Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Doberman bites Bailiff on the arse! Police threaten arrest


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5691 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

When at work I leave my French doors open to let my two Dobermans into the back garden. It's surrounded by 6 foot fence with a locked gate. The lock to the gate can be picked with a screwdriver but not from the inside once the gate closes.

 

I came home a few weeks ago and found a chewed black size 11 industrial shoe in the garden. It is common for Dobies to steal things and chew them on the lawn, its thier nature but none of my family wears size 11's. I reported fence damage to police where vertical timbers snapped off the above the top Arris rail but they were uninterested suggesting somebody had thrown an old shoe into the garden to torment the dogs. I considered the matter closed because nothing was missing from the house.

 

Last week I am confronted by police officers and a dog catcher making threats of arrest under the Dangerous Dogs act. I quickly pointed out the DDA applies to dogs in public and mine are kept behind locked doors and only to breeds banned under the Act. The officer said a bailiff at A+E reported me for injuries to his legs and backside after entering my garden to collect a court fine. I think bailiffs had opened the gate to approach the house, my two Dobies came bouncing out and bit them on the arse while they climbed back over the fence after the gate slammed shut behind them. I also think this explains the shoe and the fence timbers being snapped off.

 

The court fine is registered at our address but the persons name is unknown to us. The local mags court is unwilling to help citing data protection act. We returned post for the addressee as gone away but items just kept coming and we just put them in the shredder.

 

Can a bailiff really have me charged for this?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Charged with what ?

 

Justice springs to mind.

 

Where can i send 2 HUGE doggy bones ?

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He can try - by laying a complaint with the police. Once the police are satisfied that nothing untoward has occurred (well, you know what I mean:)) they will tell the complainer to go away.

If you are being prosecuted I would worry but obviously the police aren't going to do that.

 

A couple more bones from here as well.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

At last !!!!

 

After hearing bailiff queries all day, I have sometheing to laugh about.

 

Sorry, I must be serious. The bailiff can try to gain "peaceful entry" into the property. Well clearly that didn't happen !!! ( Sorry I'm laughing as I type this).

 

Serious again. What you have is a chewed up shoe. It could be that the bailiff has the matching one which would prove that it was his. But, unless this incident was filmed or witnessed by a third party I cannot see how he could PROVE that either of your dogs had bitten him or chewed his shoe. It is simply hearsay evidence and would probably teach the bailiff to make sure that he knocks on the door next time.

 

Many times we have queries from the public where a bailiff has alledged he had applied a clamp to a vehicle and that "somehow" the clamp had been removed. The bailiff naturally reports the "crime" to the police but I have yet to see a case yet where a prosecution has been sucessful because there is no proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that if the charges go ahead, you charge the bailiff for tresspass and damage to your fence. If the court order is not in your name then then bailiff shouldn't have come into your garden.

Beating the DCA's day by day

 

My fight:

NDR - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Bank of Scotland - CCA'd 12+2 passed

CFS - Win by Technical Knock-out!:lol:

HFC Bank - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Chantry Collections - CCA sent

 

Time flies like an arrow

Fruit flies like a banana :D

 

<---------- Have I given you top advice, have I made you laugh, click on the scales, it won't hurt you! :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you obtain the bailiff's details?

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I so love this. It has really made my day.

 

How come when we have a problem with a bailiff and call the police, its a civil matter, yet when the bailiff calls them, they jump.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

And these are for my 2 new FRIENDS.

 

roastknucklebone.jpg

Edited by tonycee

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which magistrates court was it? I ask because if the data protection act protects the bailiffs then it should equally protect you. In other words why do they have your details in the first place?

 

Ask the magistrates court exactly setion of the data protection act allows the council to supply details of an innocent party to a private company. And which section prevents that innocent party from having recourse to correction.

 

Serves the buggers right for trying to sneak into the private property. Teach the word 'bailiff' to the dogs so that they will know that you when you say it in future they should snarl.

 

Then reward them with bigger bones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts said they could not disclose information about other people. Our house is on my husband’s farm and the front is hard to reach so post is delivered to the gate lodge. The Dobies were kept in the back garden because it is dangerous for them to ride the combine so we let them out at night to chase away [EDIT] people who try to bring caravans onto the farm. [EDIT] These people register their vehicles at our farm and we get their mail and DVLA tax renewals.

 

We had problems with bailiffs before. Two years ago police arrested my husband when farm hands prepping the potato harvester for the days work at 6.30am had trouble from bailiffs who turned up and levied on the harvester by blocking it with their van. My husband turned up in a JCB forklift and lifted their van by the chassis leaving it suspended 18 feet in the air and ordered the bailiffs off the farm. They called police, but my husband's tactless approach (he is a typical Norfolk f'ing & blinding type – really swears a lot) told the police to go away, arrested him for theft of their van and obstructing a bailiff in levying on his £160,000 Grimme potato picker for a car tax fine that had nothing to do with him or the farm.

 

I can see the funny side, but my husband seriously lacks a sense of humour when it comes to police and bailiffs. He was ready to JCB the police van up and put it up on the roof of a 40ft container. He is a real softie otherwise but this how farmers deal with caravans parked on their land. Police say it's a civil matter even when crop is damaged and livestock is stolen and accordingly my husband has no time for police and bailiffs.

Edited by Rooster-UK
Derogatory remarks removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Next time just park something big in the gate-way.

Then it's a civil matter if they want to retrieve their van.

 

Quote the man in the Hoover Free Flights offer case:

 

When he didn't get his free flight tickets he called out the Hoover man to fix his washer & then blocked his van in saying he could have the van when they spun for the flights.:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

These bailiffs think they are a law unto themselves, and can just bully people into submission.

 

Consider making a complaint against the bailiffs.

 

Or better still, dont feed the dogs if you know they are coming back.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't work. When police saw the bailiffs van perched up on the end of a forklift they told my husband he was holding the bailiffs hostage and threatened to charge him with kidnap.

 

That's different though.You can park where you like on your own land - they are free to leave when they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that these people register their vehicles at your address. That's very similar to our scheme, except that it appears that whilst we actively consent to giving our permission for others to use our address for registration, you don't and yet the DVLA still accept this misuse of your address as being right and proper and therefore fair game to pass on to others.

 

Have I got this right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a peril of living on a farm, [edited], or gypisies for another word, don't have social security numbers or a fixed address so they use other peoples wityhouit permission. We stick tax discs DVLA and insurance documents in the shredder because pikies dont want them, its just to appease the police databases and their laser vans. If a [e] car is lifted by police they just get another. Thats also how pikies dispose of unwanted goods, fill an old untaxed car or van with rubbish and park it out in a neighbourhood for the DVLA to find or drive it through a police checkpoint. Otherwise they flytip it on us. Not just a nuisance but dangerous using planting and harvesting equipment. We can escort a bailiff off the farm, not so easy to escort a five ton pile of rubbish.

 

[e]

Edited by jonni2bad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DobieGal. Your answer quite made my day. Reminds of the day Phil Silvers (Sgt Bilko) went to Lords to watch cricket. At first he was quite amazed to discover that the game lasted 5 days - but after reflection he went home happy in the knowledge that if the English could watch this for 5 days, he shouldn't have any problem attracting an audience to his show for just 25 minutes.

 

So it is with our situation. If the law and DVLA allows the blatant abuse of your address without your consent and then just shrugs its shoulders at all the problems that this is causing you, then I should not have any problems promoting the validity of our scheme which does invite people to register here with our consent.

 

I know that it doesn't help you and frankly the police need to take this far more seriously. Even the dimmest must now realise that the bailiffs have duff info and that you are entitled to your privacy along with their protection when it is violated by those who won't listen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, have you taken your dobies to the vets for a tetanus shot? They did bite a Bailiff remember. They could have caught anything from them!

Beating the DCA's day by day

 

My fight:

NDR - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Bank of Scotland - CCA'd 12+2 passed

CFS - Win by Technical Knock-out!:lol:

HFC Bank - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Chantry Collections - CCA sent

 

Time flies like an arrow

Fruit flies like a banana :D

 

<---------- Have I given you top advice, have I made you laugh, click on the scales, it won't hurt you! :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a case of bailiffs genuinely not knowing their victim (for what better description) is a person of no fixed abode. We cannot lawfully allow anyone to use the farm for DVLA contact because its concealment of the true identity of a vehicles registered keeper and commits an offence of perverting the course of justice.

 

Farms usually have a policy of asking a bailiff to quietly leave the farm (for insurance purposes) and call for assistance if a bailiff causes trouble. We find lifting their vehicle with a JCB and leaving it 30ft in the air usually does the trick.

 

Bailiff visits to the farm usually go unnoticed by us, farmhands explain why they cant find their person or the vehicle and they leave under their own accord.

Edited by jonni2bad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have signage clearly displayed stating that there are dogs on the premises? if so, job done, they were warned and didn't heed the warning

 

I was in this position before, my rotty, shepherd and little manchester terrier escorted a nuisance group of window cleaners back over the fence from whence they came, minus their bucket, clothes and the sleeve of one of their jackets. they called in the police and their legals

 

Their legals even tried to state that because the sign stated beware of the DOG (singular) we were liable by having more than one dog!!

 

They withdrew their case as the house was clearly signed front and back although the signs were replaced with Beware of the DOGS (plural) signs soon after

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember reading on here somewhere its not wise to have a sign saying "Beware" of the dog, as it implies that you know your dog might attack someone. Something like "Large dogs on the premises" might be safer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police criticised our dog signage. Our house is on a private cul-de-sac of properties on the farm and we own them all. Ours is the principle farm house and the cottages provide accommodation for farmhands. The public road entrance to the cul-de-sac is closed off with electronic gates. That’s why bailiffs cannot get access to the front of the properties and thus, no dog signage needed. The back of the properties each have access direct to the farm via a gate and our dog sign according to police does not comply with Beware of Dog. It is a picture of a Doberman Pinscher with a speech-bubble containing a caption I live here, I bite first and ask questions later!. Bailiffs still entered because the farm house is the address they were looking for, but we never lock the house with my dobies inside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>But, unless this incident was filmed or witnessed by a third party I cannot see how he could PROVE that either of your dogs had bitten him or chewed his shoe.

 

Oh what a wonderful thread. I would suggest a bite on a bailiffs arse could be matched to the dog that did it by puncture marks but would require scene of crime officers plus all other manner of specialist resources to prove it. I very much doubt if they'd bother.

 

Di you feed the dogs ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...