Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About AbrahamL

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I too thought this board was all about working together helping people. Why are Dodgeball and Bailiff Advice flaming you? You pointed out the law, why they point scoring?
  2. Dodgeball, Bailiff Advice, same person or have the same agenda. I've read AE's point on disproportionate goods and he quoted legislation. Dodgeball and Bailiff Advice haven't. They flamed AE. I see the genuineness in AE's effort to help members, but I see others try thwarting it as 'point scoring'
  3. Suggesting a car on a highway is replaced by a sideboard is childish. AE points out the legislation states the bailiff may not take control of goods of higher value when lower value goods are available. Your point about “exchanging” goods is also childish. The action against the highway goods only becomes invalid (para.12) when the bailiff notices lower value goods.
  4. The legislation says: (2)An enforcement agent may take control of goods of higher value on premises or on a highway, only to the extent necessary, if there are not enough goods of a lower value within a reasonable distance— If goods of lower value are available, he may not take control of goods of higher value.
  5. I agree with you, but the legislation doesn't. The bailiff may only take control of goods when he has been given notice. When learning of his new address, a notice should be given.
  6. Craig, you have an unknown fine from HMCTS Sussex sent to your previous address. Have you considered making a statutory declaration? It would save you a lot of bother picking up the phone to Marston and emailing the court.
  7. Long time reader, new to posting. You raised an interesting point about 3rd party goods and owners paying the debtor's debt. I had a look at the CPR which requires the 3rd party to pay the court the value of the goods. Wouldn’t that defeat the purpose as its cheaper to pay the debt on behalf of the debtor and get back the goods? The OP says he had to remain at home to protect the 3rd party and missed an exam. I can’t see an obvious claim against the bailiff apart from a financial claim under £10,000 for his missing his exam for a year.
  • Create New...