Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That's a blessed relief. They would have been withdrawn because, as I said, they have no evidence that you were driving. That comes from the responses to the requests for driver's details which you failed to send. The important thing is that the speeding charges were laid. That makes life much easier (and far more likely to see a successful outcome). You need to make your SD and serve it on the court where you were convicted. The next you should hear is by way of a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" laying the four charges against you again. You will have three options (for each charge): Plead Guilty and do not attend court Plead guilty and attend court Plead not guilty You must plead Not Guilty to all charges. In the section headed “reason for not guilty plea” you can state that you will offer to plead guilty to the speeding charging providing, and only providing, the FtP charges are dropped. This is a procedure well known to all court users (prosecutors, magistrates and their legal advisors) and is carried out up and down the land daily. I’ll refer to it as “the deal”. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to undertake this deal and speak to the prosecutor (the agreement of the prosecutor is required as the court cannot accept it without that agreement).  However, during the pandemic courts aimed to reduce the numbers of people required to attend to an absolute minimum and most courts accepted a written request to do the deal. Local police prosecutors made an agreement with their courts that the magistrates’ legal advisors could accept the deal. In some areas this arrangement has carried on. In others they have reverted to the old process where attendance was required. So your offer of the “deal” with either be accepted in writing and dealt with under the Single Justice procedure or you may have to attend court. In either event it is important to emphasise that you will plead guilty to speeding only if the FtP charges are dropped.  There may be slight variations to the process depending on how the individual area works but there is no reason why this should not be successful.    
    • Yes thank you dx, my sentiments exactly.  We don't have access to his credit report to see the CCJ.  We were just told by the Estate Agency who he was trying to act as a guarantor for me.......  I can get a free one for a month I believe.  
    • I would say it's snotty letter time. You can do a search on CAG for examples of what other people have sent. Don't make it too polite. HB
    • Ok, received this letter that looks like a letter of claim but it still doesn’t sound too convincing    2024-06 BW Letter Of Claim.pdf
    • I got a hearing adjourned due to counsel getting covid. Hearing was delayed 5 months !
  • 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

A case from "Can't pay we'll take it away"


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2731 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

The way Bohill behaves, he should not be granted an EA certificate full-stop. I have my doubts about Pinner's competence, especially in the episode of "Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away" when they were told by the creditor they had made a mistake and were harassing the wrong person. That didn't stop Pinner carrying on regardless and taking away the innocent party's taxi. As a result of that act of idiocy, the creditor was landed with a bill of around £1900 - £2000 in compensation and legal costs in the innocent party's favour.

 

Hi Old Bill,

 

It's good to see you back on here. I didn't realise there had been an award against the creditor - that is excellent news. It is high time all bailiffs were called to account in this way. Those who operate legitimately (the majority?) are being tarnished by many, with the same brush as those who don't, which is simply unfair. Greater personal accountability would effectively put each in control of their own destiny. Act fairly, all is good; act unfairly, you are called to account for your actions. That would be a very happy day indeed, for both debtors and those bailiffs who do conduct themselves correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The likely offences, depending on the nature of the call, would be one of more of the following:-

 

 

  1. Wasting Police Time
  2. Misuse of A Public Electronic Telecommunications System
  3. Perverting the Course of Justice

 

 

 

If only that were true. The reality is that police do not have the time, nor the resources to bring that sort of prosecution, and the CPS are unlikely to proceed in any case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Old Bill,

 

It's good to see you back on here. I didn't realise there had been an award against the creditor - that is excellent news. It is high time all bailiffs were called to account in this way. Those who operate legitimately (the majority?) are being tarnished by many, with the same brush as those who don't, which is simply unfair. Greater personal accountability would effectively put each in control of their own destiny. Act fairly, all is good; act unfairly, you are called to account for your actions. That would be a very happy day indeed, for both debtors and those bailiffs who do conduct themselves correctly.

 

It was at the end of the particular episode where Pinner cocked-up. If my memory serves me correctly, solicitors costs of £1500 + compensation of £400 for loss of earnings were paid to the poor beggar whose taxi Pinner and Bohill took.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only that were true. The reality is that police do not have the time, nor the resources to bring that sort of prosecution, and the CPS are unlikely to proceed in any case.

 

I hear this a lot. However, these are the offences they commit each time they make false calls to the police. You are correct in that the police do not have the time to deal with them and many officers are getting increasingly fed up with having their time wasted by EAs. I suspect the decision by CPS not to prosecute EAs is down to some agenda going on in certain quarters. I am currently awaiting a response from CPS as to why they discontinued a prosecution against an EA who battered someone and, it subsequently proved, had no valid warrant upon which to act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the decision by CPS not to prosecute EAs is down to some agenda going on in certain quarters.

 

Yes, us Bailiffs, the Police, the CPS and the New World Order meet every Thursday at the pub for beers and domination planning :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, us Bailiffs, the Police, the CPS and the New World Order meet every Thursday at the pub for beers and domination planning :!:

 

The reality, HCEOs, is more likely to be Common Purpose "graduates" trying to collapse the system and goad people into kicking off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality, HCEOs, is more likely to be Common Purpose "graduates" trying to collapse the system and goad people into kicking off.

 

I doubt it. Brian Gerrish and the UK Column are best left out of these matters in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it. Brian Gerrish and the UK Column are best left out of these matters in my opinion.

 

Unfortunately, CD, Common Purpose are a very real organisation and I and others have come across their "graduates" in local authorities causing chaos. When asked if they had been on a Matrix course, one of them freely admitted to having been on the CP Matrix course. Additionally, some of the more insidious activities I have come across, e.g. engineering rent arrears/benefit overpayments, have been shown to be down to those who are CP "graduates". Be in no doubt, CP is a cancer that needs removing. I have no doubt the recent referendum vote has brought out the more vociferous elements within CP.

 

You can also identify them when they tell you that ECHR and the HRA doesn't apply to them and then nigh on mess their underwear when a few well-chosen questions bring them back to reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CP needs eliminating, it has no place in a supposedly democratic society. Now a curve ball, is Bohill CP, he certainly acts CP as in ultra vires any authority?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the arrogance that still gets me!! Bohill was so sure he would not face sanction for illegal entry he was happy to have it shown primetime.

 

If an EA acts beyond his powers/warrant then he surely commits a criminal offence? Assault and criminal trespass or something

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the arrogance that still gets me!! Bohill was so sure he would not face sanction for illegal entry he was happy to have it shown primetime.

 

If an EA acts beyond his powers/warrant then he surely commits a criminal offence? Assault and criminal trespass or something

 

In order to enjoy the legal protection a warrant confers, an EA must comply with the conditions attached to the warrant. The moment the EA deviates from the conditions, the legal protection ceases to have effect. This means the EA is open to civil litigation or criminal prosecution, as the case may be.

 

The use of physical violence against an alleged debtor in order to gain entry is unacceptable and illegal and the EA could be facing a charge of anything from Common Assault to Unlawful or Malicious Wounding.

 

An EA claiming to be an HCEO or executing a HC writ when, in fact, he is executing a warrant of control and secures the assistance of ignorant police officers to help him gain entry to residential property may well be committing an offence of Burglary Artifice.

 

An EA who attempts to evict someone using a Writ No. 66 when the identities of the occupants of a property are known to the mortgagee/landlord is ultra vires ab initio. That could give rise to a charge of Using A False Instrument With Intent to Deceive (Section 3, Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the arrogance that still gets me!! Bohill was so sure he would not face sanction for illegal entry he was happy to have it shown primetime.

 

If an EA acts beyond his powers/warrant then he surely commits a criminal offence? Assault and criminal trespass or something

 

Hence why I have heard Bohill referred to as Bonehead. I have witnessed Bulbous Brian cross the line or come near to crossing the line a few times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the arrogance that still gets me!! Bohill was so sure he would not face sanction for illegal entry he was happy to have it shown primetime.

 

If an EA acts beyond his powers/warrant then he surely commits a criminal offence? Assault and criminal trespass or something

 

Agreed caledfwlch, but the powers that police simply do not have the resources or the time to carry through prosecutions for things like this. If it were someone other than a bailiff they would find the time.

 

I don't deny the existence of Common Purpose Old Bill. I just think it's easy to use it as a scapegoat for unprofessional actions by bailiffs, and the inability of the police to do anything due to being under-resourced.

 

If you have solid proof of criminal acts being committed because of Common Purpose, as an ex-policeman, surely you know the right thing to do is to report them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I feel this is going off topic with all this Common Purpose tosh.

 

Yep! As said above, if people have solid evidence of criminal acts, it should be passed to the police.

 

That's not to say actions shouldn't be brought against rogue bailiffs, as you'd agree. The fact that often they are not is down to resources though, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and this is not aimed at anybody in particular but it doesn't have to be the debtor that makes a complaint to the Police or the Court.

 

If you believe there has been a breach of law, have the evidence and feel that passionately about it then stop writing and moaning about it on forums and do something yourself!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed caledfwlch, but the powers that police simply do not have the resources or the time to carry through prosecutions for things like this. If it were someone other than a bailiff they would find the time.

 

I don't deny the existence of Common Purpose Old Bill. I just think it's easy to use it as a scapegoat for unprofessional actions by bailiffs, and the inability of the police to do anything due to being under-resourced.

 

If you have solid proof of criminal acts being committed because of Common Purpose, as an ex-policeman, surely you know the right thing to do is to report them.

 

The lack of professionalism by bailiffs is down to the industry not addressing the issue effectively and letting things slide. Common Purpose tend to lurk in the background and mess things about so the first anyone knows something is not right is when the bailiff turns up, claiming to be enforcing a warrant, when no proceedings or debt registration has taken place. CP "graduates" have been caught misleading DJs in the County Court and caught the sharp edge of the DJ's tongue. Others have been caught engaged in harassment against vulnerable people and been sacked or been made the subject of restraining orders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and this is not aimed at anybody in particular but it doesn't have to be the debtor that makes a complaint to the Police or the Court.

 

If you believe there has been a breach of law, have the evidence and feel that passionately about it then stop writing and moaning about it on forums and do something yourself!

 

I was speaking to a senior police officer a few weeks ago who asked me if there was any way they could get a bailiff's certificate cancelled. When I explained the EAC2 procedure to them, they were surprised that such a procedure existed - no-one at chief officer level had told them about it. It make one wonder if there is a reason the officer I was talking to was kept in the dark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Common Purpose tend to lurk in the background and mess things about so the first anyone knows something is not right is when the bailiff turns up, claiming to be enforcing a warrant, when no proceedings or debt registration has taken place. CP "graduates" have been caught misleading DJs in the County Court and caught the sharp edge of the DJ's tongue. Others have been caught engaged in harassment against vulnerable people and been sacked or been made the subject of restraining orders.

 

Can you provide detailed and verified proof of this codswallop? This all sounds like Freeman clap trap to me.

 

I'd suggest you start a new thread exposing it all...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the OP of this thread has never returned since January...thread now moved to Discussions Forum.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2731 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...