Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • mcol always has fits on a W/ends   try Monday when its gets reset.   dx  
    • Name of the Claimant ? Capquest Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 10/10/19 Your acknowledgment of service was received on 25/10/2019 at 16:05:14 Your defence was submitted on 07/11/2019 at 09:55:10 Your defence was received on 07/11/2019 at 12:05:11   Particulars of Claim Not sure how to view this at the moment, as its not listed on the views I can see online. Will route out the paper copies and update in the morning. It is a Shop Direct / Littlewoods   What is the total value of the claim?   £3000   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes - Which I ignored as it might have been within the 6 years for SBD Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? NA Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Yes - catalogue When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After, in 2009 Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ? Only have CreditKarma - which it showed on until recently , but not anymore Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Capquest Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I can't remember getting one Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Probably, but it was a while ago so not sure Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No Why did you cease payments? in 2013. Not sure exactly but it was early in the year. What was the date of your last payment? Early 2013   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? In 2013 early, but they never accepted.
    • Thanks Andyorch.   Damn. I misunderstood your comments on post #170 about timescales. I read "don't let a claimant impost time deadlines.........they impose the time limit because they have to pay the hearing fee". I can print a letter tomorrow and get it back first class though so they will received it Tuesday.   Is it a case of just filling in their 1-page paperwork/income/expenditure form (as we've gone through the CCCS/Stepchange, I will just add in the same figures which are correct) and wait for their reply? Or should I include a letter?   Also, if £2947 is owed, is there a sensible amount to propose owing such as the £1500 over 60 months which has been suggested?   Thanks    
    • So, after several months, got response back from Aviva. "We confirm that Aviva is not responsible for investigating sale of PPI. This is because policy was arranged & sold by EPF. They were therefore acting as your agent in this matter; there was no agency agreement between Aviva & this firm so Aviva cannot accept responsibility for any advice that they might have given.  HSBC are responsible for investigating these complaints, so I have sent them your details and have asked them to contact you.  Although Hamiton Life, now part of the Aviva group, were the underwriter of the policy in question , we were not responsible for the sale, or any associated lending. As such, you should direct any enquiry regarding undisclosed commissions to the lender who provided the finance that the PPI was protecting to progress this element of the complaint". So where do I go from here? I contacted HSBC again before deadline, got response back from them saying they were not responsible either. 
    • Thought this had gone away but Llowell have sent a letter to my daughters address, I have never lived there and although I moved address 18 months ago all my mail was being redirected so I know they have never sent anything to the address the contract was under.   They must have checked my credit file for some reason as many years ago I took out a contract phone with 3 mobile in my name for my daughter as a present and paid it for the first year she has paid it ever since.   The letter is giving me 30 days to make contact or they may issue a claim. The amount they are asking for is £794.00   I intend to write to them asking for a detailed break down of the invoice and for a copy of the assigment notice as they say the account has been assigned to them.   Should I be asking for a copy that should have been sent to me by EE? I dont understand why they would write to me at my daughters when all correspondence in the past fromm EE and Moorcroft has been to my previous (the contract) address unless they were trying to get a back door ccj.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1669 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

It would appear that this completely unqualified individual is now offering legal services to judgment debtors whereby he claims to be able to "Stop your High Court Writ" for £125.

 

Having read many of his posts here in the past and on his various websites and forums it is clear that this person has little to no understanding of this area of law and is no doubt costing genuine judgment debtors looking for help.

 

In the past we have had sight of his assistance and whilst on the most part it is just worthless nonsense on several occasions it has actually cost the debtor considerable sums that would not have been payable without Jason's involvement.

 

A new page on his website laughably states:

 

Coming soon end of July 2015.

 

How it works.

 

1. Complete a fact-find to see if your writ or circumstances qualify for this service.

 

2. Complete a short online questionnaire

 

3. Payment

 

4. Sign and take (or post) your documents to court

 

5. Kibosh! Your writ - and the enforcement power - is stopped!

 

 

Where possible, I will also get your original county court judgment set aside as well!

 

 

It will be interesting to see what the SRA make of this.

Edited by ploddertom
Link removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears He is also in cahoots with a well known freeman called jay bradley (formerly of beat the bailiffs) who has recently set up a ltd company called mary the clamp fairy ltd and is offering his services through a facebook page called the bailiff bible which has the dealing with bailiffs logo on it...


None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread will probably be removed. But my understanding is that there is no law against giving unqualified legal advice online, provided you do not make false claims about qualifications or legal standing. There are also no laws relating to online bailiff advice sites, even if they charge fees.

 

I think government should look at tightening the law. If you charge fees for advice, these should be subject to appropriate regulation.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the SRA is concerned, they will do precisely nothing, he has no legal qualifications and operates as a Mckenzie.

 

His fees are £100 to draft a skeleton and £500 to speak at a hearing, the fact that in most case the judges do not let him speak does not seem to stop him charging this fee, generally he tells his"client" that it is recoverable from the other side which is of course a lie.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to feel sorry for what appears to be gullible or vulnerable debtors that fall for this. Its usually people with little or no money that try to use this, and its just adds more debt onto the original debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to feel sorry for what appears to be gullible or vulnerable debtors that fall for this. Its usually people with little or no money that try to use this, and its just adds more debt onto the original debt.

 

Yes as one of his compatriots pointed out he shows no contrition or regret for the thousands of pounds he costs his clients in costs and fees , to no advantage.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to feel sorry for what appears to be gullible or vulnerable debtors that fall for this. Its usually people with little or no money that try to use this, and its just adds more debt onto the original debt.

 

Don't think I'll be the only one finding a little irony in the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I too can see the irony, BUT I will deal with vulnerable on a case by case basis appropriately. I.e nulla off, rtn as vulnerable, suitable payment arrangements etc. The last thing I want to do is lose my certificate by being harsh. Id rather earn a little less but sleep at night.

 

People like that have nothing to lose. There is no one to govern him, no one to complain to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean that one of these is charging fees for a service that cannot work and the other is doing his job, nope sorry i see no comparison.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst we are on the subject, there is talk of a debtor legally !throwing a bailiff off a debtors premisses " a bailiff who is seeking to enforce at an address not mentioned on the warrant.

 

The problem being as I see it is that section in 14 sched 12 mentions nothing about specific premises, the warrant is issue to the person at "relavant premises".

 

Entry without warrant(ie general power under warrant writ or enactment)

 

14(1)An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods.

 

relevant premises are defined as;

 

(6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—

(a)usually lives, or

(b)carries on a trade or business.

 

The place the debtor usually lives.

 

So at initial visit the address on the order warrant or enactment is not relevant, it only becomes so when the warrant is issued under section 15 to specific premises, maybe a lock up or alternative place of storage.

 

I fail to see how under these circumstances a debtor can legally assault a bailiff ?


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears He is also in cahoots with a well known freeman called jay bradley (formerly of beat the bailiffs) who has recently set up a ltd company called mary the clamp fairy ltd and is offering his services through a facebook page called the bailiff bible which has the dealing with bailiffs logo on it...

 

Jay Bradley is James John Bradley and for a while now he has been running an operation called Mary the Clamp Fairy and it would seem that when contacted by a 'victim' he offers to telephone the enforcement agent and ask him to remove a car clamp that he considers has been put on a vehicle 'unlawfully'. If the clamp is not removed, he will attend and remove the clamp and film the event and threaten that the film will appear on YouTube.

 

On 15th July he registered the buisness as a Limited Company and it would seem that he even provided his home address for the business.

 

You are correct in that another person has decided to join the Facebook 'bandwagon' and the new page is called Bailiff Bible. This site openly encourages members of the public to upload videos of visits by enforcement visits onto the Freeman on the Lands favorite media outlet...YouTube.

 

Both the Bailiff Bible and James Bradley are posting links back and forth to each other to advertise each others business and it is generally believed that both people are 'known to each other'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again based on a basic misunderstanding of the legislation, no seizure is illegal until a judge or a creditor says it is.

 

The act is clear it is for the bailiff to decide, if he immobilizes a vehicle and he honestly believes the goods are suitable, then at that point the seizures legal ,until a representation has been made to a EA/creditor or court says otherwise, until this happens removal of a clamp is illegal and can trigger a claim under section 68.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can call themselves a doctor but when caught out attempting to practice as one they end up behind bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst we are on the subject, there is talk of a debtor legally !throwing a bailiff off a debtors premisses " a bailiff who is seeking to enforce at an address not mentioned on the warrant.

 

The problem being as I see it is that section in 14 sched 12 mentions nothing about specific premises, the warrant is issue to the person at "relavant premises".

 

Entry without warrant(ie general power under warrant writ or enactment)

 

14(1)An enforcement agent may enter relevant premises to search for and take control of goods.

 

relevant premises are defined as;

 

(6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—

(a)usually lives, or

(b)carries on a trade or business.

 

The place the debtor usually lives.

 

So at initial visit the address on the order warrant or enactment is not relevant, it only becomes so when the warrant is issued under section 15 to specific premises, maybe a lock up or alternative place of storage.

 

I fail to see how under these circumstances a debtor can legally assault a bailiff ?

I notice some have woken up to Jason and his money making schemes it is about time the rest did also, for the good of the people you are purporting to help.

 

There is also this

 

Remedies available to the debtor

 

66(1)This paragraph applies where an enforcement agent—

(a)breaches a provision of this Schedule, or

(b)acts under an enforcement power under a writ, warrant, liability order or other instrument that is defective.

(2)The breach or defect does not make the enforcement agent, or a person he is acting for, a trespasser.

 

It matters not if there was a breach in regulation the bailiff is not considered a trespasser in any case so there is no legal cause for any manhandling.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would appear that this completely unqualified individual is now offering legal services to judgment debtors whereby he claims to be able to "Stop your High Court Writ" for £125.

 

Having read many of his posts here in the past and on his various websites and forums it is clear that this person has little to no understanding of this area of law and is no doubt costing genuine judgment debtors looking for help.

 

In the past we have had sight of his assistance and whilst on the most part it is just worthless nonsense on several occasions it has actually cost the debtor considerable sums that would not have been payable without Jason's involvement.

 

A new page on his website laughably states:

 

Coming soon end of July 2015.

 

How it works.

 

1. Complete a fact-find to see if your writ or circumstances qualify for this service.

 

2. Complete a short online questionnaire

 

3. Payment

 

4. Sign and take (or post) your documents to court

 

5. Kibosh! Your writ - and the enforcement power - is stopped!

 

 

Where possible, I will also get your original county court judgment set aside as well!

 

 

It will be interesting to see what the SRA make of this.

 

I was waiting to receive a copy of a judgment before posting details of yet another substantial costs order imposed on a debtor after using this person's 'Law Firm'.

 

This judgment has once again highlighted the seriousness of unqualified individuals calling themselves 'lawyers' and representing debtors as 'Professional McKenzie Friends'.

 

In a leading article in the Law Gazette today the Bar Council are stating the paid McKenzie Friends should not be allowed to speak in court (link below).

 

 

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/mckenzie-friends-rebuff-from-bar/5050114.article

 

 

In light of this latest judgment, I was contacted by an individual on Friday with details of a person at the SRA who complaints should be directed to. I will PM contact details to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay Bradley is James John Bradley and for a while now he has been running an operation called Mary the Clamp Fairy and it would seem that when contacted by a 'victim' he offers to remove car clamps that he considers have been put on a vehicle 'unlawfully'. On 15th July he registered the buisness as a Limited Company and it would seem that he even provided his home address for the business.

 

This clamp removal business is clearly engaging in very serious criminal behaviour and it is generally well known that various regulatory bodies and the police are aware of the 'business' and the way in which the company remove a clamp from a vehicle and then threaten the enforcement company that unless a payment of approx £2,000 is paid to the 'Clamp Fairy' that court action will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason you really must stop, the addresses previously used has no baring as any address occupied is allowable

 

(6)Otherwise premises are relevant if the enforcement agent reasonably believes that they are the place, or one of the places, where the debtor—

(a)usually lives, or

(b)carries on a trade or business.

 

Quoting ancient case law quoted out of context wont help either you have gotten away with that long enough the TCE is all that matters in these cases.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately anyone can call themselves a lawyer.

yes if only the analogy held here,unfortunately a judge aid that it ii OK for anyone to call themselves a lawyer, sorry I forget which case, i bet BA has it.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This clamp removal business is clearly engaging in very serious criminal behaviour and it is generally well known that various regulatory bodies and the police are aware of the 'business' and the way in which the company remove a clamp from a vehicle and then threaten the enforcement company that unless a payment of approx £2,000 is paid to the 'Clamp Fairy' that court action will follow.

 

Overnight I have received a number of messages regarding this company and it's Director and screenshots of posts made by this person on the Beat the Bailiffs Facebook page and it would seem that Jay Brad (as he prefers to be called) considers that as he trades under a Limited Company that he is immune from prosecution. It seems as if many posters disagree with him and urged him to change the address of his company. He believes that as long as he does not damage the wheel clamp that he cannot be prosecuted. Clearly he has either not read or understood section 68.2 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts & Enforcement Act which states as follows:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12/part/2/crossheading/offences?view=plain

 

68

 

1. A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

2. A person is guilty of an offence if he
intentionally interferes
with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several complaints to Facebook about the page content and about the blatant advertising should go a long way to putting a stop on this. That would be the easiest way to stop his dubious activities.

 

Facebook do not like advertising for illegal activities and I think that complaining might work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Several complaints to Facebook about the page content and about the blatant advertising should go a long way to putting a stop on this. That would be the easiest way to stop his dubious activities.

 

Facebook do not like advertising for illegal activities and I think that complaining might work.

 

Facebook would want to charge them the relevant rate.

 

The internet really is the wild west at the moment. So many dodgy sites, scams, ransomware, hacking of personal information, trolling. I don't think it is a safe place for children or people who are vulnerable. If this was happening in local high streets, it would have Police and Trading Standards involved.

 

The trouble is that internet sites that claim to solve problems are likely to be very attractive. They offer solutions that are not mentioned on CAB, CAG or National Debtline. The information sounds so plausible with law and cases cited, that people take it as being valid to deal with their problem. They don't stop to think why other more official advice sites are saying something different.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a read of my attachment in full then read part 3 from 12 onwards again.. Then read schedule 2 for more details on the subject...


If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook are a law unto themselves, I know of a couple of people who have had normal pics taken down and banned.

 

I complained about a lot of homophobic posters a while ago and was told there was nothing wrong with the content of their posts - which stated that if you supported gay marriage you were going against certain religious beliefs and would end up in hell and adding the comment that 'you were no friend of mine'. I took the hint and unfriended the people posting that drivel.

 

On the subject of bailiff prevention sites I have had a bit of spam email (now deleted) about stopping bailiffs visiting by simply sticking a letter on your door...next time I get an email like that I will post it on CAG - as we know it is not as simple as that.

 

I do have a bailiff friend who frequently ends up getting into trouble for returning too many 'vulnerable' debts - as he said there is nothing you can do if people clearly don't have any money, or fancy goods to take, or live in their own heavily mortgaged property

 

The whole bailiff scene needs re-looking at and re-working into a more workable model than the one they already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason, as for" getting it wrong again", perhaps if you let me debate these matter directly you would see that i do not get these things wrong, however I fully understand why you cannot. YOur business intersts would be untenable if you let someone who actually understand the law in this area question some of your absurd ideas.

 

I have no personal axe to grind with anyone, my only concern has ever been protecting innocent consumers.

 

Incidentally i do not get things wrong, despite mocking remarks on your site if you had listened to me in the past, how many thousands of pounds would your clients have saved, think about it.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone in contact with or able to contact any of the victims thought of advising them to go to the Police?

 

These companies/individuals are taking payments to provide services they know are unlawful/do not work, so, surely that is Fraud? They are gaining a financial advantage through deception.


[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1669 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
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...