Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by wonkeydonkey

  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. Just a thought but...have you checked to see if any of your debts could be SB?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Perhapse if I were to replace the word 'released' with 'published' it will make for better reading. Sorry if I confused you, it was unintentional.
  9. There are many'what if' scenarios.I for one have no intention of entering into circles of discusion on them all I prefer to facts to opinions.
  10. This would be best discussed when the Jugment is released and all the facts are there to see. (as I am sure it will be given it's importance)
  11. As I understand it.....most ( not all) enforcement sgents photograph the car when clamps are in place.
  12. DB is perfectly correct..the case I mentioned was heard in Watford, the claimant was in Court as was his solicitor. The matter I speak of was only a small part of the evidence given to the Court from a whole raft of ridiculous claims made against a LA and Enforcement company...all thrown out I believe.
  13. There has been a ruling very recently upholding the fact it was in order for a bailiff to have removed a car from 'private' land (church car park). It was originally taken into control and clamped on the debtors own driveway, . Clamp was then removed by 'persons unknown' and the car in questioned was then moved to a church car park in the belief the bailiff couldn't remove it or reclamp it on 'private land. The case in question makes very interesting reading and appears to centre around the wrongful advice we see elsewhere on the forums, such advice that Cag and BA in particular have been able to correct and supply evidence for, hopefully saving debtors from making costly errors.
  14. Could you tell us when you first became aware of the CCJ? your answer could determine if a set aside would be worth considering.
  15. Ms A made a payment of £97 for the PCN using the Council’s online system on 23 June 2016. However by this point the Council had already passed the case to its bailiffs, incurring further costs and...I suspect that payment, once bailiff fees were deducted, left a balance owing on the PCN
  16. Yes please do be very careful, it is known you will quite likely be expected to initially pay for a 'telephone consultation' (£35) before the 'paralegal' can become involved.
  17. So pleased to read you have resolved this with both the Council and JBW. It is so true what was said to you, 'they get so used to people lying to them and just assume everyone is lying'. There are of course those who will lie through their teeth to avoid paying the bailiff fees and that is why genuine folk often find themselves time after time being tarred with the same brush.. Time to put it all behind you and Well Done to you for seeing it through to a good result.
  18. If the writ is dated December 2015 then all is ok at this moment in time. It is in the creditors best interest to renew the writ....if you were to default on your payments and there is no writ in place all they could do would be to ask you nicely to pay up....... he would then have to start the whole enforcement process again. HCE should inform you if the creditor has applied to renew the writ. As an aside it would pay you to ask for a breakdown of payments made to date, fees charged and balance of your account just in case you have been 'accidently overcharged' on fees, also does the CCJ make mention to the claimant being awarded interest? when they made their first visit you said they listed goods taken into control, would you care to share that list with us? we would be interested to see if they were any goods on it that were actually exempt.. It is indeed a different world where enforcement is concerned and High Court are at the top of the list when it comes to confusing people. Just thank yourself lucky to have found cag...no false info and no costs to you getting things sorted on this site.
  • Create New...