Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Bailiff Advice

Bailiff enforcement...McKenzie Friends and their attendance at Magistrate Court hearings.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1511 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

Just 3 months ago I started a new thread on here to highlight the problems that debtors face when taking advice from the internet to issue court claims against bailiff companies or local authorities. In that thread (a copy of which is below) I highlighted the outcome of yet another court failure where the debtor once again lost his case in court and was ordered to pay the local authorities (London Borough of Southwark) legal costs of £4,399.

 

In the above case it was revealed that the debtor was charged £2060 in fees by this highly unqualified McKenze Friend who has an appalling history of court failures behind him.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?452784-More-legal-cases-against-bailiff-companies-lost-in-court-after-taking-legal-advice-from-the-internet-!!

 

It would seem that during December he has been involved in two further court failures. Interestingly in the very latest one, he claims to have represented the debtor at the Magistrates Court hearing in relation to a criminal complaint. It would seem that the Magistrate refused to allow him to either address the court or to 'cross examine the witnesses'!!!

 

According to the written report from the McKenzie Friend the Magistrate was extremely critical of the defendant and considered that he was lying to the court and that consequently, the McKenzie friend:

 

 

"executed the procedure to force the trial to be aborted and be re-listed for a new trial"

 

and that:

 

"Im due to Mackenzie again for him, but if I'm declined a second time, then I have a solicitor ready to be pulled from a hat there and then and execute the defence structured on a crown court appeal"

 

What is particularly alarming about this is that with very limited exception, the use of a McKenzie Friend is restricted to County Court proceedings !!!

Edited by Andyorch
Guru removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is particularly alarming about this is that with very limited exception, the use of a McKenzie Friend is restricted to County Court proceedings !!!

 

In 2010 the Master of the Rolls issued official guidance on the use of McKenzie Friends. The opening paragraph of the Guidance states the following:

 

This Guidance applies to civil and family proceedings in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), the High Court of Justice, the County Courts
and the Family Proceedings Court in the Magistrates’ Courts.

 

It is issued as guidance (not as a Practice Direction) by the Master of the Rolls, as Head of Civil Justice, and the President of the Family Division, as Head of Family Justice.

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/mckenzie-friends-practice-guidance-july-2010.pdf

 

As outlined in the above Guidance, McKenzie Friends may be used in Magistrate Court cases where the matter is in relation to Family Proceedings Court applications. Such hearings are in relation to the Children's Act 1989 and where the majority of McKenzie Friends are representatives of the well know support group 'Fathers need Families'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps new years resolution, is not to mention the 'guru' site on CAG, as there will always be people who are taken in by the information held on the internet, believing it to be 'magic trick' that will achieve the result they want.

 

I really don't understand the legality in selling a legal service online, when not a legally qualified person and not registered with a regulatory body. I cannot believe that Trading Standards or other such body have not looked into the legal situation to see whether any case can be made.


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
Perhaps new years resolution, is not to mention the 'guru' site on CAG, as there will always be people who are taken in by the information held on the internet, believing it to be 'magic trick' that will achieve the result they want.

 

His name will never be mentioned on here and neither will his forum.

 

The thread though will be picked up by Google rankings and hopefully may assist any other debtors considering the use of a McKenzie Friend in Magistrate Court proceedings (most usually in relation to cases where a person has been convicted of cutting off a wheel clamp). As confirmed by the McKenzie himself, the court refused to allow him to address the court. Hopefully when his case is re listed for trial he will be properly represented by a qualified solicitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought it was mentioned in the first comment to this thread. Perhaps 2016 can be the year the 'guru' site is permanently moved to Coventry !


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
Perhaps new years resolution, is not to mention the 'guru' site on CAG, as there will always be people who are taken in by the information held on the internet, believing it to be 'magic trick' that will achieve the result they want.

 

I really don't understand the legality in selling a legal service online, when not a legally qualified person and not registered with a regulatory body. I cannot believe that Trading Standards or other such body have not looked into the legal situation to see whether any case can be made.

 

 

Some have tried and failed to shut the site down, but hey ho buyer beware.... You get what you pay for whether its right or wrong.

 

 

Some McKenzie Friends are good at what they do, to show you please see here @ paragraphs 6/7 http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/dec/17/revealed-divorce-software-error-to-hit-thousands-of-settlements

 

 

Finally on this subject if the authorities do nothing about the advice given on that site then why does a particular person keep trying so hard to shut them down? Why doesn't the OP start their own blog to make their concerns public? Just an observation here that's all.

 

 

In post #4 line one is clearly wrong as this has been mentioned more times than I can count....

 

 

What is the OP's reasoning behind their chain of thought? As far as I am aware anyone can obtain and pay for any advice you wish, then it is up to the person getting the advice whether or not to follow what is given is it not. So ultimately it is the responsibility of the person TAKING that advice not those giving it, whether paid for or not.... The fact that it is paid for advice doesn't mean the advice is right....

 

 

emptor cavete - buyer beware


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
Some have tried and failed to shut the site down, but hey ho buyer beware.... You get what you pay for whether its right or wrong.

 

Why doesn't the OP start their own blog to make their concerns public? Just an observation here that's all.

 

What is the OP's reasoning behind their chain of thought? ]

 

What needs to be remembered is that that this part of the forum is a DISCUSSION THREAD and for that reason, if anyone wishes to take part in a discussion about the SUBJECT matter (McKenzie Friends and whether or not they are permitted right of audience in criminal cases in the Magistrates Courts) then their contribution is most welcome. If they don't have any contribution to the subject matter then they need no post. It is that simple.

 

What we should not be doing though is criticising fellow posters.

 

PS: In fact, I do now have my own blog covering various different subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am contributing as far as I can see. I just asked a question why you have such views on this subject. It is always up to the Bench/Judge whether to or not to allow a MF to address the Court we all know this. Or is it because it is your well know enemy?

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/represent-yourself-in-court/overview

 

 

There was a case in the main Courts in London regarding this matter heard/handed down on the 23 I think


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

I just don't understand your role in trying to stop a particular MF from being in/at Court for any case? That's not up to you to decide that's way out of your hands or right to complain....


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

In my initial post to put a link in for you to read. This MF has found something of great interest did you read it?


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
What needs to be remembered is that that this part of the forum is a DISCUSSION THREAD and for that reason, if anyone wishes to take part in a discussion about the SUBJECT matter (McKenzie Friends and whether or not they are permitted right of audience in criminal cases in the Magistrates Courts) then their contribution is most welcome. If they don't have any contribution to the subject matter then they need no post. It is that simple.

 

What we should not be doing though is criticising fellow posters.

 

PS: In fact, I do now have my own blog covering various different subjects.

 

 

Far from criticising you BA I just asked some questions on this topic, you chose to have a go I just was looking for some answers. As this is a discussion thread. Out of the 64.1m people in the UK why do you spend so much time talking about just one that gives a paid for service that may be right or wrong? How many MF are there registered in the UK? Why not talk about one of them?


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

Evening all and a belated happy new year.#

 

Not referring to whoever is certainly a good idea.

 

I think the train of thought to provide information to stimulate discussion, as per the heading.

I do not think that buyer beware covers this either TBH. This is usually applicable to goods which are "sold as seen", not to advice which is given under a false representation.


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

Since I like to get information on this subject I took BAs thoughts and did a quick Google search. I think I have found their blog by using the name followed by blogs, so it looks like this ****** ******* blogs and found it so I will go for a while to have a long read up thanks for the added info back later....


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
I am contributing as far as I can see. I just asked a question why you have such views on this subject. It is always up to the Bench/Judge whether to or not to allow a MF to address the Court we all know this. Or is it because it is your well know enemy?

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/represent-yourself-in-court/overview

 

 

There was a case in the main Courts in London regarding this matter heard/handed down on the 23 I think

 

We have seen this before MM it contains this

What McKenzie Friends may not do

4) MFs may not: i) act as the litigants’ agent in relation to the proceedings; ii)

manage litigants’ cases outside court, for example by signing court

documents; or iii) address the court, make oral submissions or examine

witnesses.

 

Sorry what was your point again ?


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 ia really old news. What is disturbing is the current idea that someone who has been advising the debtor can then get themselves called as an expert witness in order to claim cost.

This is even worse and absolute bull. No one can advise a party to an action and then act as a expert witness, it would be contra to the intention of the court, he would be making judgement on the validity of his own advice.

Anyway he would have to be considered an expert by the court. Hardly likely in most cases I have seen on the web.

 

Just another attempt to convince hapless debtors thqt they will be able to reclaim the MFs fees through the court.


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

Happy New Year DB/BA/BN I forgot to say.

 

 

DB its a crazy world we live in and its all about the money one can get from another. All one can do is put the information out there and hope for the best!

 

 

I cant wait for the Courts to open Monday as it has been rather boring during Xmas, time to catch up on items of interest..... This is going to be one of the many questions I hope the bench/Clerk can answer... As Monday is student day here...


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
Happy New Year DB/BA/BN I forgot to say.

 

 

DB its a crazy world we live in and its all about the money one can get from another. All one can do is put the information out there and hope for the best!

 

.

 

Yes and that is what we are all tying to do.


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

Anyway looks like I will pass on this subject now as I have all I need to know re: MF's It may pay others to look for the case that was handed down on the 23/12/2015 as I may help....


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

Sorry MM no idea what case you are referring to mate, do you have a link or citation ?


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

I am a bit lost as to why the thread title is what it is? Because there is little a MF can do with enforcement or Bailiffs! It looks like two different subjects!

 

 

Bailiff enforcement...McKenzie Friends and their attendance at Magistrate Court hearings.


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

I think the case was Connor or something like that...


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

Jusr to say that personally I am interested in reading about any cases which go through the courts in regards to bailiff enforcement.

I do not think we should restrict ourselves just because some are related to a particular web site. As said this is a discussion group and it is in the public domain


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

The one I said about is on MF and costs


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

Anyway I cannot add to this thread so going to bow out I am afraid....


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
Anyway I cannot add to this thread so going to bow out I am afraid....

 

If you do come across that case please let us know.


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...