Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • 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 th
  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
  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 bu
  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 a
  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 hel
  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 ho
  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. Do
  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 i
  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 sho
  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 thankfu
  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
  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 t
  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
  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 Bro
  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 a
  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) facilia
  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 empl
  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,
  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...