Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Jasper1965

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    846
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Jasper1965 last won the day on April 19 2011

Jasper1965 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

962 Excellent

About Jasper1965

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. The OFT have been made aware of his two new companies, DONEGAL INVESTIGATIONS (EUROPE) LTD & SNATCHBACKS MEDIA LTD. I wouldn't anticipate him getting a CCL through any company where he is a registered director or officer any time soon...
  2. "With Luck, a Crown or Civil Court will be requisitioning them soon " maybe the OFT or the police are already on the case?
  3. I do hope the relevant authorities have taken steps to secure the raw footage shot by Firecracker, I happen to know there are some very interesting scenarios played out for the benefit of documentation by the camera contained therein.
  4. Struggling to think of any further breaches of the relevant laws or guidelines that might have made a third episode worthwhile brassnecked, they certainly seem to have been very thorough. Mind you one can only surmise at what behaviour is contained in the rushes that even they didn't see fit to use for the broadcast programme.
  5. I'm quite close to Cheatoman and he tells me that when he saw your concerns he popped over to twitter to find he had been suspended over his little public awareness campaign. All sorted now and he tells me there's quite a bit of life in the old dog yet.
  6. On the subject of LBL companies repossessing cars criminally and the Police claiming it's a civil matter here's a link to a thread from a couple of years back. It has a very happy ending for the victim. If I'm not mistaken it's the same branch of Mobile Money involved in the historic thread as issued all the repo "orders" to Donegal Investigations in the C4 programme "The Repo Man". I might be wrong, it might be Redditch not Birmingham. Still the result is the same if you persist. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?329429-Mobile-Money-(the-Police-claim-it-s-a-Civil-matter)-!!!
  7. Ah yes 'phone the police, if they even bother attending then you'll receive the old "It's a civil matter" chestnut. good luck with that..... I do wonder exactly what Firecracker filmed the policeman featured in the broadcast being told though I wonder if the constable was led to believe Donegal were Baillifs? The secure compound might be either an industrial estate in Cannock or a B&Q car park I'm led to believe. AFAIK Donegal do not have a secure compound, I've received the details of several locations they use but they all seem to be publicly accesible places. I'm very interested in learning what tomtubby is onto, I can't see repoman registered in any known format on the OAS list at the BPA website but expect that would only show if it was for example his own company registration details that were used to access database records. The DPA 1998 issues are very pertinent and complaints have been raised with involved parties and the authorities.
  8. These aren't Court sanctioned enforcements, the LBL companies themselves issue a "repossession order" directly to Donegal Investigations. Although it does depend on the circumstances of each particular case I would suspect that almost all such repo orders would fall down on either the Bill of Sale not being registered or non compliance with the CCA 1974 somewhere within the process if regulated by the CCA1974. There is a reason LBL companies use muscle to do their snatches, it's hard to point out that they've no right to take your car and argue the finer points of the CCA1974 when you're being threatened by 60 stones of thug. What lawful authority they have to do anything is case particular but likely to be on the low side approaching zero and most definitely zero if they are unlicensed. This will not prevent a snatch under intimidation but does provide a course for restitution from the LBL company if actioned. They can't do anything if they don't know where the car is they might threaten you and demand money but they are far more likely to drive past your house if they see the car isn't there rather than alert you they're after it. These guys will come night or day as they work outside the OFT debt collection guidance. Suggest you start anew thread in the appropriate forum about Black Horse tell us more details and you'll get the help you need. Any such claim may be statute barred without the facts it's difficult to advise. Back to Mr. Sean James t/a Donegal Investigations aka "The Repo Man". I'm afraid I must go quiet on the open forum in this matter with immediate effect. I am not permitted to explain why I can no longer discuss this matter publicly, some of you will probably put two and two together and come up with the right answer as to why that may be. I can tell you that I have not entered into any form of privacy agreement or settlement with any of the alleged malfeasors. I can tell you that the authorities have taken some of the many complaints against these people very seriously indeed. I can tell you that the OFCOM complaint will have to go on hold. I can tell you that the civil litigation will have to be put on hold. Oh and don't hold your breath waiting for the second series...... @catwoman Some good knowledge on Twitter, had a blast on there last two days since I saw your post learned a few very interesting things too. Thanks for popping on.
  9. Nice one TomTubby never thought of the Data Protection issues. That'll be another investigation then mind you both C4 and Firecracker rode roughshod over data protection issues themselves, not all the victims even consented to appearing in the programme would you believe. I can see the LBL co's sharing sensitive financial data with unregistered outfits such as this one beicoming yet another problem for them in whats promising to be a difficult issue already. Firecracker and C4 failed abjectly in ensuring the compliance of this broadcast, the following is a brief excerpt from a letter I've sent to Alex Stockley the man responsible for the programme: "On the night Donegal Investigations and Firecracker attended XXXXXX Mr James had exactly as much legal right to demand money or property from XXXXXXX as you have to demand money from the guy standing in front of you in the queue the next time you use a cashpoint machine. That he used threats and intimidation to depart XXXXXXX with money obtained under duress are not simply aggravating contributors to the initial crime but further crimes in their own right. You Alex have effectively spent weeks or months running round the countryside filming people being mugged and then have seen fit to portray the mugger as a force of good and his victims as the malfeasors". Am I wrong or does this sum up the legal position fairly accurately? @caledfwlch. Yes he did take cash payments from victims. One person portrayed as a victim in the programme went inside his home, checked the status of the thugs consumer credit licence there and then, checked the status of the company he claimed to be working for and upon discovering that he was not even licensed as a debt collector decided to make a cash payment on the spot. He ensured that Firecracker filmed the entire business of him handing cash to Sean James stating quite clearly that it was under duress and explaining exactly why Sean James, Donegal Investigations and a LBL company were not lawfully entitled to any money but the fool still took it.. Sean James was foolish enough to permit himself being filmed demanding money, threatening people and then accepting money from them under duress. Firecracker seemed to think this was acceptable practice in the industry so went to broadcast with it. Was the programme a set up? Well I'll tell you now at least one person involved in this film found themselves embroiled in a set up for the camera but as new information became available to him, the target was reassigned (by him at least) midway through filming and since nobody else had done their homework it slipped through to broadcast unnoticed...... Thing is Mr. Sean Adrian James t/a Donegal Investigations was either too busy gobbing off, threatening people or counting the money to notice that it was him being set up when as an unlicensed debt collector he took money that wasn't even owed. And all caught on beautiful broadcast quality HD video by Firecracker........
  10. Don't worry Brassnecked, everyone who should be informed has or will very shortly be receiving a very detailed dossier pinpointing all offences (civil and criminal) identified to have been committed by Donegal Investigations and the creditor(s) in some instances. Channel 4 Legal have gone silent on me since they received incontrovertible proof that Mr James was at the time of filming unlicensed for debt collection purposes. A national newspaper has received a back story with supporting evidence and is looking into an exposure. I have invited C4 both directly and via OFCOM to make a broadcast setting out the issues surrounding the repossessions conducted by the unlicensed Donegal Investigations in the two broadcast episodes, such broadcast to accurately represent the rights of the victims of Mr James's enterprise and to include sufficient information to help guide such victims to seek restitution where available. Cannot see this ending well for Mr James or the Log Book Lenders involved. (BTW I cannot use this site if I'm logged in in either FF, IE or Chrome from any computer is this a known problem , get Server busy or BBC News but if I logout I can browse no problem. Takes me hours and hours to make a single post due to timeouts all the time)
  11. Raydetinu you make some good points. One case I am involved with which occured during the filming of this programme involves a victim of Mobile Money who had an agreement made under the CCA 1974 and was thus awarded the protection afforded by that Act. It appears that the BOS was not ever registered in this case. Firecracker filmed Donegal Investigations arriving at the victims home then filmed Mr. James handing the victim the Default Notice from Mobile Money. The victim had the awareness to have the service of the default notice recorded by the film crew and made an averrment to the camera that this was the first time such a notice had been served notwithstanding which there were numerous errors contained within the document and then went on to point out exactly what was wrong legally with the attempted repossession. Footage not broadcast unsurprisingly as victim repeatedly asserted that Mr James was committing all manner of offences. I'm sure we are all aware of the need for a valid default notice, (friend of the forum) Brandon Vs Amex 2011 spells it out. There is no possibility the service was valid, the document falls down on numerous form and content points.MM appear to have committed at least the following breaches under secs 87 (1) (a), (b),©,(d),(e), 86B1©, 86C(1), 88 and 89, 95 and 95A of the CCA and I therefore do not in the circumstances feel an allegation of a sec 140A Unfair Relationship concerning the manner in which the creditor attempted to enforce the agreement is entirely without merit. I can prove that at the time of the repossession Mr James t/a Donegal Investigations was not licensed for the purpose of debt recovery. I can prove that there was no valid BOS in place ergo no title. I can prove victim was not even one month in arrears. I can prove the agreement was regulated by the CCA 1974 although MM appear to have treated it as a standard chattel mortgage for the purposes of collection and recovery failing to award the victim any of the statutory benefits of entering an agreement regulated by the CCA1974. I can prove a host of breaches of the CCA 1974. I can prove that the victim and his family were threatened and intimitadated during the commision of a criminal offence by the perpetrator of the crime. I can prove that MM employed the services of an unlicensed debt collector/repossession agent. I can prove that MM retained an amount of money over and above that which was outstanding on the agreement. I couldn't possibly comment on whether some of the scenarios played out in the programme of 9th May are staged, but I can confirm that at least some of them are genuine (LOL) repossession attempts conducted by an unlicensed debt collector employed by Mobile Money.
  12. Raydetinu you make some good points. One case I am involved with which occured during the filming of this programme involves a victim of Mobile Money who had an agreement made under the CCA 1974 and was thus awarded the protection afforded by that Act. It appears that the BOS was not ever registered in this case. Firecracker filmed Donegal Investigations arriving at the victims home then filmed Mr. James handing the victim the Default Notice from Mobile Money. The victim had the awareness to have the service of the default notice recorded by the film crew and made an averrment to the camera that this was the first time such a notice had been served notwithstanding which there were numerous errors contained within the document and then went on to point out exactly what was wrong legally with the attempted repossession. Footage not broadcast unsurprisingly as victim repeatedly asserted that Mr James was committing all manner of offences. I'm sure we are all aware of the need for a valid default notice, (friend of the forum) Brandon Vs Amex 2011 spells it out. There is no possibility the service was valid, the document falls down on numerous form and content points. MM appear to have committed at least the following breaches under secs 87 (1) (a), (b),©,(d),(e), 86B1©, 86C(1), 88 and 89, 95 and 95A of the CCA and I therefore do not in the circumstances feel an allegation of a sec 140A Unfair Relationship concerning the manner in which the creditor attempted to enforce the agreement is entirely without merit. I can prove that at the time of the repossession Mr James t/a Donegal Investigations was not licensed for the purpose of debt recovery. I can prove that there was no valid BOS in place ergo no title. I can prove victim was not even one month in arrears. I can prove the agreement was regulated by the CCA 1974 although MM appear to have treated it as a standard chattel mortgage for the purposes of collection and recovery failing to award the victim any of the statutory benefits of entering an agreement regulated by the CCA1974. I can prove a host of breaches of the CCA 1974. I can prove that the victim and his family were threatened and intimitadated during the commision of a criminal offence by the perpetrator of the crime. I can prove that MM employed the services of an unlicensed debt collector/repossession agent. I can prove that MM retained an amount of money over and above that which was outstanding on the agreement. I couldn't possibly comment on whether some of the scenarios played out in the programme of 9th May are staged, but I can confirm that at least some of them are genuine (LOL) repossession attempts conducted by an unlicensed debt collector employed by Mobile Money.
  13. Those with an inquisitive mind might want to check the CCL record for licence number. 647582 Notice anything about one of the t/a names? The really inquisitive might want to hit the history button to see what two pertinent events occurred on the 12th February 2013. I can prove at least some of the debt collection activity filmed and broadcast occurred in Jan 2013 at a time when GI was indisputably NOT covered by the GF LTD CCL and GF LTD were not themselves licensed for debt recovery. Revisit the Sun article and re-read the closing quote from C4. Notice how it is written in the present tense.....
  14. Hi all long time no speak. If it's any reassurance to anybody as of tonights broadcast I have a very personal interest indeed in this show and particularly in a few of the people and companies involved. I am on the inside kicking out. I have Prima Facie evidence of LBL's wrongdoings and Sean James's wrongdoings during or preceding the making of this show. I'm also taking on the Indie and Broadcaster for these and other issues and am in a very strong position to ensure that any and all breaches alleged against any party involved are pursued by the relevant authorities. I did offer Theo over at C4 the opportunity to withdraw the episode from broadcast but they chose to run with it. Mind you I kept a considerable amount of my powder dry so Theo is only going to begin to become aware of just what a hornets nest they've stirred up when he next arrives at work. C4 compliance were very contemptuous pre broadcast, they might want to reconsider their stance in the light of some very recent communication.... The show was filmed in Jan 2013 by an Indie Film company :- Firecracker: UK Office | 3rd Floor | Design Centre East | Chelsea Harbour | London | SW10 0XF | UK main switchboard +44 207 349 3400 | facsimile +44 207 351 3318 US Office | 7th floor | 225 Santa Monica Blvd. | Santa Monica | CA 90401 | USA main switchboard +1 310 309 3942 | website: http://www.firecrackerfilms.com The guy who actually filmed it (Alex Stockley Von Slatzer) is credited as Producer iirc. There is a lengthy and well researched complaint to OFCOM just sitting waiting for the Post Office to open in the morning. Without being too particular it alleges amongst other things breaches of Rule 3, rule 7 and rule 8 of the Broadcasting Code, breaches of sec 8 HRA 1998 and more. I only learned this episode was being broadcast a few days ago so I'm still not quite up to date with the paperwork for the other Authorities but you seem to have already guessed what some of the subject matter might be and which Authorities might be involved. Not all the issues raised by myself are civil matters. This has the potential to create a very large problem indeed for all parties concerned with the making of this programme. My primary target now is LBL, C4 have done themselves no favours though if there are other casualities then so be it. I would appreciate all comments concerning any behaviour exhibited in the two broadcast episodes which might be deemed unlawful or dare I say illegal. I'm a little ring rusty and may have missed something. Nothing in this post affects your statutory rights or even your right to report the commissioning of a criminal offence if you have recently witnessed any such thing, anywhere at any time..... Some of you may have found the programme a little shall we say misleading and misrepresentative of the legal position and might therefore feel the need to complain to the appropriate bodies. Warm Regards!! Jasper.
  15. It wont go SB'ed because the claim was issued within the six years (just). If you apply to set aside the ccj then the claim goes back to the beginning so you will be served the claim paperwork and then enter your defence. If at that stage you admit it and offer to pay you'll still end up with a ccj recorded against you. IMO you need to make this uneconomically viable for Link to pursue. In applying for the claim to be set aside refer to CPR hit them as hard as you can. eg Despite the defendant remaining in contact with the original creditor after moving house in 2003 and the original creditor with whom the defendant maintained several different accounts continuing to correspond and conduct transactions with the defendant at their current address: The claimant chose to serve the claim to an address which the claimant must at the time have known was not either the last known address or the current address of the defendant. Several years had elapsed since the original creditor updated their systems with the defendants current address and a significant number of transactions and communications had been conducted between the oc and the defendant at this current address. To knowingly serve a court claim at an address other than that specified in the Civil Procedure Rules is not only a cynical method of gaining a default judgment by default and wholly without the defendants knowledge but a clear breach of the Civil Procedure Rules 6.8(a) and/or 6.9(2) and as such it is averred that such practice falling as it does outside the guidelines for starting a claim should be viewed as a serious abuse of the County Court process. The defendant respectfully requests that the Court exercises it's powers and strikes out this claim as an abuse of process, and order that the claimant seek permission of the court prior to being permitted to enter a fresh claim for the same matter. the defendant is of the belief that there exists other primae facie points of defence relating to the amount claimed in this court action and is also of the belief that upon disclosure of evidence from the defendant it is likely to be proven to be the case that the court is prevented by statute from enforcing the claim as made. They must have known they were issuing to the wrong address so try to get this point over to the court. If you are very lucky they might strike out the claim in which case any new claim would be sb'ed. If not then it's time to make them jump over hurdles. You'll go for lots of disclosure, hit them with a CCA request, request for DN, statements, T&c's etc. set them up to fail. I'd also write to them expressing your disgust at them deliberately issuing a claim to the wrong address and enter a formal complaint. Exhaust their complaints procedure then complain to the OFt and the FOS and the ICO. These bodies will cost the claimant quite a lot of money if they investigate and a good tactic can be to threaten them with the regulatory authorities if they don't write the account off. This is a small value claim and any potential gain for them is wiped out with an FOS and ICo investigation into the accuracy of their record keeping etc. so it can be a good bargaining tool. Get it set aside and there's a long way and a lot of hurdles to put in front of them before a valid ccj could be entered and that's without even seeing the quality of the paperwork that actually does exist for this account
×
×
  • Create New...