The Bailiff was Mr Raymond Osborne formerly of Marston Group Ltd. Court was Winchester County Court before His Honour Judge Iain Hughes QC. Certificate revoked and costs of £168 ordered to be paid. Two complaints before the Court one of which I can't discuss as it is subject to an ongoing (and serious) criminal investigation. However, one of the complaints included refusing to properly identify himself, give details of his certificating court, and misrepresentation. I should say that aspect of the complaint had good solid evidence. The Bailiff had entered into a dialogue by text message! A transcript of the dialogue was produced and the Bailiff did not contest those allegations in the end.

I'm sorry but if the Bailiff is attempting to levy distress for a fine or other sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction then forced entry is permissible (only when reasonable) by Schedule 4A Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. What is reasonable is considered in guidance issued by HMCTS; however, forced entry is a discretionary power and needs to be exercised in accordance with the HMCTS guidelines and it is very rarely (lawfully) used. The power is wide enough to even cover unpaid traffic fixed penalties such as speeding but not parking. Section 71 (7) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is the authority for this. Accordingly, you can't go "slagging off" the advice given by someone who (on the face of it) is legally qualified. We may not like the advice but the advice appears legally sound. Of course, the vast majority of threatened forced entries are unlawful as the conditions pertaining to reasonableness would not have been met. Of course, things like general debt, council tax, local authority parking penalties are not covered by the above and forced entry does not apply.

Forced entry is permitted for a fine or sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction. This is by virtue of Schedule 4A of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. A conviction is a finding of guilty for a CRIMINAL OFFENCE. Driving matters such as speeding are CRIMINAL OFFENCES. It does not matter whether or not the offence is subject to imprisonment or not. Indeed by reference to Section 71 (7) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 this INCLUDES fixed penalties, which have not been paid and subsequently registered with the Magistrates' Court for enforcement. However, any power of forced entry must be reasonable and is rarely used (only as an extreme last resort). HMCTS issue guidance as to when it might be appropriate to use such force. The above legislation is the law as it stands today. It is not waiting to "come in" or anything else, it is the law. There was talk of extending forced entry to general debts and things like council tax and legislation was passed by the last Labour government to this effect; however, that is not in force and the current government has no plans to activate that particular legislation (it's on the Statute Book but requires a Statutory Instrument; i.e. a commencement order to bring it into force). I did a Form 4 complaint last week funny enough and the end result was that the Bailiff's certificate was revoked and he was ordered to pay costs. Though as already mentioned a Form 4 should be used only as a last resort in clear cases.

Pleased to report Marston Group have one less Bailiff this week! Mr Raymond Osborne had his certificate revoked in Winchester County Court on a Form 4 complaint! Also ordered to pay costs! Shows the system can work!

If you paid over your deposit after 6 April 2007 I would issue proceedings for the penalty of three times the deposit amount.

A letting agreement with a company must be by deed. A normal AST will not suffice. The company then licences occupation.

Where are you based? Due to recent case law these claims are not as straight forward as people once thought. What's the basis on which you claim non compliance? Non protection? Or technical breach?

The first thing you should do is simply fill in the Acknowledgment of Service (form N9). This forms part of the response pack. Indicate an INTENTION to defend the claim (you don't have to). The point is filing the AOS gives you 28 days (instead of 14) to consider your response. There maybe issues with the Particulars of Claim, which would entitle you so defend the claim (even if you owe the money) and thus force the Claimant to come to some suitable arrangement whereby you pay back over time but without a CCJ against you (for example a Tomlin Order). The AOS is relatively simple to fill in, and then return to the Court. After this is done, depending on the POC a proper response can be formulated. If everything is in order then you may need to file an admission or part admission, but usually everything is not in order. PM me for more details.

If you PM me I can organise a full copy of the judgment. The case relied on by LBL can be distinguished on quite a few points. Firstly it is very much Pre CCA 1974 (obviously) and therefore does not take into account the unique facts and protections that Parliament intended via the CCA 1974. LBL's BOS is attached to a regulated CCA 1974 agreement therefore I believe the Seal case is better authority, as it deals with the key point about having no interest in the outcome etc etc. Despite what LBL may claim the issue has NOT been the subject of a judgment on 'all fours' by the higher courts.

I would not recommend anyone stopping cheques in these circumstances. Money Shop could sue on the dishonour of the cheque. There is no defence to an action brought in these terms except: 1. Fraud 2. Total Failure of Consideration A company could obtain a summary judgment under CPR Part 24 and you'd be faced with a massive legal bill if the company used Solicitors.

Hang on I have found a case, which is very useful in my view. Citation is Seal v Claridge (1881) 7 QBD 5. This case is available as a full judgment (I have the copy and can supply to 'credible' persons on request). The judgment goes into some detail as to the purpose of a witness (or attesting person) for a BOS. Talks about having an interest in the outcome etc.

I am currently looking to bring a case against Nine Regions based on this very point. I looked up the cited case on Lexis Nexis and unfortunately it does not contain the full judgment (just the head note). Whilst it was held that an Agent could act as witness I feel that the correct way of challenge would be in the context of the CCA 1974; i.e. if the witness has signed the CCA 1974 agreement as a party (in other words for and on behalf of Nine Regions Ltd) then there is a line of argument to distinguish present day BOS covered by a CCA 1974 agreement with what happened in the cited case over a century ago. Looking at the case law database the point has NOT been raised, and therefore it is yet to be decided in the higher courts. Therefore if the OP (or anyone else) is considering this poiint I'd be happy to chat in private etc. One thing I have noticed is this affadavit, I assume people have obtained this from the Judgments and Orders section at the RCJ? I only ask as when I was doing my own research no affadavit pertaining to the BOS in question appears to be with the paperwork. Another method of general challenge is were Nine Regions fail to serve a valid Default Notice, one can then go for a Declatory Judgment against Nine Regions.

Actually that is not correct. Under the provisions of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 a person buying a vehicle in such circumstances (assuming he was not a knowing party) gains good title.

You need to be served formal notice under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988Only when that notice has expired can the landlord/bank commence possession proceedings. In addition the original tenancy agreement needs to make reference to the fact that possession may be sought on such grounds. The two months notice is to do with Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 and is known as 'notice only' ground. That is used when the fixed term has expired and the notice period is 2 months to expire at the conclusion of the fixed term if served during the fixed term; or 2 months to expire on a rent day if served after the conclusion of the fixed term. NO ONE can lawfully evict you without a court order. To do so is a criminal offence and attracts a maximum sentence of 2 years. Even once a possession order is made and the possession date passed; the only people who can physically evict you are Court bailiffs acting under a Warrant of Possession. My advice would be to stay put and await any notice. THEN seek professional legal advice (via Legal Aid if need be). Council's will tell you to remain until the day bailiffs execute a Warrant of Possession. Leave the property before then and you are classed as intentionally homeless.

You can continue to drive on a revoked licence for upto 12 months providing that your are not disqualified for any other reason by a Court. All you need to do is re-apply for a new licence and one will be sent (showing the endorsement).

Just goto Companies House to find out the names of the Directors.

If the car is not the subject of a HP or Conditional Sale agreement then the loan company has no legal interest in the vehicle. Title to the vehicle is yours and you can sell to who you like. You ultimately could obtain a court order to force the removal of the HPI flag an obtain damages. The DPA 1998 would be the legislation to bring the claim under.

The Counterclaim will be verified by a 'statement of truth'. During the pre-trial process all sides exchange documents and witness statements. At the trial you can put questions to the other side's witnesses (assuming they actually turn up). Unfortunately, one can be the subject of frivilous claims; however, it is the role of the trial process to weed out such claims by evidence. If you feel the claim is completely without merit you can apply to have it stuck out or for summary judgment. Be careful though! Such actions are not really for the 'layman' and although you may dispute the 'facts' the claim could be a legitmate cause of action and only a ful trial could resolve it.

To clarify; a court will not issue any enforcement process on a judgment debt exceeding 6 years old. Any enforcement process issued before the expiration of 6 years will be acted upon; e.g. a warrant of execution issued, third party debt order. Strictly speaking the judgment debts remains but enforcement through the courts is impossible after 6 years. The CCJ will automatically dissappear from your credit file after this time also (whether satisfied or not)

CCJ's cannot be enforced 6 years after they were ordered. Indeed you will find that no CCJ from 1992 will be on your credit file.

Apply for a Third Party Debt Order and serve the same on the Bank of England! Every UK bank has an account with BoE and they would then need to pay you the judgment debt from that bank's account!

You've made an application to change your POC's. You've done this ex parte, and really it should be done inter partes (i.e. with the other side present unless they consent). Therefore a Judge has arranged a hearing to decide whether to give you permission. You will get the permission BUT they bank may seek their costs of filing a new Defence (and may well get them). Even if the Claim is on the SCT costs can still be awarded in such circumstances.

Under the CPR you have a legal duty to bring all know claims that you intend to bring against a Defendant in ONE go. It can be considered an abuse of process to bring several smaller claims; as this is an example of vexatious behaviour and is seen in the light of harrasing a Defendant! (Nonsense as far as the banks go I know).

Much obligied! Never heard of Alexandria (but I will add that name to my list of known contacts). The problem with Welcome is that they have such a turnover of staff at senior managerial level they don't know whether they are coming or going most of the time! However once you get the right person and show them you mean business a result usually will materialise; as in your case! Well done!

Remember once a case has been allocated to the Small Claims Track CPR Part 18 ceases to apply and can no longer be used! Any CPR Part 18 must be issued and dealt with pre allocation; unless the claim is bound for another track.