Thread title edited to remove commercial website details

[caro]

Help is welcomed within the rules of the forum, and no-one is allowed to provide links to commercial websites, no matter how well intentioned their motives.

 

I'm truly sorry that people feel that I have been heavy-handed, but I have acted within the rules and the ethos of this site. Yes this site relies on entirely voluntary donations if people can afford it. If they can't afford it, they are equally welcome. I understand with most court claims stayed donations are few and far between.

 

I feel that I have explained my actions and beliefs, and those of CAG as much as I can, but will still watch the thread to ensure that I don't miss anything. The rules are freely available here. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/

 

I'm very pleased if tomtubby doesn't always charge, or even rarely, but any attempts to promote her site will be removed. I would also like to point out this warning to people, and encourage them not to respond to requests for information by PM. This is a generic warning for all users, ane not aimed at any one individual or company, so no-one should take it personally that I am posting it here. I do it purely for information to people who may be asked for money or private information as a result of posts on this site. I'm very sad that people think I'm being heavy handed but disagree. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/116060-consumer-action-group-never.html#post1160218

 

I'm very sad that people think I'm being heavy handed but disagree.

[Guest ChloeJane]

Again, Caro is knocked down for what are the rules and beliefs of the site and this I believe unfair.

 

Tomtubby does have a right to charge for her services as she has done hours and hours of research. The information that she has on her site is without question the most detailed and well collated information that can be found on the subject of Bailiffs in the United Kingdom.

 

I state again, the above paragraph is NOT in dispute. Nor in dispute is the many people that Tomtubby has helped. The issue is plain and simple. You have a choice when facing an issue. You can either come here for the FREE advice and support or, you can pay the small charge from Tomtubby's website and get assistance. The choice is yours.

 

What is being stated here is that the CAG ethos is not ever taking away your choices, but it would be rather hypocritical for the site to be about reclaiming your rights with free information and support to do this, to then link to a site that charges you even a small amount. IF, the MODS were paid for their knowledge, I assure you they would be rather rich for their time spent here....they don't charge and to hold similar or the same information as Tomtubby's site, and be here for free, I see there reason for not linking.

 

You have choices. The MODS do not take these away nor have they done. Why attack the MODS on the subject?

Sean your post suprised me as have others. Tomtubby does do an amazing job and is very good at what she does. She has to survive like all of us and to do so charges. No one is attacking Tomtubby. Yet you go for the jugular with a moderator who upholds the sites values for a reason. All, and I mean all that is being said is that this forum and the ethos is to empower people with FREE knowledge information and facts and legislation in part for you to share ideas, what works and to share stories to gain support from each other. If you choose to pay for your support, no one argues what are your choices. So make them.

 

I believe that Tomtubbys site should be funded by either the Government or a Charity. Tomtubby then rightfully is able to earn and be paid for all her many hours of research and work, not the consumer pay who had a right to the information in the first place and should not have been abused at the start. These are my beliefs.

 

My further beliefs are that the MODS uphold an ethos on this site. For the hours and hours of FREE time they put into this site to keep it FREE and to keep it here for the information and support it holds, to condem them on upholding the right for FREE information and to be attacked for this while doing their job amazes me.

 

What I again state is the unfairness of it all in the first place!

[Recycler]

Frankly I see little difference between the tactics of some bailiffs, and the ambulance chasers looking to profit from people in a situation that they may have been in themselves for all I know. I wonder where they gained the knowledge to set up that website. Shame on them.

I strongly feel you have overstepped the mark here caro, it is apparent you do not realise the level of free advice which has been given on this forum by Herbie / Tomtubby & her personal history behind the long journey to starting her own website. This is not ambulance chasing as you so distastefully describe it. Shame on you for potentially detrimentaly affecting all those who may lose that avenue of advice if Herbie / Tomtubby should decide to stop posting here.

Bailiff law is a specialised area & whilst individual advice may be found here it may or may not be correct - I noted with great sadness that the quality of advice being offered here nosedived the last time Herbie was reviled by the moderators - for trying to help the public.

I dont think you caro do CAG any favours by ostracising the most informed person in the forum & damaging the special relationship which has grown up here between many varied people. upset the apple cart and only the bailiff industry benefits.

I also submit that profiteering (which is what many bailiffs do) & covering your costs through profit (which is what Herbie / Tomtubby "attempts" to do) are very different matters.

Shame on you caro for personalising this matter, perhaps you should poll the members of this forum & democratically decide whether naming a company which can help is any different from reccomending a firm of solicitors who specialise in an area of law...or promoting CAG "products"

 

am i wrong in thinking CAG is a registered ltd company? dont you have to prepare accounts?

 

advice can be free here, but years of experience, research & painstakingly producing a site which provides correct up to date material which works for a small cost when you actually need it also has a place in the scheme of things.

 

If you need advice on bailiffs & you look online you will find a mixture of free forums like this & London Motorists Action Group (yes i run that one)

 

but top of the list is Herbies / Tomtubbys site & not without good reason.

 

I don't imagine you have acheived anything more than deterring Herbie / Tomtubby from offering advice here - & that is not condusive to this forums best interests.

 

You Caro should consider retracting your nasty comments & apologise

[Guest ChloeJane]

Now I am going to let loose.

 

Recycler - As I know who you are I find it almost ironic that you post as you do. Only a year ago the LMAG was supportive of my site and then as soon as litigation started wrongly for exactly what your members state is nothing but pure outrage at the injustice, you removed every link to my site! No back up no polite explanation nothing.

 

Tom Tubby, a year ago as you well know was an extremely quiet person in the background and after my site closed, you suddenly switched loyalties. So I find your remarks amusing if nothing else. You are having a go at Caro and the moderators for upholding a single value and holding a belief!

 

You appear to make out that Tomtubby is the ONLY person with sound knowledge of the Industry. So that makes her a god in the Industry? What if she does suddenly withdraw support does that mean this whole site will fall apart? That is precisely what the issue is!!!!!!

 

If the information is not shared openly a single person holds power over all. All that has been suggested and asked for is that her templates and knowledge while she is on this site be shared openly. Not personal PM's and information is open. While she is here she is a guest of the site and while here they are asking her to respect that. What she does when people contact her outside this forum is not their issue.

 

I am sorry Recycler but why did you start the LMAG???? Why do you not charge for the information on your site? For the reason that you believed the injustices were just that unjust and sought to help people with free advice and resources by what is the contents of your site.

 

I am so angry that one person now appears to hold so much power and authority!! **Edited to appease Tom Tubby.***

 

It appears that one person does in fact hold a lot of power and that right now with these posts appears to be dominating and showing that power and having the MODS attacked for what is clearly only following the rules.

 

How quickly allegiance and loyalties change.

[seanamarts]

I understand that rules are rules on here but it demeanors this forum when Mods make personal attacks on the members, especially when the member in question (Tomtubby) didnt even start this thread..

[caro]

For information I had no idea that the site referred to belonged to a user of this site when I posted the ambulance chaser remark. If I'm wrong in this assertion and it caused offence then I am sorry. I know that many sites are free and many charge, I just fail to see the justification for charging people for information that is freely available if someone sincerely wishes to help others.

 

CAG is a limited registered company and has to prepare accounts, but that is the business of BankFodder and Dave as owners of Reclaim the Right Ltd, who like the rest of us are unpaid and do not profit from the help they so generously provide. For the benefit of those not familiar with how CAG is funded, this post explains it. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/28-welcome-bank-action-group.html#post39

 

If people do not like the way that CAG is run, or even for those who do, no-one's free choice to use other resources will ever be taken from them, nor could it be. Some people seem to believe that the mods on this site have some kind of mysterious power to prevent free speech. CAG is here for those that like it and will abide by the rules whilst guests of the owners on this site. What they choose to do outside the site is nobody's business but their own as long as it is kept away from, and does not compromise or jeopardise CAG and the people who wish to avail themselves of the free help and support provided.

 

No offence was intended in my remarks, and I really can't see why they are so controversial. I would have thought that it would only be ambulance chasers who didn't like them, and as nowhere in this thread, or hopefully the site can truly identify the site originally referred to, it will not cause any harm.

 

I'm very pleased that tomtubby is able to help people and is earning the respect of the industry, but I understand that she made use of this site quite extensively before starting her own. She is one person whose opinion and advice many clearly value, but CAG has many tens of thousands who are equally willing to share their experiences and advice for the benefit of all.

 

Seanamarts, there was nothing on this thread from the OP to suggest that the site referred to belonged to tomtubby when I posted my remarks. I fail to see how I could make a personal attack on someone I wasn't particularly aware of and was not identified until she chose to reveal in post 14 that the site was hers.

 

Now I really can't spend any more time trying to clarify this matter

[Guest ChloeJane]

My post has just had a very angered response by phone from Tom Tubby and I am told I have angered many by my posts. I am sorry for this but I was not in any way putting tom tubby down I did make that clear and I did make clear that her services are valued.

 

I am not going to justify what I have written.

 

Caro is right with what has been stated and it is pure and simple to read. If Tom Tubby has taken what I have said as attack, then so be it but there are more than enough lines that have shown I support her. Tom Tubby, think about it. Really think about what is written and while this is not a place for a dispute between us, nothing I wrote was not already brought to you attention.

 

I see little point in continuing this debate.

[Saffronflowers]

Threads like this are the very reason that I have step back from CAG on a regular basis.

 

Many of us have knowledge that others dont, many have more knowledge than others. The Mods are doing their job and that is beyond question.

 

I do stuff by PM for reasons that I cannot go into here, it is not necessairly goes my advice is incorrect

 

SFx

[MilkTrayMan]

TBH...I'm gobsmacked!... :eek:

 

I've just read the entire Thread + can see virtuous + valued opinions in ALL of peeps Posts.

Each Poster has merits which they have quite eloquently put over.

It is to everyone's credit that this Thread has maintained a level of decorum.

 

 

It is interesting to note that there are numerous alternative Website Owners/Moderators etc visiting CAG + I would like to think that those of CAG visit other Websites too.

Diversity of information for the betterment of the 'lickle peeps' is to be welcomed, from whatever source.

I believe it is for the greater good that this wealth of knowledge is shared.

 

Personally, I'd prefer it all came from a Central Website, as proliferation can sometimes dilute the finding of what one actually needs, at any one time.

Not everyone who NEEDS help, is au fait with the Internet it should be remembered.

 

 

All in all though, I think that I will have to side with caro on this issue, simply cos she/he has been honest enough to give a valid reason, which is non-personal + has allowed others to have their say, without trying to shout them down or ridicule them.

However, caro IS wrong when he/she says that NO Threads are closed, just cos they are requested to be so!!!

 

 

btw...I was Moderated for 3 months, so I certainly have NO particular side to favour.

[caro]

However, caro IS wrong when he/she says that NO Threads are closed, just cos they are requested to be so!!!

 

Sorry if I gave that impression. They are not closed by ME on request unless I agree with the reason for it. Moderators are all different, and some have done this in some circumstances.

[Guest ChloeJane]

Interesting...I am not going.....and I would like the poster to show where it was in my posts, that I was shown not to support the person being discussed. I added my own personal views, but is there not enough in my lines that actually supports them??

 

I suggest you re read the posts.

 

I have supported the person and their business. Obviously someone out to cause trouble.

[Lula]

CJ, dont feed the troll

[Guest ChloeJane]

Good point Lula.

 

I forgot I read that thread! I should have known better.

[Michael Browne]

 

Additional InformationGroup Memberships

Biography:

 

 

Always like to butt in to other peoples business !!!!

Location:

Cyberspace

Interests:

Trying to make sense out of peoples lives

Occupation:

Being miserable

 

 

 

AV's User Profile says it all.

[tomtubby]

Reference to Post 29 by Cloe Jane

 

This should be corrected immediately.

 

"ask Tom Tubby about the support letter she did for me for my court hearing on Wednesday. Less than 6 lines in support"......

 

Somebody needs to re-read their letters. There were 49 lines and 16 as my introducton.

[Guest ChloeJane]

Tomtubby,

 

I am not going to post your email to me this morning...as there was more in it than just this issue. You have now shown that there were three pages to a letter that otherwise was only two pages received. I have the court fax receipt.

 

If, as you imply from your email, that the second page was missing, then yes I am sorry for what I stated, but the court fax receipt states only two pages and that is all I received and posted accurately at the time. I stand corrected and apologise if you did in fact send 3 pages.

 

Tomtubby, you have not noted a single line of support or of my statements on your value, the value of your site and how knowledgeable you are. You seem to be hell bent on picking up on a single paragraph out of many that support you and only upholding the rules of the site that have also previously applied to me. This whole thread says more about your value than anything else, I think you have failed to note that.

Various comments made in posts on this thread;

 

While you hold amazing credability within the Industry which is not disputed nor argued, all that is being stated is that you hold power with knowledge and do not openly share it and that is your choice with the hours and hours of research you have done. You have a right to be paid for this, but the arguement here is by whom.

Tomtubby does have a right to charge for her services as she has done hours and hours of research. The information that she has on her site is without question the most detailed and well collated information that can be found on the subject of Bailiffs in the United Kingdom.

 

Tomtubby does do an amazing job and is very good at what she does. She has to survive like all of us and to do so charges. No one is attacking Tomtubby.

 

 

I was not attacking you and am not going to use this forum to do so unlike some that have seen fit to do so this morning, albeit in another name.

 

**Tomtubby - please indicate when you are ready for the fax ***

[antivirus]

 

I was not attacking you and am not going to use this forum to do so unlike some that have seen fit to do so this morning, albeit in another name.

 

What other name are you talking about ?

[antivirus]

You better not mention it.

[antivirus]

A Diss-based business is battling bailiffs to ensure when they visit those in debts they do so by the book and not take advantage of those whose debts they collect as reporter Anthony Bond discovered.

Five weeks ago Alison Laughton was offered £50,000 to stop working.

 

She was followed into London and had pictures taken of her which were later sent to her mobile phone.

 

At her Diss office, she has installed four panic alarms together with a sophisticated CCTV system.

 

The reason? She is the managing director of Bailiff Watchdog, the UK's first company taking on the seedier side of the country's bailiff industry.

 

"We had to step up security because of the threats we received," said Miss Laughton, who lives in Thorpe Abbotts. "The police told us we are taking on an industry that does not get challenged."

 

Bailiff Watchdog started in August and now has a call centre employing 14 people in Bristol. Post is sent to an address in London – "We do not want the bailiff companies knowing where we are because they would destroy our files," said Miss Laughton, 39.

 

So far, the company has dealt with more than 270 people nationwide, helping them to regain money and property taken by unlawful bailiffs.

 

"The use of bailiffs is unnecessary and the situation is out of control. They are destroying people's lives for a £30 or £40 parking ticket.

 

"We are half-way between a Citizens Advice Bureau and a solicitor's. We charge £40 and for that we write letters to the councils and bailiff companies and represent victims legally. We help people who have been treated harshly."

 

Parking tickets are the biggest bugbear for Bailiff Watchdog and the following case highlights how ruthless bailiff companies, and the councils that employ them, can be.

 

One of Miss Laughton's cases involves a doctor in London whose husband owns a transport business. He was involved in an accident, which left him brain damaged and in a coma for several weeks. This resulted in 86 parking tickets being accrued from the business. But with the doctor's husband away from the office, nobody was there to deal with the fines.

 

"Her local council is bringing her to her knees with bailiffs," said Miss Laughton, who is training in criminal law. "They are her husband's fines but she is liable because they are registered to his address. Almost every day for the past six months she has had a visit from a bailiff. She has nothing left and the business has folded."

 

Another case highlights how the most vulnerable in society can be targeted. A struggling London couple received eight parking fines.

 

For those parking fines the couple, who have four young children, have had to pay £2,200 in cash and £1,800 to retrieve their impounded car. The bailiffs also broke into the house while the couple were out and took £2,900 worth of electrical goods.

 

They fell behind with Council Tax and are now being threatened with eviction.

 

"We are acting for the couple because the bailiff company that took their goods have done so illegally," said Miss Laughton. "They never received paperwork from the bailiffs and they laughed at the woman and goaded her and often left her in floods of tears."

 

A recent BBC documentary confirmed what Miss Laughton is up against – bailiffs adding as much money on to debts as they think they can get away with, and entering properties when they are not legally allowed to.

 

"Most people know nothing about the law and they have bailiffs turning up and

threatening to take their car. It is not in the bailiff's interest to get paid straight away, if that happens the companies will go broke. They need to make two or three visits."

 

The pressure on Bailiff Watchdog is huge. When Miss Laughton first started out, she was not taken seriously. But after a number of successes, the bailiff companies are trying their hardest to disrupt the business.

 

"Some days I do feel like giving up, especially when I feel that I am not getting anywhere," she said.

 

"But one day you get a win and people ring up and say 'I have just got a cheque for £300' and that makes it worthwhile. We are doing the right thing for the public but it is getting harder and harder."

 

If you want to contact Bailiff Watchdog, call

[Guest ChloeJane]

This has gone too far now.

 

Tomtubby, please stop emailing me and stop putting me down. You are out to cause me as much trouble and as many issues as you can. I have offered you the evidence that you are wrong, you refuse to accept a fax or acknowledge receipt of this.

 

As I see your point that my statement perhaps was personal despite it being fact at the time....I will remove my statement that you seem to take offence to and take it up with you personally but your continued attacks are unwarranted and unfair.

[antivirus]

This has gone too far now.

 

Tomtubby, please stop emailing me and stop putting me down. You are out to cause me as much trouble and as many issues as you can. I have offered you the evidence that you are wrong, you refuse to accept a fax or acknowledge receipt of this.

 

As I see your point that my statement perhaps was personal despite it being fact at the time....I will remove my statement that you seem to take offence to and take it up with you personally but your continued attacks are unwarranted and unfair.

 

 

Excuse me i am not tom tubby !!!!

[antivirus]

This has gone too far now.

 

I will remove my statement that you seem to take offence to and take it up with you personally but your continued attacks are unwarranted and unfair.

 

How about removing them and apologising and then disapearing back under the rock ? I am not tom tubby. Cant you understand ? No if you could you would not be in the high court right now.

[Joa]

I am not entirely happy that the discussion has moved so much away from the topic. The topic was ; there is a useful website out there which seems to be helpful if you are in a tight spot with bailiffs.

I am disappointed that I cannot put up a link and I consider the censorship a little bit too restrictive but this is not my website so that's that.

 

The rest is interesting but irrelevant, so could it be conducted somewhere please?

 

Finally, I am so, so soooooo sick about calling everyone who has a different opinion a troll. This is such a lazy, catch-all attitude. For goodness sake, can't certain people see that calling someone a troll reflects rather badly on them- i.e. I am not able to have a reasonable discussion, the art of discourse is beyond me but I am not capable of raising above it and I enjoy goading this poster, so I know! I will call them a troll and watch the fun!

 

Right, my little rant over.

[antivirus]

I am not entirely happy that the discussion has moved so much away from the topic. The topic was ; there is a useful website out there which seems to be helpful if you are in a tight spot with bailiffs.

I am disappointed that I cannot put up a link and I consider the censorship a little bit too restrictive but this is not my website so that's that.

The rest is interesting but irrelevant, so could it be conducted somewhere please?

Finally, I am so, so soooooo sick about calling everyone who has a different opinion a troll. This is such a lazy, catch-all attitude. For goodness sake, can't certain people see that calling someone a troll reflects rather badly on them- i.e. I am not able to have a reasonable discussion, the art of discourse is beyond me but I am not capable of giving up and I enjoy goading this poster, so I know! I will call the a troll and watch the fun!

 

Right, my little rant over.

 

 

Joa i have been watching this topic since last night. I agree with you but it is taking the p out of passionate with the backbiting going on and things being made public because someone has got a high court date and cant get off their depressants. The proof they are blaming the wrong person. Either the person doing the blaming has lost her mind or she is up to her eyeballs in booze. Which she calls tea/coffee !!!!

[Joa]

Oh, and another thing that is puzzling me: I get emailed updates about new posts on my threads. This is a second email about an entry posted by antivirus which is nowhere to be seen on the thread itself.

This is the email:

Dear Joa,

 

antivirus has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Thread title edited to remove commercial website details - in the Bailiffs forum of The Consumer Forums.

 

This thread is located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs/121984-thread-title-edited-remove-new-post.html

 

Here is the message that has just been posted:

***************

The way i am seeing it at the moment. Why is chloe jane being allowed to attack tomtubby ? Just a question i wanted to ask as i could not sleep all night remaining curious.

***************

 

 

There may be other replies also, but you will not receive any more notifications until you visit the forum again.

 

All the best,

The Consumer Forums

 

End of email.

 

What is happening to antivirus' posts?