More legal cases against bailiff companies lost in court after taking 'legal advice' from the internet !!

[Bailiff Advice]

 

At some point, i can see action being taken, but it might take a complaint being made by Citizens Advice or Which Consumer Association about unregulated paid for advice and services being offered online. I should imagine they might well be interested in hearing about such cases and they might get government/parliament interested in looking at regulation.

 

 

And this is precisely what has happend today.

 

The Judiciary has announced that they are proposing a BAN on fee charging McKenzie Friends (I will post further details shortly in a separate thread).

 

This particular case is an excellent example for the Legal Services Consumer Panel. The debtor in this case, had been charged £2060 by the McKenzie Friend and after publishing details of the case on here, the MK 'claimed' that the debtor was represeted in court by a Barrister and that he (the MK) had merely been in attendance to take notes for the Barrister.

 

This is disputed by the Judgment which confirms that the Claimant was a Litigant in Person.

Failed Part 85 Claim. Larnyou v LB Southwrak and Newlyn Plc.pdf

[wonkeydonkey]

And this is precisely what has happend today.

 

The Judiciary has announced that they are proposing a BAN on fee charging McKenzie Friends (I will post further details shortly in a separate thread).

 

This particular case is an excellent example for the Legal Services Consumer Panel. The debtor in this case, had been charged £2060 by the McKenzie Friend and after publishing details of the case on here, the MK 'claimed' that the debtor was represeted in court by a Barrister and that he (the MK) had merely been in attendance to take notes for the Barrister.

 

This is disputed by the Judgment which confirms that the Claimant was a Litigant in Person.

 

Reading back on this thread posters will be able to see the central MF gave much cause for concern with his unlicensed, uninsured activities and this will now go a long way in protecting people from the 'quick buck' unqualified individual who took to call himself an MF.

 

He is obviously disappointed with this decision.(see below) but since the release of BA's document he has quickly reinvented himself to be a 'solicitor trained paralegal'. (another to add to his CV along with commercial pilot, stipendiary magistrate, deep sea diver etc. etc)

"I now have all my clients represented at court by solicitors following the M of J intention to ban fee-charging McKenzie friends.

 

I'm not a solicitor myself. I am a solicitor-trained paralegal and draughtsman, so my role in bailiff advice is one of first point of contact for new clients. I examine the complaint and advise the client the redress options available. I also speak to the bailiff or creditor for the client. If the client needs court proceedings, I draft statements, legal arguments and complete the court forms, then pass them over to a solicitor who completes the ID check and issues the client engagement letter, then starts court proceedings. Many clients originate from solicitors when a member of the public uses the Law Society to source a solicitor for bailiff advice."

 

Could the Dunning -Kruger effect be applicable? I will leave you good people to Google it but, in brief

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to accurately evaluate their own ability level.

[Peterbard]

Just your garden variety delusional narcissistic fantasist.

[ploddertom]

Just your garden variety delusional narcissistic fantasist.

 

 

Oh, so a Daffodil grower then!

[Peterbard]

Probably an expert on that as well

[brassnecked]

Probably an expert on that as well

Is there no end to the man's talent? Talent in what is open to debate.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

[/i]Could the Dunning -Kruger effect be applicable? I will leave you good people to Google it but, in brief[/color]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to accurately evaluate their own ability level.

 

Fascinating condition.

[wonkeydonkey]

.

Fascinating condition.

 

I can't claim credit for bringing it to the fore, I came across it earlier this week purely by accident when it appeared in a national press article. I just thought it a fitting description of the former MF in question.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

He is obviously disappointed with this decision.(see below) but since the release of BA's document he has quickly reinvented himself to be a 'solicitor trained paralegal'. (another to add to his CV along with commercial pilot, stipendiary magistrate, deep sea diver etc. etc)

 

 

"I now have all my clients represented at court by solicitors following the M of J intention to ban fee-charging McKenzie friends.

 

 

I'm not a solicitor myself. I am a solicitor-trained paralegal and draughtsman, so my role in bailiff advice is one of first point of contact for new clients. I examine the complaint and advise the client the redress options available. I also speak to the bailiff or creditor for the client. If the client needs court proceedings, I draft statements, legal arguments and complete the court forms, then pass them over to a solicitor who completes the ID check and issues the client engagement letter, then starts court proceedings. Many clients originate from solicitors when a member of the public uses the Law Society to source a solicitor for bailiff advice."

 

f

.

 

 

The above statement is very important and I will copy it onto the new thread that has the link to the newly released Consultation.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?460582-Judiciary-seeks-to-ban-fee-charging-McKenzie-Friends-in-order-to-protect-vulnerable-litigants-.

 

For anyone reading this thread (now or in the future) the individual is stating that he is a 'solicitor-trained paralegal'.

 

Firstly:

The truth of the matter is that until only a short while ago, his 'solicitor training' had arisen from his work as a computer programmer for a will writing company.

Secondly:

in relation to his 'claim' that he speaks to the bailiff or creditor, the truth is that the creditors and bailiff companies more often than not, refuse to speak with him. In short, he is ignored by the enforcement industry.

Thirdly:

His 'clients' do not 'need court proceedings'. Instead, he encourages debtors into taking hopeless cases into court as this will enables him to gain a significant financial reward.

And finally:

 

For years now the same individual has 'boasted' of his endless court hearings and payouts from the local authorities or enforcement companies on behalf of creditors. Never once has any evidence been provided and there is a very good reason for this:

 

These claims and court settlements are nothing more than fairy stories. The Dunning-Kruger syndrome fits the bill very nicely.

Edited February 27, 2016 by honeybee13
Name of will writing company removed.

[*RainbowTears*]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to accurately evaluate their own ability level.

 

 

Talk about, Hit the nail on the head alright!!

Edited February 27, 2016 by citizenB
restored quote

[neil_tp]

Kari Anderson v Marston Group Ltd is one that Marston lost,

[wonkeydonkey]

Kari Anderson v Marston Group Ltd is one that Marston lost,

 

Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide full details of the above,. the last we heard there was still an ongoing court case in respect of costs and compensation to the litigant.

[neil_tp]

Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide full details of the above,. the last we heard there was still an ongoing court case in respect of costs and compensation to the litigant.

 

 

The details have already been on CAG, but that proberly doesn't suit certain view points!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Bailiffs-and-High-Court-Enforcement-Officers/viewtopic.php?t=2117&start=70.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Bailiffs-and-High-Court-Enforcement-Officers/viewtopic.php?t=2117&start=70

Edited February 27, 2016 by citizenB

[wonkeydonkey]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?168-Bailiffs-and-High-Court-Enforcement-Officers/viewtopic.php?t=2117&start=70

 

This returns to the current page for me? however since you appear to be a poster of few words. I can only assume you posted in reply to BAs comment

 

For years now the same individual has 'boasted' of his endless court hearings and payouts from the local authorities or enforcement companies on behalf of creditors. Never once has any evidence been provided

 

As I recall there was a lengthy thread relating to this case and Kari Anderson herself confirmed the individual in question played no part in her achievement, so I fail to see how the case you give can be classed as evidence.....

[citizenB]

WD, it might be that someone is trying to link a banned external site - in which case the link will either corrupt or default to CAG forum index.

 

Having searched the internet, it would appear that this claim was a County Court Judgment the outcome of which might be persuasive but doesn't set a precedent, I think ?

Edited February 27, 2016 by citizenB

[neil_tp]

It won't corrupt, but CAG have banned that case I posted a link to, are people paid on CAG to support Marston?

[neil_tp]

This returns to the current page for me? however since you appear to be a poster of few words. I can only assume you posted in reply to BAs comment

 

For years now the same individual has 'boasted' of his endless court hearings and payouts from the local authorities or enforcement companies on behalf of creditors. Never once has any evidence been provided

 

As I recall there was a lengthy thread relating to this case and Kari Anderson herself confirmed the individual in question played no part in her achievement, so I fail to see how the case you give can be classed as evidence.....

 

Has the thread been removed by any chance?

[Bailiff Advice]

Kari Anderson v Marston Group Ltd is one that Marston lost,

 

Anyone that knows me well will know that I have an absolute hatred for misinformation regarding bailiff regulations. The reason for this being that if wrong information is given, it has the real potential to not only increase bailiff fees but to have the debtors goods removed and in the cases of magistrate court cases, their homes being entered by force.

 

I have no intention of being dragged into the above hopeless case but for the avoidance of doubt, the lady only won a very small part of her claim.

 

She was told by the McKenzie that by taking legal proceedings, she would get a 'replacement car'. She was also told that she would get a large payout from Marston Group because her business had closed. She received neither. Instead, all that she received was a refund of storage fees and from memory, she had to pay her own court costs and very hefty fees charged by this McKenzie.

 

I will not be making any further comments about this particular case. If you have any other cases, please post back.

 

PS: There are two sides to every story. What you will get from me is the truth. What you will receive from this McKenzie is a fairytale invented for the purpose only of dragging unsuspecting debtors into pursuing worthless court cases and lining his pockets.

[wonkeydonkey]

She was told by the McKenzie that by taking legal proceedings, she would get a 'replacement car'. She was also told that she would get a large payout from Marston Group because her business had closed. She received neither. Instead, all that she received was a refund of storage fees and from memory, she had to pay her own court costs and very hefty fees charged by this McKenzie.

 

Thanks for that BA. until it was resurrected by neil_tp I had forgotton the case. my last recollection was the MF stating the case was ongoing to recover costs and compensation but I couldn't recall if there was any result to it all.

[Peterbard]

Has the thread been removed by any chance?

 

Probably, and for the same reason this one is likely to be, due to persistent trolling.

It is pointless trying to discuss unsupported information, it is all just rhetoric and misinformation.

The cases on this thread are all supported fact.

[Bailiff Advice]

She was told by the McKenzie that by taking legal proceedings, she would get a 'replacement car'. She was also told that she would get a large payout from Marston Group because her business had closed. She received neither. Instead, all that she received was a refund of storage fees and from memory, she had to pay her own court costs and very hefty fees charged by this McKenzie.

 

Thanks for that BA. until it was resurrected by neil_tp I had forgotton the case. my last recollection was the MF stating the case was ongoing to recover costs and compensation but I couldn't recall if there was any result to it all.

 

No evidence has ever been provided of any further legal action or outcome.

 

As I have said many times, unless evidence is provided, these supposed court claims are fairy tales and a figment of an overactive imagination.

[neil_tp]

Kari Anderson was awarded damages running into tens of thousand of pounds against Marston, your memory is poor, she was awarded her court costs plus half a days pay for loss of earning, Marston had to cough up their female barrister fees, which must have run to another few thousand.

[neil_tp]

Probably, and for the same reason this one is likely to be, due to persistent trolling.

It is pointless trying to discuss unsupported information, it is all just rhetoric and misinformation.

The cases on this thread are all supported fact.

 

You can just look the case up, its in the public domaim. Supported facts, talking of trolling are you devoid of independent thought or do you always support Bailiff advice?

[neil_tp]

She was told by the McKenzie that by taking legal proceedings, she would get a 'replacement car'. She was also told that she would get a large payout from Marston Group because her business had closed. She received neither. Instead, all that she received was a refund of storage fees and from memory, she had to pay her own court costs and very hefty fees charged by this McKenzie.

 

Thanks for that BA. until it was resurrected by neil_tp I had forgotton the case. my last recollection was the MF stating the case was ongoing to recover costs and compensation but I couldn't recall if there was any result to it all.

 

It would appear that yourself and certain others can't recall the case, I find it remarkable that's its the same people even though the facts are on the CAG page in other posts,.

[wonkeydonkey]

Kari Anderson was awarded damages running into tens of thousand of pounds against Marston, your memory is poor, she was awarded her court costs plus half a days pay for loss of earning, Marston had to cough up their female barrister fees, which must have run to another few thousand.

and you can of course substantiate that?