Jump to content

wonkeydonkey

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    3,157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

wonkeydonkey last won the day on April 8 2014

wonkeydonkey had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

800 Excellent

About wonkeydonkey

  • Rank
    Gold Account Holder
  1. I think Cag have quite rightly dumped all his rubbish into one bin, here he can go unnoticed and be of little detriment to posters.
  2. Bankfodder being the owner of CAG can post whatever and wherever he likes. I cannot see where 'dealing with bailiffs' is mentioned in the above, but since you mention it I suppose it is only fair to bring to the fore...Jason Bennison's empire © 2016 Xlaw Ltd. No. 10240149 Incorporating: Dealing with Bailiffs Bailiff Help Forum Beat the Bailiffs
  3. Just a thought but...have you checked to see if any of your debts could be SB?
  4. Having been in a similar position to the OP all I can add is that...Ploddertom is right with his analysis......the whole scenario hinges on getting to the bottom of the address the Court docs were sent to. Only then can the OP unravel the rest.
  5. Whiteley, you have spent several days skirting around the main issue (as I see it personally) This matter should never have reached the stage of being subject to a court hearing, the debtor was badly advised from the outset and given false hope he would walk away £££'s in pocket if he did nothing other than follow the misguided advice of one individual. You can go round in circles with your notion on 'proceeds' but the bottom line is that the Judge was only interested the 'facts' ie the debtor admitted the debt, admitted knowing that by paying the creditor direct did not absolve him to paying the outstanding fees, admitted that removing the clamps and subsequently removing the cars, did not absolve him to paying the outstanding fees. admitted he had another car available to him for use and there was no need to have hired a further car, admitted his claim to damages didn't hold water and admitted he was in a position to have paid what was due to Harrow and Newlyn's from the OUTSET This entire scenario carries the stamp of one unqualified individual who clearly shouldn't be encouraging debtors to enter into litigation. Having been banned here under many previous usernames I am very surprised you have been allowed to remain for the sole purpose of disrupting this thread, Having read the thread, the judgement and the transcript I draw the conclusion you have not offered anything to the debate of this threads title.
  6. I sympathise with the Judge also..... The date the claimant made the £172 payment direct to Harrow was 16th January2016.. this was a Saturday... and although the payment was recorded as having been received it would have been 18th January before any action could be taken to process that payment. By the 18th Jan the bailiff had already been instructed to enforce and he was entitled to £75 so the £172 had increased to £247.... and that left a balance owed which ever way you look at it.
  7. Your 'good authority' is superfluous given that I have posted on this matter here on cag and elsewhere, without denial to having seen 'partial copy' of the judgment in question.
  8. Who pays for them I don't know but many transcripts are used for legal training, especially those that cover matters appertaining to current lectures.
×
×
  • Create New...