Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Any advice on what remedies are available given the following circumstances - would be much appreciated. Dec 23, HMCTS enforcement officer (HMCEO) knocks on the door. Stating he possesses a “warrant of control” (WOC) issued by xxxxxx Justice Centre (HJC) to recover unpaid fines for driving offences. Further stating, he is there “to execute the warrant and take goods to the value of .. if the warrant wasn’t settled in cash/monies” After requesting proof I was given a quick glimpse (seconds) of a small tablet/palm sized “computer” I only caught flash of a white screen. I notified him, A number of times, I needed to see a copy of said woc. I was unaware of any outstanding warrant. I was not going to pay as the matter was live and had been sent to XXXX Crown Court with Jan hearing. It was not my property but my dear friend’s (14yrs) home. He was not coming in and he was not going to force entry. I asked how come he was at this address – no reply. He had better phone the old bill, if he had any issues. As he had not set foot in the house, I closed the door I was unaware the purported WOC or any warrant, I was under the impression my case was with the courts. My requests for a copy were persistently refused, I was unaware what case(s) were listed as “outstanding on this purported WOC”.  (had live S172 with the courts with an appeal) this alleged woc was totally unrelated.   With supporting high court documents I approached his Co vehicle to reasonably discuss what was going on. After exchanging a few words, he had my name down as the address we were at. Oddly, he then stated the car at the same address which he was blocking in, was mine !! – It was not and never has been ! neither was it reg/ins at that address. I could hear the police sirens approaching, No issues with those attending at all. The first officer lady (ONr1) approached, listened to what I had to say. Then went to speak with "HMCEO". I went inside to gain more evidence that his documents were invalid.   Ms xxxxxx (property/title holder) produced a mortgage document stating the title holder. It was dissmissed by by both "HMCEO" and Police I produced a number of court documents; High Court document with correct address from HHJ xxxxx, HMCTS stating my case was to be heard at xxxxx Crown Court Jan date DVLA drivers license with xxxxxxx with correct address. All documents dismissed by both HMCEO and Police. My trial documents had the correct address as did HMCTS. ONr1 was now joined ONr2, they both concluded the HMCEO WOC document superseded my High court documents as it was addressed to xxxxx. High court documents were irrelevant as the address was “different” from my friends home. I was dumbfounded when the officers stated the “HMCEO was here to collect a debt as instructed by the court”, if I was “to obstruct him in his duties I would be arrested and removed”. I still had not seen any proof of an actual woc I unsuccessfully challenged the officers comments for a fair few moments, then realised no matter what I said, did or otherwise, they had made up their minds and where going to arrest me if my objections persisted. I could not believe I was witnessing misfeasance in public office. Where’s the impartiality I asked ??  - no reply.   I requested more time to collect and gather myself.   I could not raise the amount of money demanded. HMCEO would not accept a pay plan, as apparently the demanded sums had been outstanding for some time. Payment in full was again demanded or a locksmith would be called to drill the locks and force entry. (destruction of 3rd party property) with threat of further hundreds of pounds to be added.   I strongly objected, stating I had no entitlement of title to Nr xxxxxx, neither of the three were interested. Full payment was again demanded or entry will be forced and goods removed.   I was melting down and in a dark place mentally, xxxxx was also in a terrible state considering the threats made against her and her beloved property. even the old bill had chosen to support a private company break the law !!.   " HMCEO" persisted his menacing demands to extort monies. Finally, Diane, under extreme duress and threats of forced entry, coupled with threats of arrest if I didn’t stand aside and let HMCEO extort monies. Against her better will and judgement she transferred monies form her and her sons account(s) to that of "Marston's". Effectively settling a third party debt. His actions amounted to theft, fraud, extortion, and fraud by false representation. Money had just been extorted from the best friend I had, and I was helpless. I understand the following facts are true, I have the opinion both myself, ms Kelly and her son were victims, and this happened here. Even if there was a valid WOC it was illegal as the case had previously been withdrawn; The act of threatening a victim’s person or property with violence, physical harm or destruction to coerce them into complying with demands. Threatened actions that constitute extortion when used to re-enforce an unwarranted demand would be offences in and of themselves (offences against the person or criminal damage). The Theft Act defines the instance of blackmail as one where: “a person with a view to gain for themselves or another or intending to cause loss to another makes an unwarranted demand with menaces. Dishonesty is not an element of the offence.” The sheer fact, he was supported by 2nr police officers – either of which or both, should have been sufficiently knowledgeable enough in criminal law, and vigilant enough to have seen and prevented a fraudulent crime against another(s) being committed with their support. ======= After the event - Next morning calls to/from HMCTS ======= Call from “Enforcement MoJ” confirmed they have already instructed Marstons Group as a matter of urgency to return all monies wrongly taken from Ms xxxxx .  HMCTS ..... Ms xxxxxx, 1/12/23 @ 11:50 States …”case withdrawn 28th Feb 23” email attached Purported WOC issued by Harrogate Justice Centre (HJC). for collection of fines for allegations by West Yorkshire Police (WYP), that had previously been withdrawn. Ref: HMCTS Letter Dated – XXth XX  2023: Case Nr. ********, listed for XXth XX 23 @ XX:XX WYP Letter. Headed - XXth XX 23, Trial at Kirklees Mags Court on XX/XX/2023 at XX:XX                                                     i.     WYP offer no evidence and request HMCTS, CPS - case be dismissed.  According to HJC There was no evidence of WOC ever been issued.   Ms xxxxxx & son, eventually had monies returned. No apology to either Ms xxxxxx or her son. Executed a “warrant of control” which was not prescribed by the HMCTS. His actions amounted to fraud, fraud by false representation. His actions amount to theft, fraud, and fraud by false representation. Extortion of monies by menace S12 Theft Act 76 Alledged "HMCEO" removed monies on two occasions from a third 3rd party bank accounts, 2nr sums circa £600 and £600 collectively totalling £1200.00 to which he had no legal right or obligation to do so. His actions amounted to theft, fraud, and fraud by false representation. Extortion of monies by menace S12 Theft Act 76 As ¶²⁸ above, removed monies under the false pretences of a certified bailiff, whilst not been in possession of the correct court documents entitling him to do so. He was thus acting as a “common debt collector” as such he was not entitled to charge any fees. His actions amounted to theft, fraud, fraud by false representation. Extortion of monies by menace S12 Theft Act 76  Alleged "HMCEO" Knowingly provided a false statement of fact to WYP knowing they would act upon those facts. The two attending police officers should have been sufficiently knowledgeable enough in criminal law, to prevent such a fraudulent crime been committed in their presence. The very fact there was legal correspondence from HHJ xxxxxxxx   xxxxx Crown Court within dated parameters surly overrides any civil documents purporting to be from HMCTS. Especially when PNC, DVLA, MIB, databases could instantly confirm/deny the defendants statement of address. This event (along with others) has not only devestated my life, but my friends too. To the extent I was admitted to Acute Mental Health Team NGH for 4/5wks as I was unable to cope with the effect this action had taken on my best friend. The consequences have been insumountable, the mere sight of the old bill now reduces me to a wreck. WHAT LEGAL REMEDIES (IF ANY) MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ME/US - How would one proceed ?? Contructive comments only please - **** takers and conspiracists jog on.  All HMCTS documents are available, Only 2nr Marston documents exist, 2nr receipts for payments taken.  Regards Mr Blue            
    • 1 Date of the infringement 14/12/2023   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  Issue date 27/17/2023   [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s   3 Date received 10/12/2024   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  N   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  No   Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up No   7 Who is the parking company? Excel Parking   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Brewery Street Car Park, Chesterfield, S417UG   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IPC on their letter BPC on others I have attached all letters received to date by Excel and others.  Any advice is more than welcome PCN Letters_1_11zon.pdf
    • Hi guys I got caught with my mum's freedom pass the other day. I have now received a letter asking how I'm going to plea I've only just received it but it says reply within 10 days of the letter from when it was dated on the 17th june which seems unfair, but anyway! What's my best bet here? I have seen the best thing and it's the most logical, is to just come clean, say say it was wrong and plead with them! I've attached the letters they have sent Thanks for any help you can provide Image to PDF 20240625 22.16.31.pdf
    • Mediation date now set. Do I just tell them 'I don't have enough information?'
    • With the inflation dragon appearing to have been slain, falling to the 2% target in recent data, there is a risk that savings rates could similarly plummet.View the full article
  • 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

Means Test


CharlieHow
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4096 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

Hi All

 

My mother is 80 and has just sold her house and moved into a sheltered home. The cost of this is actually a bit more than her pension income, and as her savings will be significantly over £16,000 she will have to live off her savings until going below the £16,000 when she will hopefully get some help with the rent.

 

She has around £85K and wants to give me £20K as a gift. She is worried about the DSS seeing this gift and then not giving her any help if the future when she needs it. I don't think she would need to worry about this for 10 years or more, but I need to look into it for her. If she made a claim in the future, does anyone know how far back a means test would go?

 

Thanks

 

Charlie

Link to post
Share on other sites

The councils can go back 7 years and could class it deprivation of assets we are fighting a claim now will cost us about five thou but again you will need to show this gift because the council will inform. The dwp as far as I can recollect

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Patrick. Does it have any relevance what the gift is for? ie, if I could show that it was to stop a potential repossession?

 

I don't think that she would spend the money in less than 7 years anyway to be honest, but we need to to be sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, does any one know if there is a sliding scale over the 7 years, similar to Inheritance Tax? ie if she claimed in 5 years time, would they include a smaller amount of the gift than they would after say one year?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

I'll see if I can find someone who knows about this stuff, but I also think you need to be careful about deprivation of capital. My understanding is that it's not about who the money goes to, it's that person whose money it is/was is trying to claim off the state for something they could have paid for with said capital. Sorry.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks HB

 

Would that matter though if it was outside of the 7 years?

 

Honestly, I don't know. I suspect though that 7 years is an IHT thing as you said rather than a local authority one, as I believe they have rather wide-ranging powers.

 

I've sent an SOS to try to get you some informed help.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a person is claiming benefit or will be in the future, the issue of giving capital away can be quite a minefield.

 

The social security system is aimed at those who do not have the income or capital to meet their living costs, and the system expects those with the income/capital to use it before claiming benefit.

 

Most means tested benefits have upper capital limits, for example in HB/CTB/IS/JSA(ib), you are not entitled to any assistance if your capital exceeds £16k. If a person gives away capital and the DWP/LA consider that one of the reasons for giving it away was to either secure or increase benefit entitlement, then the DWP/LA may decide to treat that person as if they still held that money.

 

Does your mother have any other income other than her SRP?

Does she receive Pension Credit? If so, is it Guarantee Credit or Savings Credit?

  • Haha 1

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answers.

 

Her only income is pension and Widows pension, with no pension credit. So I believe that the council can only go back a maximum of 7 years and if we could prove that it wasn't for deprivation of assets and for a goo reason that we could prove, then it could be ignored within 7 years?

 

That's really helpful, thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

seven years is not relevant, as there is no stated period in the legislation

 

the issue is whether one of the reasons for disposing of the capital was to secure or increase benefit entitlement

 

if you can demonstrate this was not the reason, then a claim could be made right away - however if a claim was made straight after disposing of capital, this would make it appear that disposal was to gain benefit - i hope that makes sense

 

in my opinion, giving away 20k out of 85k is unlikely to be viewed as deprivation, unless other large sums are also disposed of and a claim made soon after

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...