Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Our picks

Eviction: the fraud of the bank


matt v atos
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1919 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

[ATTACH=CONFIG]52477[/ATTACH]

On 23 July 2014 over 300 people came from all over the UK to show solidarity and support for Tom Crawford and his family, and help in the peaceful resistance to the illegal eviction proceedings brought by UK Asset Resolution Limited. The support on the day was so overwhelming that the bailiff decided not to appear with his illegally drafted warrant.

 

At the moment, hundreds of warrants are being issued and served where a court stamp is used (not an official seal) and there is no official endorsing signature. This is fraudulent and illegal.

The petition is merely asking the Government to ensure that courts and the judiciary follow the letter of the law and stop committing fraud.

THIS ISSUE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US, OUR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS.

The petition is aiming to gain 1,000,000 signatures, so please share and spread the word.

PLEASE SIGN NOW, THANK YOU.

 

 

 

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/uk-petition-in-the-name-of-justice-and-fairness-we-the-undersigned-require-her-majesty-s-courts-and-tribunals-service

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this on UK Column News. I can see that arrogant court bailiff taking a beating if he carries on talking out of his anal sphincter. He thinks he's fireproof; he's not. If it is shown he merely attempted to execute a fraudulent warrant, he can be stripped of his office as a court bailiff and jailed.

 

I have signed the petition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So did this go through the court and did a judge issue the eviction warrant ??

 

What tends to happen is that there are judges who are, for want of better words, Rubber-Stamping Clowns. They will rubber-stamp anything put in front of them.

 

What is becoming clearly evident is that fraud on an industrial scale is taking place and when the court is questioned about the paper trail, it will usually be found that certain hearings have not taken place, certain papers have not been submitted by the "claimant" and fees have not been paid. In one case, a county court admitted it had no record of a claim being processed or a CCJ being granted. An HCEO, bank staff and legal professionals are currently facing criminal proceedings over the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea who sent it to you, Matt? I have read through it and have a reasonable idea where it came from. Much of what is on the document you have received is either out of date or not relevant. It is all very well quoting law. The most important factors are knowing how the legal system works, how the law works in practice and interpreting it. That requires experience, knowledge and instinct.

 

With evictions suspected of being unlawful, check with the county court that is alleged to have issued the Possession Order/Eviction Order/Eviction Warrant. Ask for the timeline of events on the case file. You need to know the dates of when applications for Possession Orders, Eviction Orders and Eviction Warrants were made, when and whether they were granted and to whom, whether they were suspended, revoked, struck-out or whatever, the dates of hearings and what they were for, the names of the judges involved and whether appropriate fees were paid.

 

I would make the following comments -

 

It is an Indictable Offence for anyone to pretend to be acting under the authority of a County Court;

 

It is an Indictable Offence for a public officer acting as such to wilfully neglect to perform his/her duty and/or wilfully misconduct himself/herself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder without reasonable excuse or justification. A County Court Bailiff falls within the definition of "public officer" as they are Crown Servants;

 

It should be remembered that land and property matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Chancery Division of the High Court. This means that District Judges can deal with certain land and property matters, but there are other land and property-related matters which must be dealt with by Circuit Judges appointed to deal with Chancery matters.

 

I am attaching relevant sections from the County Courts Act 1984 for guidance. Some of them have been amended so be sure to study the amendments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1,648 have signed the petition thus far. The bailiffs were called off by police so they say! for safety issues. Tom has heard nothing from Bradford and bingley or the bailiffs since.

 

Probably Nottinghamshire Police were afraid of people knocking seven buckets of crap out of Caress, not that he doesn't deserve it. Yes, he is arrogant and, yes, he is a bully and, yes, he is likely to become complacent to the point he will mess up so badly not even the police will be able or want to pull him out of the brown and smelly stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Seen this on the news today, is there an update, how did Bradford and Bingley change the mortgage, this needs to be heard on a forum like this. It has been so supported in Nottingham that it should be highlighted here, please post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The petition still requires 29 signatures...

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-Crawford-appears-court-Bradford-Bingley/story-26425154-detail/story.html

 

 

Emotions have run high at court as Tom Crawford fights to defend his home from bailiffs.

 

Mr Crawford, who has been embroiled in an ongoing battle with Bradford and Bingley bank over his mortgage, appeared at Nottingham County Court to seek permission to appeal against a possession order issued against his Carlton home.

 

Hundreds of supporters turned up to the court building in Canal Street, many of them having travelled from across the country.

 

As the hearing began, Judge Nigel Godsmark QC twice walked out of the court room, once following an interjection from the public gallery.

 

 

Read more: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-Crawford-appears-court-Bradford-Bingley/story-26425154-detail/story.html#ixzz3YzS7h4ME

 

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to hear how the Bradford & Bingly changed the mortgage ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Can I just say, as I understand it - Once a suspended possession order is issued, a bank does not have to apply to a Judge to get the warrant issued. Judges do not commit fraud, they are there to stop fraud - it's surely up to us to prove it though.

 

I don't know if this helps you - but I saw the comment below added to the story in the Nottingham Post:

 

Lots of progress is being made by homeowners. Good on those who have supported Tom so far. Not quite sure where harrystotie is coming from though? Courts don't sanction Fraud either! Tom, all you need do is check your bank statements. If B&B's name is not the recipient of your payments/showing on your banks statments, you may be able to prove 'fraud'. If some other firms name is showing as the recipient of your payments, the chances are it will be the firm who is showing on the bank statments that brought the proceedings against you in the name of B&B. If your bank statement shows a different firms name, get a copy of your title register and a copy of your deed, again, if the names on the register and deed do not match the name on your bank statements, you may have hit the fraud nail on the head!! If you can, then its simple, go on line and report what you find to Action Fraud, if they confirm you are a victim of crime, then you can use the letter they send you to help protect you and your home from being unlawful possession. You can also use this letter to set aside the warrant of possession and suspended possession order. (by the way Judges do not issue warrants, court staff do); Complete the N244 form, in the box where it asks what do you want the court to do and why? state: "I want the court to set aside the suspended order of possession and warrant of possession on grounds of irregularity, fraud and abuse of process"; then when your application is heard, make sure to include the letter from Action Fraud, your bank statements, title deed and register of title to help the Judge see how the names on the banks statement, deed and title differ. I simply can't see any Judge sanctioning abuse of court process, nevermind fraud. So this way, if the Bailiffs turn up before you have your day in court, you will be able to show them the letter from Action Fraud (essentially confirming this is now a Criminal issue) and when you get your day in court, I rather suspect, no Judge will permit the warrant to be enforced against you - no matter what those relying on B&B's name try to do to overcome your concrete evidence.

Times are changing, loads of firms draw up mortgage statements using the name of the firm they bought the mortgage debt from to pursue you and even bring claims against you in the name of what was known to you as your original lender such as in your case, B&B.

Tom just needs to get up to speed with how to deal with them. The way forward is to check the paperwork and report them to Action Fraud, Court, and the FCA. That's the only way you will keep your home Tom"

 

Might be useful to know??

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So as an update to the Tom Crawford eviction, the judge handed down his judgement on Toms appeal

 

He is saying he has won and gets to keep his house, what do the clever people on here make of the judgement

Link to post
Share on other sites

The judgement could not be clearer. The judge took care to write it in plain English because he knew it would be circulated and read by many people. The judgement sets out how Tom failed to pay the endowment policy, and refused suggestions by the bank to change to a repayment mortgage. It is very sad, but he brought this on himself. Now he faces imminent eviction, but he is taking advice from FMOTL idiots instead of getting proper legal help. If he doesn't wake up fast, he'll be homeless and penniless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My own take is that in general they lost but, they were granted leave to appeal out of time but that appeal was refused by that court as the judge could see no grounds for appeal. That does leave them with another avenue to pursue if they can come up with (non FMOTL) grounds.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

What happens when a home-owner who is evicted because he owes legal costs of nearly £100k and the solicitors who, with a high court writ, had him evicted last month are now faced with the prospect of them having moved back in?

 

The police say they can do nothing as there is no criminal damage - just damage to a £10 woodchip board which hadn't been replaced in time with a door. The police are saying it's a civil trespass and there is no burglary as there is intent to live there. Is it contempt of court? It will have to go back to the High Court and there will be a second eviction, so ultimately this will cost the former owner even more.

 

Bit of a daft short term thing to do but hey -- anyone else experienced this?

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

there is no criminal damage - just damage to a £10 woodchip board which hadn't been replaced in time with a door.

 

The police are saying it's a civil trespass

 

 

I'd ask the officer to check with their supervisor about:

A) it being a £10 piece of of chipboard preventing it being criminal damage : neither it being £10 nor being chipboard would prevent the possibility of it being criminal damage.

B) civil trespass and squatting in a residential property (as another poster has already pointed out).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...