Jump to content

Lawyers-Online

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lawyers-Online

  1. The power of the Free Market!! Eventually this type of company lose any prospect of new customers, and the inevitable happens. But why does it take the consumer to do the job the OFT should be doing? In my experience, tax payer funded organisations are generally a group with nothing to do and all day to do it in.
  2. Excellent idea waronwant, but better not to (ever) open the door. Film him through the window and record him through the letter box.
  3. Yes, you're right in these circumstances. When one has very limited space to deal with extremely complex issues it is very easy to stray and make errors and omissions. I amplified, but did not make clear, that a bailiff is similarly restricted under Common Law, except a bailiff does have the right to enter"If acting Lawfully" (my line 6) via an unlocked door or open window; thereafter he can break out. If entry has been refused and the bailiff forces his way past the debtor the bailiff has committed an offence. See Rossiter v Conway [1894] 58 JP 350 and many others on this topic. It seems the debtor can quite legitimately use reasonable force to force the bailiff out. A shot-gun may be a bit extreme but a rolling pin probably not!
  4. I advise all my clients to proceed and take action against companies, staff and their directors under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act. By the principle of vicarious liability, culpability goes from the door harasser right up to the Board Members. The penalty is up to £5,000 per causal event. Report the company to the OFT as well, just to give them a real kicking. The door harasser has no right of entry, only a Common Law Licence to walk up to your door. You revoke that licence by either writing to the company, or by telling him through the letter box that he has to leave your property forthwith. Never ever open the door or leave your windows and doors unlocked - he can, if acting lawfully, get through an open window or door and then break out. If he does not leave forthwith you are entitled to throw him off your land and call the police. From the moment you revoke the licence he is a trespasser. End of. When will these companies get the message?
  5. Let us be clear about the issue of the police advice that the bailiff, in these circumstances, can legally break in. Absolute Rot! Which explains better than I ever could, why the police should not get involved in giving advice on matters civil - they simply do not have the training for it. A bailiff, in this case, cannot break in! He would be guilty of breaking and entering and trespass at the very least and you would be perfectly entitled in my judgement to forcibly remove him (using reasonable force) and/or call the police and have him arrested. However, if a door or window are closed but unlocked they can walk in or climb in and then break out! I note the comments by Martin 3030. It seems that Temple Retail Ltd sold your goods to Temple Finance Ltd, which then hired the goods to you subject to a finance agreement. Temple Finance Ltd should have served on you a Default Notice when you missed a payment. That Notice would have set out what you had to do next-for example you would have had a prescribed number of days to bring your account up to date. It clearly did not do that because if your account is accurate insufficient days elapsed between the default and the bailiff visits - it is therefore in breach of the Consumer Credit Act. You should complain forthwith to the OFT. The sanction by the OFT can be fines and a revocation of the consumer credit licence. You should also use s40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 - a very powerful piece of legislation which is massively under - used. Temple Finance Ltd, by its directors are instructing bailiffs, their servants or agents to cause you and your family alarm, distress or humiliation. Those bailiffs are also acting unlawfully. That means the directors of Temple Finance Ltd are as guilty as the bailiffs by the principle of vicarious liability. The company and its directors are facing fines of up to £5,000 per offence. Fight your corner and fight it hard, complain in writing to the Chief Constable, the OFT, your member of Parliament and anyone else you can think of. You will win. You almost certainly need precise advice. Do you have a law clinic or C.A.B. near you? If so, try them.
  6. First things first. the police (without a Warrant, unless they are in hot pursuit) , bailiffs and thugs from finance companies have an implied licence under Common Law to walk up to and knock your front door. You are perfectly entitled to tell them through the letter box (do not open the door) that any licence under Common Law is hereby revoked and they must leave your property/land forthwith. If they do not then you telephone 999 and report an emergency situation, or if they force their way in you are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force to remove them from your land and then proceed against them for trespass. We have an old case, the name of which escapes me, that involved a policemen forcing his way into a house to arrest a prostitute. By all accounts she was quicker than him, she splatted his nose before he could restrain and arrest her. He did not have a warrant. She was convicted at Magistrates. The conviction was overturned on Appeal. The copper, I suspect, and his colleagues learnt of the very limited powers they have. The problem we have is that most police constables are as thick as two short planks and have no idea of the limit of their powers. They all struggle through a few weeks training and believe they are practising lawyers, pontificating on just about everything. If you think I am too harsh get a copy of the entrance exam. A ten year old on a bad day could do it. They are all vociferous compulsive liars. It sounds very much as if your partner was wrongly arrested and are able to pursue a claim against the Chief Constable. No point in complaining at station level, they won't have a clue what you are talking about or will protect the constable concerned, by not asking you the right questions. If you are harassed again in this quite disgraceful way cite Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 - "It is an offence to harass someone over a debt if the action is likely to cause the person or their family alarm, distress or humiliation." By the principle of vicarious liability I would submit this principle applied upwards to the head of the company instructing the so called bailiffs. The penalty is up to a £5,000 fine per offence, heard before Magistrates. You should also be writing and complaining to the Office of Fair Trading, who, if they ever get off their backsides, will close the company down making its debts unenforceable. The best of luck. Finally, whenever this happens video and record it on your mobile phone and make contemporaneous notes. See if any witnesses heard the commotion and saw anything and take a statement off them too.
  7. Not that I am aware of. Just returned from holiday and no mail waiting. I heard from several people on this topic. All told pretty much the same story. Clearly the police need training in matters bailiff. BUT they also need training in many other areas too. We have a pretty shabby police force these days, which in the main is far too busy being trained to be politically correct. If you are ethnic minority or other groups that flag up for special attention, you can bet your life they will have all the training needed to deal with the "Problems" they allegedly encounter . But far too busy to help the "Normal" members of society who need their help - and simple incapable of thinking for themselves and doing some self study on web sites such as this. Every police force in my judgement, should have a law graduate or specialist to oversee and advise on incidents concerning bailiffs and debt enforcement. They find money for just about every other type of incident, especially if it involves ethnic minorities, why not the rest of the population.
  8. Well done, I am pleased you got the result BUT had you remembered my advice to say nothing to the other side (see my last letter) you would have been enriched by the costs the judge would have awarded you. You played a very dangerous game, the DVLA solicitor could have seen something in your (legally priviliged) paper-work that could have weakened your case. You could have then lost. Buzby is about right, you would have probably been awarded £100 or so. You should not have agreed to withdraw prior to the Hearing. Next time, please please show the other side NOTHING. I also beat the DVLA. I hope now everyone who has suffered at the hands of this monumentally grotesque, innefficient arm of this damned awful government fights back. Put the bastards to proof every time. Cost them money every time. Only then will someone responsible for hurling huge quantities of tax-payers' cash to support this army of grossly inefficient civil servants, stand back and start to look at the many problems the DVLA has.
  9. Thanks for keeping me up to date. The GOLDEN RULES - 1. Take pen & paper with you, if the other side says something that is incorrect, make CAREFUL note of it and when it is your turn bring it up-DO NOT TRUST TO MEMORY- ADRENALIN IS PUMPING, YOU WILL FORGET. Also, at the very end, make careful note of the outcome. 2. keep very calm and relaxed. Take plenty of deep breaths before you go in. 3. Never Never interrupt the other side, or the judge, or Magistrates depending where you are. You will be given your chance later - in fact you will be asked if you have anything further to say. 3. Don't mumble. Speak clearly and precisely - no ums and ahs. 4. Don't repeat yourself. 5. Be totally objective, do not stray into subjectivity - it doesn't help. 6. If the solicitor for the DVLA attends he will almost certainly, before the hearing, approach you on a fishing trip. Listen politely and when asked a question, simply say you prefer to say nothing and leave it to the court. 8. Be prepared, tonight make careful note of the points you wish you raise. More cases are lost through bad or unprofessional preperation - don't be flustered. 7. Finally, Be polite throughout - no matter the outcome. The best of luck.
  10. You have really weakened your position by leaving the door unlocked, which of course allowed the bailiff entry. First things first, your partner has to write to the bailiffs and specify which are his. If the bailiffs will not concede the point (and they may require proof by receipts etc), he will need to make an Application to the court so that his property is ring fenced. So far as your goods are concerned, the position is slightly confusing but it seems the bailiff (thought he had) seized the property, which gave him legal title and control of the goods. The goods therefore, it seems, are in the custody of the law, i.e. Impounded. However, the rules relating to an agreement for walking possession for council tax arrears states that a signature was needed. Without a signature there can be no agreement between you and the bailiff. It has no validity. This though is the crunch, did you tell the bailiff you would pay if he did not not take your goods away? Did you strike a bargain with him. What precisely happened and what was said between the parties is crucial. Can you let me know please? If you, or some other reponsible person did not sign, the levy may well have been irregular. The case of National Commercial Bank of Scotland Ltd v Arcam Demolition & Construction Ltd [1966] 2 QB 593 held that wife's signature was sufficient even without Mr's authority and against his will. But the case of H v Sandwell MBC [1992] Legal Action August P15 a different conclusion was reached. Husband & wife both owed community charge. Bailiffs visited. Husband signed Walking Possession for both. Held by Magistrates that process was irregular so far as the wife was concerned.
  11. I wish you the best of luck. The major problem you will have is that no independent body polices the police. The Police Complaints Authority is just a toothless tiger and the police complaints' department a joke! The police union terrify the average Chief Constable into submission. Chief constables in the main are on odd-ball collection of limp wristers, with no back bone and no will for a fight with his junior ranks. Your average plod is a violent inveterate liar who will get his mates to agree his version of events by making sure their note-books tally. Your only (slim) hope is that you should have a mobile 'phone with recording facility and ALWAYS record what a policeman says to you, no matter how trivial the conversation at the outset and if you are in an organised protest have multi cameras operating - record everything! If you want to really see probably the most violent policing in the World, watch footage of recent protests policed by the British plod. Terrifying! And we put up with.
  12. I assume you got a crime number off the police when you phoned. You should now write to the court and the creditor and the Chief Constable with the facts. In my view, the creditor too is caught by s40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, by the principle of vicarious liability. Your mobile 'phone probably has a recording facility, use it when he next calls. His actions could result in his firm losing their certification and contract with the creditor. A letter to Trading Standards and your local MP could also help.
  13. Rachie1973, the remedy is available to you. s40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 "...It is an offence to harass someone over a debt if the action is likely to cause the person or their family alarm, distress or humiliation..." Your letter supports my long held view that the police of this country are simply not fit for purpose. Awfully good at hitting innocent protestors about the head, who then subsequently die but absolute useless at objectively dispensing the law. Ignorant bullies in the main, that generally have a problem with their own inadequacies. You might be thankful they did not get involved, they would probably have supported the bailiff! Next time the bailiff calls telephone 999 and tell them you haven't taxed your car or that you will throw litter all over the road if they don't come. That should produce 10 or 20 plod in just a few minutes. Are you surprised? They have but a few weeks of very basic training. They simply do not have the intellectual capacity for problems outside of their comfort zone. Look at their entrance exam. A 14 yr old would have a problem failing it. That is the core problem.
  14. Today things seem slightly clearer. We seem to have two issues. The first is the conviction in the Magistrates' Court for the offences you have explained. This, in my judgement needs to be appealed as set out in my earlier missives. The second issue is the Fines Officer and his decision as to payment of the fine relating to the conviction, the apparent cock-up over dates etc, which produced almost an impossible situation for you to adhere to. If you accept the conviction, then you need to liaise with the Fines Officer and negotiate time to pay, if that is what you want. If you do not accept the conviction and one of the grounds, at least, is that you did not receive notice of the hearing date and had you done so would have appeared and defended the action because you are not guilty, then you are perfectly entitled to appeal the conviction - if of course you are not guilty. If you waste the court's time with a spurious appeal it may well, I would have thought, fine you a higher amount. It seems to me though, that you were in contact with DVLA regarding the matter and it is it that seems to have denied receipt of your letters and it is that has allegedly sent out letters to you warning of the potential of action that you never received. I wonder if they keep a Post-Book showing all mail out and where are the copy letters they presumably kept on their computer - which will have been saved back to hard drive with an indelible file number? This sort of thing happens far too often with DVLA. I recall when they claimed non-receipt of documents my local Post Office sent on my behalf. I spoke with the staff there, who related many similar stories to me. The problem is endemic at DVLA (as it is with Revenue and Customs and so many other arms of the state machinery, whose staff by their nature are state dependent for their salaries). We simply do not get high quality people manning these positions. It would be fair to say we get people of a certain type who work in the state dependent sector. No criticism will make a jot of difference. They will retain their jobs no matter how bad they are at it. Keep on battling. You will win eventually. AW
  15. He should always remember too that he needs to include in the pleadings that execution (of the warrant) be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The Order has been made, any warrant that flows from it is based on that Order. One cannot pre-judge the outcome of any appeal. I suspect common sense would prevail and the court would not try to enforce but one can never be certain.
  16. Boy have I stirred up a hornet's nest. Buzby, why should you appeal a magistrates' decision back to the same magistrates. I think you are wrong. My field is insolvency, if I think a decision of a County Court warrants an appeal, I do so to the High Court. It may well be in the same building. My view is, and I take some persuading otherwise, that the appeal lies with the Crown Court in this case. An appeal is always to a higher court. Do the DVLA have seperate powers? I hope not. I think this case is a mess from start to finish. My previous advice I believe is sound. No oik at DVLA is going to admit an error, not is it likely that a Magistrates' Court admin team will either. As to your comment about Cardiff, a slip of the pen. As it turns out it started its life in Chester in any event! When I did battle with DVLA litigation started life in Yeovil. The venue isn't important in the scheme of things. The principle is the same. Andrew1974 knows the court. All he needs to remember is that these circumstances dictate everything is sent recorded delivery and copies retained.
  17. Hi Buzby. Thank you for your comments. My English could have been better. On re-reading it it was ambiguous. Firstly I believe the appeal from the decision should be to the Crown Court, not back the Magistrates' Court as I erroneously said yesterday. By suggesting that Andrew 1974 write to DVLA after he had lodged the appeal was to have a dialogue between Andrew1974 and the D.V.L.A. before the appeal was heard, thus if agreement could be reached, DVLA could consent to the appeal in Andrew1974's favour and save either side attending. If DVLA would not consent at least the appeal date was moving closer and it may influence the court in deciding costs etc in the event that Andrew1974 was the victor. The biggest problem is to get anyone at DVLA to accept responsibility for their error. Of course the cost of appeal is likely to be substantial in that it will be heard in Wales, which is likely to be some distance from the appellant's home. Lost of income too springs to mind. This is of course why so many of these disgraceful things go unchallenged. People simply make a commercial decision that it isn't worth the cost. I truly believe that D.V.L.A. was put on this Earth to irritate us all and that its post box is just some huge black hole into which everything just goes - never to be seen again. Its performance (or lack of it), by any measure, is disgraceful. It should be privatised, experts should consider the bare bones number of staff required and its work force should have to re-apply and be re-interviewed for their jobs by an outside non-governmental agency. It is simply not fit for purpose.
  18. In Gordon Brown's fairy-tale World of non-productive created jobs it is inevitable that this type of thing happens. No one is a decision maker. No one has discretion and no one at D.V.L.A. has a grain of common sense. They all operate in their own silly box, with their own silly name label around their neck (so they remember who they are), dispensing silly regulations that have no basis whatever in common sense. It is called control of the people by state dependent employees - of which close on 24% of the working population are now members. Yes, close on 24% of the working population under Brown are non-profit making and state dependent for their income. Wouldn't it have been so much simpler to have sent an email back and forth and dealt with the problem? But hang on, that is not playing the game under Brown. Letters threatening prosecution, penalty notices, court summonses, court action, appeals etc all mean that we keep the minions employed at our cost - doing absolutely nothing of any worth. They simply generate paper that we then have to suffer the personal cost of reading and dealing with. If a decision comes from a court, you should lodge an appeal back to that court (within the time scale allowed) and advise D.V.L.A. This will stop enforcement action until the appeal is heard. BUT, you will to attend court, presumably in Swansea. No have no guarantee of outcome. Probably better to appeal, then write to Swansea to the most senior person in the department dealing and try to demonstrate that the conviction is flawed - setting out your very precise reasons. Ask, if he/she finally agrees, that they contact the court and consent to your application. It can all then hopefully be done via the mail. No point in 'phoning. Send everything Recorded Delivery. Print off the delivery information (including signature) from the Royal Mail web site. It is high time DVLA was closed down. It is inefficient and its staff wholly incompetent. I can tell you D.V.L.A. can be beaten. In the past two years they have lost my old style driving licence which I had submitted for change after moving to a new home and tried to force me to buy a new one so they could destroy it and issue the new type!!! I refused to pay. They eventually, after I think 3 months, issued me with a new one. They then lost my V5 vehicle Registration Document that had been sent to note change of user and tried to get me to pay £25 for a new one. I refused to pay. My local Post Office had sent it to DVLA on my behalf. I told DVLA this. They finally sent me a new one, without explanation or apology. They also fined me £80 for not filling in a SORN, even though it had been sent to an old address. The fine was revoked.
  19. The criminal offence of Assault does not require physical contact. If you put into the mind of someone that he is about to suffer physical harm you have assaulted him. If for example the assailant was 20 stone, of a known violent background who stood over you and threatened to knock your head off or knife you, that in my judgement is assault. It is for that person to make the judgement. Clearly some people are more sensitive than others. Whether you can be assaulted by words used over the telephone is a question I cannot answer. Assault and Battery requires physical contact of some sort. My authorities for this assertion are to be found in Criminal Law by Smith & Hogan. The cases are to be found in Criminal Law Cases and Materials - same author. Makes good bed time reading. I am surprised that demonstrators do not use this sanction when lawfully protesting and plod unlawfully threatens them to beat them over the head with their batons.
  20. Hi, I have now read your thread. With respect, you brought part of the problem upon yourself by threatening to blow his head off. What was he expected to do, turn up alone and risk getting shot? How could he know if you were serious or not? I realise that you thought it was only the police at your door. I suspect they did not announce they had the bailiff with them when they asked you to open the door because had they done so you would have refused to open it until he stood back from it. You, in ignorance of that fact opened the door and the bailiff forced an illegal entry (in effect) faciliated by the police. The issue of the threat and their response and the issue of the facilitation of an unlawful entry are entirely seperate issues. My belief is that it is actionable by you against the Chief Constable, Marstons and the council as co-defendants. Had the police really believed you had a gun on the premises you would have had a fully armed response unit on the scene. A word of caution, the police, in the main, are professional and prolific liars. They will all agree (in their notebooks) that you gave permission for the bailiff to enter. Case ended!
  21. Nothing surprises me about the police. Over one thousand currently serving policemen have a criminal conviction for offences ranging from benefit fraud, theft, sexual offences and violence (Source Daily Mail). Many more have been dismissed from the police for similar and much worse offences, including large-scale drug dealing, perverting the course of justice etc. Get hold of a copy of their entrance exam, a 14 yr old would find it extremely difficult to fail! In my considered judgement they are simply (in the main) a collection of ill-educated, over-paid oafs who simply could not find emplyoment elsewhere at the income they are given. Their training is but a few weeks. A solicitor, on the other hand, attends university for 3 yrs or so, then has to do a Training Course and achieve a Legal Practice Certificate. Notwithstanding that, a policemen will pontificate on just about everything when the reality is he knows sod all about most things. When, for example, did your average plod receive training on the restrictions placed on bailiffs? The simple answer is never! I don't know all the circumstances but the fact that if plod assisted to enforce an illegal entry it does not make it legal. I will thoroughly read your thread later today. There is case, I can't remember the name, where plod tried to arrest a prostitute for offering her services from her own home. It was not an arrestable offence. Plod did not have a Warrant, he simply barged in - despite the prostitute's protestations. An argument of some magnitude ensued. The prostitute landed plod a well placed right hook. I am not sure which part of his anatomy. Prostitute convicted at Magistrates, overturned on appeal. Plod not there lawfully!
  22. Thank you. Case law abounds. I have many more Authorities and case law concerning the rights of the individual, against the army of bailiffs and others who wrongly believe they can go about their business unlawfully by entering private homes unlawfully. I passionately believe in the principle that our home is our castle, inviolate and that we should have the right to protect it. Not a view shared by this Government who continue to pass and amend legislation to permit any number of people and organisations to enter a property (Now almost 300 examples). A debt collector, or indeed any visitor, can under an implied licence at Common Law, walk to the door, post mail, leave milk etc, knock on it or ring the door bell to attract your attention. That licence can be revoked at any time by simply telling the person "any licence that might have existed to allow you to enter my land is now revoked - you must leave forthwith or you will be treated as a trespasser with the consequences that flow from it". This applies if you are tenant or owner.
  23. In answer to Sillygirl1, I would simply put the question - if every family with young children were allowed to plead that bailiffs should not call at the house to enforce a debt sanctioned by magistrates or a judge after being presented with evidence and (sometimes) argument from the debtor, that it might just tempt the parents of those children to deliberately run up council tax and other bills? s40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 provides a remedy if indeed the family have suffered ".....alarm, distress or humiliation..."
×
×
  • Create New...