Throssell and Leeds City Council

[TB Law]

I was wondering about the best way to go about this, as i didnt receive any thing from courts or council,or a letter from the bailiffs to say they would be coming.

 

Any help or advice would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks jennie

 

If you did not receive anything before a bailiff turned up then you need to appeal the PCN, a form TE7 and TE9. This is called an "Out of Time Statutory Declaration".

 

If a bailiff levies on goods or a vehicle after sunset the levy is void and any fees paid can be reclaimed under Throssell v Leeds City Council [1993] Leeds county court, case no.9350977

[tomtubby]

TB Law....

 

Sorry but I must correct you.

 

In the case of Michael Throssell and Leeds City Council the District Judge most certainly DID NOT rule that a levy after sunset was void.

[brassnecked]

If you did not receive anything before a bailiff turned up then you need to appeal the PCN, a form TE7 and TE9. This is called an "Out of Time Statutory Declaration".

 

If a bailiff levies on goods or a vehicle after sunset the levy is void and any fees paid can be reclaimed under Throssell v Leeds City Council [1993] Leeds county court, case no.9350977

Where does it state that in Statute? Or are you saying is it inferred by Common Law?

[TB Law]

Sorry but I must correct you.

 

In the case of Michael Throssell and Leeds City Council the District Judge most certainly DID NOT rule that a levy after sunset was void.

 

 

You are absolutely right tomtubby, sorry it took me a while to get court records for this case.

 

After reading it, I am curious why you say the plaintiff's first name is "Michael". Can you point the source of your information?

[wonkeydonkey]

You are absolutely right tomtubby, sorry it took me a while to get court records for this case.

 

After reading it, I am curious why you say the plaintiff's first name is "Michael". Can you point the source of your information?

 

 

It matters not if he was called Tom ,Dick or Harry the most important factor was the Judgment, dont you think?

 

WD

[TB Law]

The integrity of the source is crucially important.

[lamma]

What ? ? ? You have the Court record.

[TB Law]

The plaintiffs name is different from the one in post #20.

[tomtubby]

You are absolutely right tomtubby, sorry it took me a while to get court records for this case.

 

After reading it, I am curious why you say the plaintiff's first name is "Michael". Can you point the source of your information?

 

 

His name is Michael Throssell and this is the name that appears on the full Judgment ( which I have a copy of). I also corresponded with him a while ago.

[wonkeydonkey]

The plaintiffs name is different from the one in post #20.

 

I need to go to spec savers as #post 20 gives no name....you appear to have a fixation to calling Tomtubby into question? strangley enough I keep asking myself why do you remind of a former cagger happy contrails aka nintendo aka fork it aka aka aka ?

[hallowitch]

I need to go to spec savers as #post 20 gives no name....you appear to have a fixation to calling Tomtubby into question? strangley enough I keep asking myself why do you remind of a former cagger happy contrails aka nintendo aka fork it aka aka aka ?

 

 

snap that makes 2 of us

[brassnecked]

snap that makes 2 of us

Now you come to mention it, the tone of the posts is reminiscent of those of Fork-it

[tomtubby]

I am also a but curious....

[Surfer01]

I need to go to spec savers as #post 20 gives no name....you appear to have a fixation to calling Tomtubby into question? strangley enough I keep asking myself why do you remind of a former cagger happy contrails aka nintendo aka fork it aka aka aka ?

Personally I think TB Law is a first year college year student trying to show how clever they are, but is failing miserably! Why they keep questioning some one like Tomtubby who is very experienced in these matters is beyond belief.

[TB Law]

I only asked for the source. 10 posts later the source remains elusive.

[tomtubby]

TB Law. I am really confused here. Last evening at 21.24 you stated in your post "can you point to the source of your information". Less that 2 hours later I posted back to state the following:

 

His name is Michael Throssell and this is the name that appears on the full Judgment ( which I have a copy of). I also corresponded with him a while ago.

 

For you to say this morning that the "source" still remains elusive is frankly baffling.

 

This particular case is so very well known and as far as I know, the full Judgment is readily available to all CAB staff and other advice agencies. In fact, at the time of this case, Mike Throssell was a part time student and working at an advice agency !!

 

I have been given permission by Mike Throssell to copy the Judgment to anyone who is interested in reading it.

[TB Law]

Please post it.

[tomtubby]

If anyone wants a copy please PM me.

[TB Law]

No good for those that dont have PM.

[tomtubby]

Apart from the original poster (who would not be interested in the judgment) everbody else has a PM facility.

[TB Law]

15 posts later still no source.

[brassnecked]

15 posts later still no source.

You surely have the PM facilty TB?

[TB Law]

Unfortunately not, it ceased functioning after I reported to an admin about somebody's intellectual property being hosted on a CAG server without the authors permission.

[tomtubby]

TB Law. Have you not read my post number 33 ?

 

I am worried as to the reason WHY you are asking me to give you the SOURCE and also your comment that the "integrity of the source is crucially important".

 

This is a very common judgment and one that is readily available. I have had a copy for probably 5 years or so. John Kruse refers to this case very often in quite a few of his books.

[TB Law]

Ive heard of the name but I am not familar with his work.

 

I made a very simple request but I am perplexed why so much rebuke.