Bailiff enforcement:Debtor 'steals' vehicle from new owner after it had been sold by bailiff company.

[Bailiff Advice]

Am I right in thinking this owner of "last chance saloon" is making substantial monies from all these cases going to court knowing they are likely to fail?

 

In the case today, I was looking back at the highly amateurish correspondence that he drafted for Mr Johnston around 3 years ago (which relies upon 72 different legal cases (one from 1623) and the claim included the Guru's Consultancy Fees of £2,750 together with a further sum of £2,250 for 'legal research' totalling £5,000

 

Since then there would have been considerable additional work (in particular in the lead up to the trial) and I would anticipate that the previous figure of £5,000 would have risen very steeply.

[Peterbard]

Having seen many of the legal arguments presented by that place, I will bet the judge was not best pleased.

[brassnecked]

Having seen many of the legal arguments presented by that place, I will bet the judge was not best pleased.

Judges must be heartily fed up with McKenzies, and this one in particular.

[unclebulgaria67]

In the case today, I was looking back at the highly amateurish correspondence that he drafted for Mr Johnston around 3 years ago (which relies upon 72 different legal cases (one from 1623) and the claim included the Guru's Consultancy Fees of £2,750 together with a further sum of £2,250 for 'legal research' totalling £5,000

 

Since then there would have been considerable additional work (in particular in the lead up to the trial) and I would anticipate that the previous figure of £5,000 would have risen very steeply.

 

I would question the legal position of a someone unqualified providing legal help and charging these fees. If someone set up a shop in the high street selling unqualified advice, they would be shut down very quickly. I suspect Police and Trading Standards would be taking an interest, looking into whether any criminal offence had been committed.

 

At some point parliament will have to look at the law in regard to services offered online, which would not be allowed on high streets.

[ploddertom]

I would suspect Fair Parking is going to get a lot of the blame for this. If it were me and being brought in at the last minute to what seems to have been a poisoned chalice then it should have resulted in that famous Mastermind comment - PASS.

[Bailiff Advice]

I would suspect Fair Parking is going to get a lot of the blame for this. If it were me and being brought in at the last minute to what seems to have been a poisoned chalice then it should have resulted in that famous Mastermind comment - PASS.

 

Fairparking has already commented on this case a few weeks back and will very likely have more to say on the subject once a new thread has been started. However...and for the avoidance of doubt, he concluded assisting Mr Johnston a very long time ago (mid 2011).

[Fair-Parking]

Why on earth would anybody wish to lay blame on me for outcome of a case that surely must have been started long after I severed contact with the individual concerned five years ago?

[brassnecked]

Why on earth would anybody wish to lay blame on me for outcome of a case that surely must have been started long after I severed contact with the individual concerned five years ago?

I certainly wouldn't, as what transpires subsequently from other advice is not your fault so no one should point the finger of blame in your direction.

[wonkeydonkey]

In the case today, I was looking back at the highly amateurish correspondence that he drafted for Mr Johnston around 3 years ago (which relies upon 72 different legal cases (one from 1623) and the claim included the Guru's Consultancy Fees of £2,750 together with a further sum of £2,250 for 'legal research' totalling £5,000

 

Since then there would have been considerable additional work (in particular in the lead up to the trial) and I would anticipate that the previous figure of £5,000 would have risen very steeply.

 

According to the 'Guru' he would have us all believe he came to the case 'late' and therefore played little part in the preparation of it!!

[mightymouse1976]

There certainly needs to be a huge tightening of regulation regarding the fees charged by mckenzie friends as this is highlighting. Far too many people needing specialist legal help but unable to afford fully qualified professionals so turn to these cowboys. Terrifying

[Bailiff Advice]

There certainly needs to be a huge tightening of regulation regarding the fees charged by mckenzie friends as this is highlighting. Far too many people needing specialist legal help but unable to afford fully qualified professionals so turn to these cowboys. Terrifying

 

Given the seriousness of this new case I did start a new thread earlier today.

 

The complainant himself (Mr Johnson) joined the forum this afternoon and posted a very contradictory and rather insulting post. It was a very odd post for him to make and in particular given that my dealings with him back in 2013 were extremely pleasant indeed.

 

I desperately wanted to have the right to reply and had not realised until I started typing that the moderators had removed the entire thread. The timing was regrettable as I was in the process of uploading a copy of the final judgment.

 

Given that this thread concerns a different subject, I will refrain from making any further posts.

[brassnecked]

Mr Johnson probably had the post part written as he named the Guru in it. Anyway might be better to let sleeping dogs lie, and we will have to search for the judgment.

[Bailiff Advice]

Mr Johnson probably had the post part written as he named the Guru in it. Anyway might be better to let sleeping dogs lie, and we will have to search for the judgment.

 

It is further regrettable that his post from here has been reposted on another social media site but strangely, it has been posted by the McKenzie himself (as opposed to the claimant), Thereby of course blocking the claimant from answering any queries.

[brassnecked]

It is further regrettable that his post from here has been reposted on another social media site but strangely, it has been posted by the McKenzie himself (as opposed to the claimant), Thereby of course blocking the claimant from answering any queries.

Which makes me feel the post was the work of the McKenzie, shame about the judgment not being posted.

 

If the post is indeed in the wild, then it makes the mods on here look silly for deleting it, but then maybe that was what the Guru calculated they would do, so they have been pwned.

[Peterbard]

Which makes me feel the post was the work of the McKenzie, shame about the judgment not being posted.

 

If the post is indeed in the wild, then it makes the mods on here look silly for deleting it, but then maybe that was what the Guru calculated they would do, so they have been pwned.

 

No he isn't that clever. All they have done is distract interest away from the fact that another person has been screwed by the court due to bad advice being given on there. Usually, they just resort to silly name calling and endless searches into people s personal history this time, they are doing that and this also, same ole same ole

[brassnecked]

No he isn't that clever. All they have done is distract interest away from the fact that another person has been screwed by the court due to bad advice being given on there. Usually, they just resort to silly name calling and endless searches into people s personal history this time, they are doing that and this also, same ole same ole

I would write a limerick about him but the Guru would probably try to sue me, or denigrate me in the Flame Pit of his benighted site..

[Fair-Parking]

Given that I apparently am fairly central to the incoherent and wholly imaginary ramblings of the person on another forum, it would have been nice to have read what was said here and to have the chance to place on record what did happen all those years ago. I was out for most of yesterday and have been deprived of being acquainted with whatever was being portrayed as' fact' before it was flushed down the toilet.

 

As WD observed there is difference moderation and censorship - indeed a vast difference. This constant interfering censorship by those who run this forum is the reason that I rarely post here any more. This is supposed to be the Consumer ACTION Forum

 

This forum must understand that we are quite capable of defending ourselves and that the only thing that has been achieved by deleting this thread is that the opportunity for those who did know the facts of the case to place them on record has been once again denied.

 

The lead has been forfeited to somebody who is fighting to save the credibility only he and his foolish inner circle believe he possesses when the description 'pathetic little object' may be considered to be vastly more apt

[Peterbard]

 

The lead has been forfeited to somebody who is fighting to save the credibility

 

I think, that ship sailed long ago.

[Bailiff Advice]

Definitely WD. Thread should be restored.

 

I am actually very relaxed about it and take the view that we are merely guests on somebody else's forum and they can decide whether or not to delete a post, close a thread or even remove the thread. That is their decision.

 

Anyone that knows me will know that I have only ever told the truth and I did so yesterday.

 

I was convinced in 2013 that the claimants position was seriously hampered by relying upon internet advice and referring in his complaint to at least 72 different legal cases (most of which had no relevance whatsoever).

 

It was confirmed yesterday by his MK that the claimant was unable to provide evidence to support his claim to loss of earnings or even evidence that music masters or a mixing desk were in the boot of the car. I wish that I had known this in 2013.

 

In any event, this morning I have emailed the claimant and provided him with a copy of his email to me from 2013 with all the supporting documentation. He can then see for himself that my comments yesterday were correct.

[unclebulgaria67]

I have said before that these battles between the usual people are a waste of time.

 

Trying to convince your adversary, would be a bit like convincing David Icke that there is no grand conspiracy keeping the public in the dark about aliens visiting the Earth. Those that want to believe something will do so. David Icke has filled Wembley talking about his various theories.

 

There is plenty of information online providing correct information, including on CAG.

[Peterbard]

I agree with the above in principle, but the situation here is not so simple.

 

Is it suggested that we do not report cases truthfully because they originate from the same cause or because there may be attempted intimidation and name calling ?

[unclebulgaria67]

I agree with the above in principle, but the situation here is not so simple.

 

Is it suggested that we do not report cases truthfully because they originate from the same cause or because there may be attempted intimidation and name calling ?

 

These cases are not widely reported in media. It just happens that someone well known to this site is involved and it is felt necessary for there to be a response. CAG is not the place for a Solicitor acting for enforcement companies to have an online platform via some who contribute to CAG. There is no question that a contiributor to CAG is getting information from a source close to enforcement companies who has attended various court cases,

 

I suspect that the other thread was removed because CAG was being dragged into another online spat between various parties.

 

At some point people will recognise the futile nature of this and that it is not informing the public. Stick to the basic facts of court cases that are being heard involving enforcement and what might be helpful to people having problems with enforcement.

[Peterbard]

You can presume what you like. This section is about bailiff matters and these cases are undoubtedly bailiff related.

 

I personally would welcome a solicitors input or any other informed entity, I presume you prefer ignorance.

 

I for one want to know about cases which are brought to court, i couldn't care a fig where the information is from as long as it is accurate.

your last paragraph makes little more sense, if it should be about correctly informing the public, does not this mean to ensure that the public are not misinformed

 

I suppose it is all about the right to exercise opinion, you seem to have no problem excers=cising yours i notice, why not allow others the same courtesy.

[Leakie]

Ouch lol

[Coughdrop]

Bitter!