Did the charge of 'Interference of controlled goods' brought before the Magistrates result in a

fine?

PS Is this thread just you talking to yourself ?

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.

Well done Dave, pleased to hear you got a partial refund.

For the benefit of those who may be confused, here is a LGO decision that is relevant to this case. It is of course ridiculous to suggest that the LGO will not be interested in looking into a matter where injustice has occurred:

 

 

 

Dave. This LGO decision is 100% relevant to your own situation. If Marston do not return your £235, this LGO decision should be bought to the attention of the council when you contact them regarding the injustice that you have suffered.

 

Bailiffs and their apologists will tell you that every LGO is case specific. Whilst this is true, it is 99.99% unlikely that the LGO would find any different in your matter and even less likely that the council would want to take the risk of a negative LGO decision against them just to line Marston's pockets.

The link given does not work??

Just a thought but...have you checked to see if any of your debts could be SB?

2 Things to do in the morning:

1 - ask E.ON what address they sent all Court docs to and which Court they used

2 - contact the Court and also ask what address inc Postcode they sent everything to

 

Not being funny but it won't be the first time one here that someone else in the family has intercepted the post. You have to stop being fixated by what has happened so far, you must try & address the issue of the unknown CCJ.

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.

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.

It was paid on the 14th.

You are correct it was the 14th the payment was made, I apologise.

I am beginning to understand the judges frustration.

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.

I think that if anything maybe they are applying for leave to appeal. Which of course is a totally different thing.

 

If it is tho points raised in the transcript the idea of appeal is frankly nonsense.

I think the claimant is very lucky the defendant's did not pursue a claim for unreasonable costs/conduct!!!

It s

I agree. I do find it disturbing that a member on here is fed details of such cases, even those subject to sub-judice. We all know the reason why and it is, at the very least, immature,

 

However moving on - yes I agree with those dates Bailiff Advice, I was reading some of my notes incorrectly. However I have it on good authority that at least a partial copy of the judgement has been seen by wonkeydonkey, so why then need for all the secrecy is beyond me.

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.

If you're suggesting that Bailiff Advice paid for a transcript then that would be impossible. The case only concluded just over a week ago and a transcript would not be available that quickly, what with the filing of the EX107, the court sending the recording, the written transcript being made then waiting for it's delivery.

The case I was referring to was heard in February!!!!!

Who?

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.

Or paid for transcript?

Judging by your previous posts I assumed you already had the details of the judgement as you were commenting on the outcomes. It now seems that the judgement has yet to be released.

 

However as I said earlier, Bailiff Advice assured us on Sunday that she would be posting the details 'in the next couple of days'. So that would indicate the judgement has been released. Things appear very contradictory at the moment.

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.

And they could also then remove them. The police, it seems, are far too quick to fully believe anything a bailiff tells them.

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.

A few more details would be helpful. Seeing as you already know the court, the claimant and their representative, this shouldn't be difficult. What are the details of the case and the arguments used?

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)

As I understand it.....most ( not all) enforcement sgents photograph the car when clamps are in place.

I think you're mistaken there Dodgeball. There is only one case involving a car in a church, and he wasn't in court.

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.

It certainly does, and i dont know why it is that the bailiffs never seems to pursue a criminal charge via the police.

As far as the controlled goods are concerned however, clamp or not they are still under control.

 

This means that they can be picked up and taken away wherever they are spotted even by the police, which has happened on here or of course on private land.

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.

Could you tell us when you first became aware of the CCJ? your answer could determine if a set aside would be worth considering.

Ms A says she paid the fine so bailiff action should cease. However, the Council says she is still liable for the bailiff fees.

 

So the PCN was paid and the fees were outstanding?

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

I see elsewhere you have been offered a Para-Legal. On the face of it a good idea but you should ask:

a - are they Licenced

b - what qualifications they have

 

Read more @ http://www.nationalparalegals.co.uk/

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.

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.

the reference number on this paperwork seems to relate to the agreement in 2015. What happens if it is not renewed? or how do I find out if it has etc....They did mention that the client had only just agreed with the order but it was in place from 2015 and I was told that it was all agreed then.

 

You know I pride myself as being relatively bright but I am so glad you are all here as it is a different world that I seem to get more confused as the days go by

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.