Jump to content

Martin B

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Martin B

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Re SORN: that's the rules! And the rules are occasionally unfair. Such "strict liability" offences as car tax non-payment, which are based on "actus rea" and not "mens rea" do not normally distinguish between someone who committed the offence inadvertently and someone who did so deliberately. They arguably do breach ECHR Article 6 - particularly if there is insufficient or no opportunity to put forward a defense before the penalty (financial or otherwise - e.g. having to recover vehiclis imposed. But such penalties are currently permitted by laws passed in parliament. To object on t
  2. My previous reply not here? Sympathies with srs57 - similar experience. Applied for an injunction from county court. Seizing goods (including a car and computer) which they had been told did not (or which obviously did not) belong to the debtor was the main problem. The judge can instruct them to return other peoples' goods and this does not need a court form.
  3. Please add to the list: [ ] Taking goods that did not belong to the debtor and/or goods not permitted by bailiff rules or guidelines. So I've ticked two to allow for this one as the third. Bailiffs emptied the living room - all rugs and furniture, when they were supposed to leave essential items such as table and chairs. The went through the children's bedroom. They took items that they were told belonged to others, including computer needed for working at home, and car that they didn't check registration of when told it was not owned by the debtor (was owned by spouse). Poli
  4. At least they have one satisfied customer! They must be doing something good.
×
×
  • Create New...