most case the judges do not let him speak does not seem to stop him charging this fee, generally he tells his"client" that it is recoverable from the other side which is of course a lie.

You have to feel sorry for what appears to be gullible or vulnerable debtors that fall for this. Its usually people with little or no money that try to use this, and its just adds more debt onto the original debt.

You have to feel sorry for what appears to be gullible or vulnerable debtors that fall for this. Its usually people with little or no money that try to use this, and its just adds more debt onto the original debt.

Yes as one of his compatriots pointed out he shows no contrition or regret for the thousands of pounds he costs his clients in costs and fees , to no advantage.

You have to feel sorry for what appears to be gullible or vulnerable debtors that fall for this. Its usually people with little or no money that try to use this, and its just adds more debt onto the original debt.

Don't think I'll be the only one finding a little irony in the above.

Yes, I too can see the irony, BUT I will deal with vulnerable on a case by case basis appropriately. I.e nulla off, rtn as vulnerable, suitable payment arrangements etc. The last thing I want to do is lose my certificate by being harsh. Id rather earn a little less but sleep at night.

People like that have nothing to lose. There is no one to govern him, no one to complain to.

Do you mean that one of these is charging fees for a service that cannot work and the other is doing his job, nope sorry i see no comparison.

Whilst we are on the subject, there is talk of a debtor legally !throwing a bailiff off a debtors premisses " a bailiff who is seeking to enforce at an address not mentioned on the warrant.

The problem being as I see it is that section in 14 sched 12 mentions nothing about specific premises, the warrant is issue to the person at "relavant premises".

Entry without warrant(ie general power under warrant writ or enactment)

14(1)An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods.

relevant premises are defined as;

(6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—

(a)usually lives, or

(b)carries on a trade or business.

The place the debtor usually lives.

So at initial visit the address on the order warrant or enactment is not relevant, it only becomes so when the warrant is issued under section 15 to specific premises, maybe a lock up or alternative place of storage.

I fail to see how under these circumstances a debtor can legally assault a bailiff ?

It appears He is also in cahoots with a well known freeman called jay bradley (formerly of beat the bailiffs) who has recently set up a ltd company called mary the clamp fairy ltd and is offering his services through a facebook page called the bailiff bible which has the dealing with bailiffs logo on it...

Jay Bradley is James John Bradley and for a while now he has been running an operation called Mary the Clamp Fairy and it would seem that when contacted by a 'victim' he offers to telephone the enforcement agent and ask him to remove a car clamp that he considers has been put on a vehicle 'unlawfully'. If the clamp is not removed, he will attend and remove the clamp and film the event and threaten that the film will appear on YouTube.

On 15th July he registered the buisness as a Limited Company and it would seem that he even provided his home address for the business.

You are correct in that another person has decided to join the Facebook 'bandwagon' and the new page is called Bailiff Bible. This site openly encourages members of the public to upload videos of visits by enforcement visits onto the Freeman on the Lands favorite media outlet...YouTube.

Both the Bailiff Bible and James Bradley are posting links back and forth to each other to advertise each others business and it is generally believed that both people are 'known to each other'.

Again based on a basic misunderstanding of the legislation, no seizure is illegal until a judge or a creditor says it is.

The act is clear it is for the bailiff to decide, if he immobilizes a vehicle and he honestly believes the goods are suitable, then at that point the seizures legal ,until a representation has been made to a EA/creditor or court says otherwise, until this happens removal of a clamp is illegal and can trigger a claim under section 68.

Anyone can call themselves a doctor but when caught out attempting to practice as one they end up behind bars.

Whilst we are on the subject, there is talk of a debtor legally !throwing a bailiff off a debtors premisses " a bailiff who is seeking to enforce at an address not mentioned on the warrant.

 

The problem being as I see it is that section in 14 sched 12 mentions nothing about specific premises, the warrant is issue to the person at "relavant premises".

 

Entry without warrant(ie general power under warrant writ or enactment)

 

14(1)An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods.

 

relevant premises are defined as;

 

(6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—

(a)usually lives, or

(b)carries on a trade or business.

 

The place the debtor usually lives.

 

So at initial visit the address on the order warrant or enactment is not relevant, it only becomes so when the warrant is issued under section 15 to specific premises, maybe a lock up or alternative place of storage.

 

I fail to see how under these circumstances a debtor can legally assault a bailiff ?

I notice some have woken up to Jason and his money making schemes it is about time the rest did also, for the good of the people you are purporting to help.

There is also this

Remedies available to the debtor

66(1)This paragraph applies where an enforcement agent—

(a)breaches a provision of this Schedule, or

(b)acts under an enforcement power under a writ, warrant, liability order or other instrument that is defective.

(2)The breach or defect does not make the enforcement agent, or a person he is acting for, a trespasser.

It matters not if there was a breach in regulation the bailiff is not considered a trespasser in any case so there is no legal cause for any manhandling.

It would appear that this completely unqualified individual is now offering legal services to judgment debtors whereby he claims to be able to "Stop your High Court Writ" for £125.

 

Having read many of his posts here in the past and on his various websites and forums it is clear that this person has little to no understanding of this area of law and is no doubt costing genuine judgment debtors looking for help.

 

In the past we have had sight of his assistance and whilst on the most part it is just worthless nonsense on several occasions it has actually cost the debtor considerable sums that would not have been payable without Jason's involvement.

 

A new page on his website laughably states:

 

Coming soon end of July 2015.

 

How it works.

 

1. Complete a fact-find to see if your writ or circumstances qualify for this service.

 

2. Complete a short online questionnaire

 

3. Payment

 

4. Sign and take (or post) your documents to court

 

5. Kibosh! Your writ - and the enforcement power - is stopped!

 

 

Where possible, I will also get your original county court judgment set aside as well!

 

 

It will be interesting to see what the SRA make of this.

I was waiting to receive a copy of a judgment before posting details of yet another substantial costs order imposed on a debtor after using this person's 'Law Firm'.

This judgment has once again highlighted the seriousness of unqualified individuals calling themselves 'lawyers' and representing debtors as 'Professional McKenzie Friends'.

In a leading article in the Law Gazette today the Bar Council are stating the paid McKenzie Friends should not be allowed to speak in court (link below).

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/mckenzie-friends-rebuff-from-bar/5050114.article

In light of this latest judgment, I was contacted by an individual on Friday with details of a person at the SRA who complaints should be directed to. I will PM contact details to you.

Jay Bradley is James John Bradley and for a while now he has been running an operation called Mary the Clamp Fairy and it would seem that when contacted by a 'victim' he offers to remove car clamps that he considers have been put on a vehicle 'unlawfully'. On 15th July he registered the buisness as a Limited Company and it would seem that he even provided his home address for the business.

This clamp removal business is clearly engaging in very serious criminal behaviour and it is generally well known that various regulatory bodies and the police are aware of the 'business' and the way in which the company remove a clamp from a vehicle and then threaten the enforcement company that unless a payment of approx £2,000 is paid to the 'Clamp Fairy' that court action will follow.

Jason you really must stop, the addresses previously used has no baring as any address occupied is allowable

(6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—

(a)usually lives, or

(b)carries on a trade or business.

Quoting ancient case law quoted out of context wont help either you have gotten away with that long enough the TCE is all that matters in these cases.

Unfortunately anyone can call themselves a lawyer.

yes if only the analogy held here,unfortunately a judge aid that it ii OK for anyone to call themselves a lawyer, sorry I forget which case, i bet BA has it.

This clamp removal business is clearly engaging in very serious criminal behaviour and it is generally well known that various regulatory bodies and the police are aware of the 'business' and the way in which the company remove a clamp from a vehicle and then threaten the enforcement company that unless a payment of approx £2,000 is paid to the 'Clamp Fairy' that court action will follow.

Overnight I have received a number of messages regarding this company and it's Director and screenshots of posts made by this person on the Beat the Bailiffs Facebook page and it would seem that Jay Brad (as he prefers to be called) considers that as he trades under a Limited Company that he is immune from prosecution. It seems as if many posters disagree with him and urged him to change the address of his company. He believes that as long as he does not damage the wheel clamp that he cannot be prosecuted. Clearly he has either not read or understood section 68.2 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts & Enforcement Act which states as follows:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12/part/2/crossheading/offences?view=plain

Several complaints to Facebook about the page content and about the blatant advertising should go a long way to putting a stop on this. That would be the easiest way to stop his dubious activities.

Facebook do not like advertising for illegal activities and I think that complaining might work.

Several complaints to Facebook about the page content and about the blatant advertising should go a long way to putting a stop on this. That would be the easiest way to stop his dubious activities.

 

Facebook do not like advertising for illegal activities and I think that complaining might work.

Facebook would want to charge them the relevant rate.

The internet really is the wild west at the moment. So many dodgy sites, scams, ransomware, hacking of personal information, trolling. I don't think it is a safe place for children or people who are vulnerable. If this was happening in local high streets, it would have Police and Trading Standards involved.

The trouble is that internet sites that claim to solve problems are likely to be very attractive. They offer solutions that are not mentioned on CAB, CAG or National Debtline. The information sounds so plausible with law and cases cited, that people take it as being valid to deal with their problem. They don't stop to think why other more official advice sites are saying something different.

Have a read of my attachment in full then read part 3 from 12 onwards again.. Then read schedule 2 for more details on the subject...

Facebook are a law unto themselves, I know of a couple of people who have had normal pics taken down and banned.

I complained about a lot of homophobic posters a while ago and was told there was nothing wrong with the content of their posts - which stated that if you supported gay marriage you were going against certain religious beliefs and would end up in hell and adding the comment that 'you were no friend of mine'. I took the hint and unfriended the people posting that drivel.

On the subject of bailiff prevention sites I have had a bit of spam email (now deleted) about stopping bailiffs visiting by simply sticking a letter on your door...next time I get an email like that I will post it on CAG - as we know it is not as simple as that.

I do have a bailiff friend who frequently ends up getting into trouble for returning too many 'vulnerable' debts - as he said there is nothing you can do if people clearly don't have any money, or fancy goods to take, or live in their own heavily mortgaged property

The whole bailiff scene needs re-looking at and re-working into a more workable model than the one they already have.

Jason, as for" getting it wrong again", perhaps if you let me debate these matter directly you would see that i do not get these things wrong, however I fully understand why you cannot. YOur business intersts would be untenable if you let someone who actually understand the law in this area question some of your absurd ideas.

I have no personal axe to grind with anyone, my only concern has ever been protecting innocent consumers.

Incidentally i do not get things wrong, despite mocking remarks on your site if you had listened to me in the past, how many thousands of pounds would your clients have saved, think about it.

Has anyone in contact with or able to contact any of the victims thought of advising them to go to the Police?

These companies/individuals are taking payments to provide services they know are unlawful/do not work, so, surely that is Fraud? They are gaining a financial advantage through deception.