Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Chrisy Morris; YouTube Bailiff 'Baiter' to face 2 day trial for obstructing an enforcement agent.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2159 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I can actually understand why people are trying to stand up for Miss Patel, if that newspaper article is correct. How did a court decide that she was liable for neighbours legal costs of £60k, when she had already paid neighbour their £8k claim ? Seems a disproportionate amount.

 

According to the other thread on here regarding the case, she lost at first instance, appealed and then lost again in the High Court.

 

Hard to say if its disproportionate, but given the way she's handled things so far, I'm willing to bet the other side served her with a Notice of Commencement, which she ignored, and they then applied for a Default Costs Certificate for the full amount of their bill.

 

If that's the case, if it was disproportionate, she lost an opportunity to make arguments get the other side's bill of costs reduced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Must admit that i have a certain admiration for those that look to help others, even though they might be misguided.

 

The actions of these people must put pressure on HCEO's to act properly and that must be a positive.

 

What i can never understand is why there is not a better system, where those with a grievance are better represented in the courts and they are given a proper hearing. There is then a better way of the claimant enforcing the judgement without needing to get to the stage of forced evictions etc. I should imagine the Police don't want their resources being taken up attending, when they have more important things to deal with.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't part of the issue not that people are poorly represented in court,

but that many just bury their heads in the sand until it's too late and so end up not actually turning up to court when they have the chance?

 

I do wonder what the ratio is of cases High Court Bailiffs attend that stem from default judgements rather than contested judgements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I watch this program last night and have to say even though this chap Chrisy does seem to get in the bailiffs way he does his best to help an buy peoples time.

 

It does frustrate me though reading here how people who do not understand freeman rights just dismiss it as rubbish. If you know a bit about it and just say "I am a freeman" then yes a judge or Police Officer will throw the book at you. However after following a free woman and seeing how she dealt with a Magistrates court and had the case thrown out and had police officers actively remove a bailiff after he arrived to assist the bailiff then yes Freeman rights are true but you have to go about using it in the right way.

 

It takes a lot of time and understanding and investment in items like a Blacks Law dictionary, you must understand the difference between a Law, and Act and a Statute and be able to explain this to police officers. To deal with financial issue you must understand contract law and definitely understand the foundation of Common Law.

 

So don't poo poo it until you truly know it so a little respect here to this guy. So if you do think he is crap and I am full of hot air let me ask you this. Do you own your car? If you said yes to that then it shows how little you know and its why a police officer can take it away.

 

 

If I put a little effort into I could truly own my car and that would mean if some one clamped it or towed it I could under the law actually prosecute them for theft.

 

Also understand this about courts Chrisy was at a Crown court I am sure he would have preferred a Court de Jure however if it was a Magistrates court and you know how to enter, what to bring and understand legalese then it would have been no bother. You have to understand a Magistrates court is a Maritime court and has no jurisdiction of land based matters. You might have noticed some reference to maritime came up at the eviction.

 

But people get prosecuted there because they have no real idea how a court works and live in fear of what they do not understand.

 

Anyway have a read or just ignore it its your choice after all, just remember Knowledge is the true power

Edited by fkofilee
Link Removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh another FOTL clown thinks he knows better and can ignore every law he doesnt like.

 

They should be committed to psychiatric institutes.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says it all there when a freeman believes they don't need to act within our laws, but if someone takes their car, they can get the police to do them for theft. So you don't need to follow our laws, but I we break the laws acting against you, we should be punished by said laws that you dismiss???

 

Bloody nincompoops. Grow up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you do think he is crap and I am full of hot air let me ask you this. Do you own your car? If you said yes to that then it shows how little you know and its why a police officer can take it away.

 

 

If I put a little effort into I could truly own my car and that would mean if some one clamped it or towed it I could under the law actually prosecute them for theft.

 

Oh go on then, someone here has to be sucker enough to ask, it might as well be me this time.

 

Why don't I own my own car? How could I truly own my own car?

 

I realise I might regret asking this.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonkers

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet he thinks he doesnt drive his car either. He 'travels' in it, so he doesnt need to register it, tax it, or insure it. Or even get a driving licence.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh go on then, someone here has to be sucker enough to ask, it might as well be me this time.

 

Why don't I own my own car? How could I truly own my own car?

 

I realise I might regret asking this.....

 

 

Because these idiots believe when you register your car you hand ownership to the state

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure he would have chosen trial by combat but that right was repealed.

Question for bincrafty When was time immemorial?

you have heard the saying "since time immemorial, well when exactly was that? There is an answer so not a trick question and everyone, not just FOTL should know this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To all the FMOTL who do not consent .......

 

I don't consent to you using council services if you don't pay council tax.

I don't consent to you using the NHS, or receiving any state funded benefits, if you have elected not to pay income tax or NI.

 

Bincrafty : if you want to opt-out, fair enough, but are you agreeing not to use ANY service provided (or subsidised) by local or central government without creating an agreed bilateral contract first?

If your house was on fire do you expect the fire brigade to try to save your house or merely try to stop it spreading to other properties?

 

What about if your house is being burgled?

Do you want the police to turn up, and if so who is funding them?

You don't consent to paying for them do you??

Link to post
Share on other sites

please com back bincrafty, we want your thoughts and answers!

 

And come to your senses :madgrin:

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
The following press report features on SCOOP.

 

Anyone viewing YouTube videos regarding bailiff enforcement, will be familiar with the name of Chrisy Morris (he previously used to call himself Chrissy Morris).

 

Chris Morris features very prominently on many of the FMoTL F/B groups where he is very know know for 'baiting' bailiffs. He will telephone enforcement agents, enforcement companies, court staff etc and upload the conversations onto YouTube.

 

As the article states, he is to face a 2 days trial for obstructing a Enforcement Agent when enforcing a High Court writ.

 

 

https://tamesidereporter.com/2017/03/patel-cottage-bailiff-eviction-demonstrator-opts-for-trial/

Chrisy Morris has succeeded in getting his re-hearing at Minshull St Crown Court Manchester on 30th November. This is for obstructing a High Court Enforcement Officer in June 2016 during Rekha Patel's 1st eviction. It'll be heard with 2 magistrates and a judge, no jury. Co-incidentally Rekha Patel is at Stockport Magistrates Court 2 days earlier on 28th November for the same offence. She obstructed a High Court Officer during her 2nd eviction in July this year and had her Magistrates hearing postponed due to FoTL tactics causing courtroom chaos in August. Both are being filmed by Ken Thompson for his documentary "Meet The Resistance". They love being on TV these two, except that nothing Ken films ever gets finished.:smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

...... Quote from the numpty claiming to understand freeman twoddle...

 

You have to understand a Magistrates court is a Maritime court

 

 

And there lies the problem.

 

Freemans cant spell.

The laws they claim all stem from a spelling mistake.

 

They dont know their is a difference between [or the correct usage of their and there]

Berth certificate and birth certificate.....

This is why they claim maritime law and I'm the straw man...

Numptys

Edited by Mr.P
Let's see where this goes ....
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Just to give you some insight

 

Mr Morris has got off because the EA had the incorrect paperwork

the eviction was an N293a (think i have this correct)

Apparently the Owner of the house was a trespasser according to the claimant.

so the claimant put before the court misleading information.

 

so I can understand why he was found not Guilty.

 

even more reason to check the paperwork from any EA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to give you some insight

 

Mr Morris has got off because the EA had the incorrect paperwork. The eviction was an N293a (think i have this correct)

Apparently the Owner of the house was a trespasser according to the claimant.

 

There is a lot of gossip doing the rounds so its difficult to know the true position. The enforcement agent had no obligation whatsoever to show the warrant to Chrisy Morris.

 

He truly is losing his grip on reality. Apparently, on Saturday, there was a live stream on his FB page of Rekha and her new landlord Ken Thompson trying to "occupy' her ex-cottage. With security guards and dogs guarding the cottage for the past few weeks their attempts failed of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BA

it was not showing the warrant, it was more that the warrant was gained by deceit,

by stating it was for a trespasser/squatter,

 

BA can you explain why the warrant does not have to be shown when asked,

if it is incorrect how can it be questioned?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The warrant only has to be known by a person in authority of its existence. Much in the same way if your stopped by the police for a minir traffic offence, and they run checks and it turns out there I a warrant for your arrest, they will take you in.

You question the warrant with the relevent party or judge. The person who is enforcing the warrant has no authority to change or question it

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...