Jump to content

wilko52

Banned
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About wilko52

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. Mikey-I recently posted this link for you, I thought you might finf it helpful: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/494/made Also, if you can find it, have a read of: Too Poor To Pay (The Impact of The Second Year of Localised Council Tax Support in London) Jointly published by CAPG & Z2K It is an excellent report, very revealing and very well researched.
  2. That is reprehensible. I have openly challenged "my Guru" on more occasions than I care to remember. I do not take sides, If someone is wrong, I challenge them, no matter where they post. Have you forgotten the "Sarah" thread already? How dare you lie and suggest that I stand back and do nothing? You have stalked that forum more than I have-You have continually "bumped" the "polly" thread on here, often using your Lackey, aka "Dodgeball" to start things off. I wouldn't be surprised if you were behind my posts on that thread, revealing the truth, being deleted. I can par
  3. You didn't cover anything. The other individual read my post elsewhere and changed her stance. There was still confusion-My post rectified this. If I had longer, I'd correct more historic threads but we'll probably have to let them go now.
  4. I have a strong feeling that universal credit is also attachable. There is some confusion here-Only one AOB may be implemented at any given time. The deductions made from income related benefits (JSA, income support, ESA, Pension Credit etc) is at 5% (Regulation 7 of the Council Tax (Deductions From Income Support) Regulations 1993) LA's know who are receiving benefits because the responsibility for issuing CTB is with the authority. Anyone claiming one of the above income related benefits would automatically qualify for CTB also
  5. If you can point me to one post or thread of mine that has cost a debtor money, I will stop posting for good on bailiff help issues. You have already succeeded in getting one thread locked today-Shouldn't you be resting on your laurels? You are a self confessed liar-You never advise debtors-You simply exist to antagonise others. If its not me, its MM. Have a good look at yourself in the mirror.
  6. Far better. If she followed the (incorrect) advice given on here, she would have been at the mercy of JBW. She would have been forced to pay £20 per week and an extra £75 in bailiff fees. One slip up and another £235 would have been added as well. The way she is going, she is currently paying nothing, which gives her the opportunity to put a bit aside in a savings account as back up later on. The £235 fee will be removed, as well as the £75 fee. An AOE will be implemented at around £12.50 a week. So she will be paying 50% less and the bailiff fees will be removed. In addition,
  7. Awwww I'd deliberately kept the big words down to a minimum just for you as well. Thanks for letting us know anyway-I'm really interested.
  8. It is not my fault that you cannot read, or fail to understand what is written. If you interpret my comments to have been stating facts, the LOL. I'll just put it down to another "on block" moment. I would however, expect most educated people to read the comment and see clearly that it was a hypothetical example, used clearly to make a point. It is clear that it is impossible to have a rational debate with you-Your ignorance and illiteracy are bad enough but when coupled with your obsession to get one over me, it just degenerates into drivel. To think you had the cheek to accus
  9. There is of course another side to this: The only desperation I can see is from two individuals who appear to be praying that this poor woman has to pay the £235 enforcement fee. Councils and bailiff companies deliberately make it hard for debtors to complain or dispute matters. They hope that by sending letters to act as buffers, that the debtor will give up the will to continue, and sadly many so. One of the most important pieces of advice that I could give a debtor is to never give in, never accept what a council or bailiff company are saying and to continue until there is n
  10. Now you are just being infantile. What is the point of that comment? I was using a hypothetical example to make a point to CB. How could I possibly know what the ratio of Wont pays are, compared to can't pays. In less than 24 hours, you've posted circa 20 times on here-All aimed at taking cheap shots at me. Get a grip of yourself and post something constructive for a change, instead of this constant pettiness.
  11. No sorry-The paper boy etc imply a right of ACCESS, not ENTRY. Seems like it is you who has a fundamental misunderstanding. Just to throw a spanner in the works, it was also this implied right of entry that was used to justify climbing through windows-That appears to be at loggerheads with your "Cambridge Law Journal".
  12. The 1 in 6 figure was an example to make a point. It wasn't based on any facts or figures-It was hypothetical. Yes, of course most people just want to avoid the £310 fee. I would as well in their position. Many times, it should not have been implemented in the first place though and other times legislation has not been followed. I have no idea what you're on about regarding the font colour, do me a favour and spare me an explanation though.
  13. The first problem that you need to overcome is that of understanding the difference between the two scenarios: I am not saying that a bailiff may not attend because his implied right of access has been revoked (as per a NOROIROA) I am saying that a bailiff visiting a premises may imply a right of entry if he discovers the door open, or if the debtor opens the door and then leaves it unguarded for any reason. The bailiff implies this as an invitation to enter. The courts have accepted that either of these two situations (or a persons conduct) may be implied as a licence to enter
  14. I'm not sure why there is an issue with not encountering any "won't pays"? Anyone with any hands on experience will say the same-Debtors are happy to pay the original debt, they are usually (for one reason or another) more concerned about avoiding paying the bailiff fees. Even in the two not too distant high profile Newlyn PCN cases, the arguments centred around amateurish attempts at changing ownership of vehicles, to avoid fees, rather than avoid the original debt. I think 99% of debtors know that you cannot evade these priority debts, unless you emigrate. Changing the colour of your
  15. It is fairly irrelevant in any case. A letter revoking permission to enter will cover all aspects, including unlocked doors. I will however try to explain the situation in laymans terms, so it might be possible for you to understand it clearer.: A bailiff may only enter a premises peaceably AND with the debtors permission. If the bailiff arrives at a premises and discovers an unlocked door, he may IMPLY right of entry. Once inside, this implication may be revoked if the debtor then asks the bailiff to leave. This is where we enter a grey area though and once inside, it will be the bail
×
×
  • Create New...