Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • hahah except I can't locate the courier to frighten them with it hahaha   
    • Dx100uk according to the ICO office, who I spoke to at some length earlier today after getting the email from the court, Equita are the data controller if they have instructed the contracted EA. The ICO have noted the case, and stated very clearly that the court has the higher standing in terms of dealing with, and punishing either party if they fail to adhere to the district judges order and any action they take will not be criminal.    but they also stated very clearly that with what I’ve told them, and on the basis of accepting what I’ve told them as gospel (which it is with written confirmation from both the courts and the police) then there is some major red flags being raised on both sides with them blaming each other.    they’ve advised me to essentially keep my powder dry until there is a charging decision and an outcome from the seperate proceedings with the EAC2 complaint, and then come back to them with the case and they will be in a stronger position to act against Equita and the EA as there will be established facts and evidence that have already been laid before a court.     
    • urm.. i seem to recall another assault case whereby the approved bailiff company claimed the body camera was nor theirs but a pers one of the bailiff, i think they got in serious trouble for it. i believe that breaks certain gov't approval for a bailiff company/firm regulations/laws  if memory serves me right?
    • have a look at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/451423-pra-letter-of-claim-old-barclaycard-debt/?do=findComment&comment=5256506 the docs in this thread are what you should get. if the agreement the correct date for signup and does the PRA or BC cover letter use the word reconstructed? dx
    • sounds like lesley. They'll respond some rubbish I'm sure.  
  • 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

Debtor given 12 months suspended prison sentence after threatening bailiffs with knives and a fake gun.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2724 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 following is a short extract from a press release that featured on SCOOP yesterday regarding the trial of a debtor (Danny Williamson) who threatened bailiffs with knives and an imitation gun when they attended his property seeking payment of £1,100 for a fine relating to alleged traffic offences.

 

From the report, it would seem that the debtor had claimed that he had not known of the debt. Bailiffs stated that they would be taking control of his vehicle.

 

He was finally arrested at gunpoint by armed police.

 

Judge Ian Graham handed Mr Williamson a 12 month prison sentence at Basildon Crown Court yesterday suspended for 18 months, and ordered him to pay £520 in court costs.

 

Further details can be read here:

 

http://www.basildonstandard.co.uk/news/14875264.Grandad_grabs_a_fake_gun_to_scare_away_two_bailiffs/

 

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seemed to be remarkably unrepentant.

 

I find it hard to believe, on the facts as presented that he was unaware of the fine. Given the volume of statutory notices which would have been sent before the enforcement visit.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments are interesting to say the least PT

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

 

I am shocked at his comments. They certainly contradict what was said in court.

 

From the comments in court, the impression given was that the gun was a toy that his grandchildren play with. From his recent comments AFTER his trial, I would say that he is not being altogether honest:

 

“I got the gun because it is better than a knife. A knife can only cut you.

 

“They didn’t know the gun was an imitation, but that is the whole point. It looks realistic

 

PS: This 'imitation' gun was not one that you would buy in 'Toy's R Us' either. He paid £125 for it !!! I would hardy describe it as a toy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is stated as being 55 years of age and has 3 grandchildren. Given his age, I would be very surprised indeed if any of the grandchildren are over the age of 10. His choice of toys for these young children is utterly breathtaking:

 

He went upstairs to fetch the £125 replica gun he bought for this three grandchildren to play with.
Link to post
Share on other sites

One can only assume that following yesterdays story of his time in Court followed by his contradictory story today that the powers that be have also read was has been printed. The question therefore has to be will they do anything about it? The chances are that as this is in a newspaper then the story may not be as we see it.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem that the fine relates to a speeding fine and he claims that he did not know about.

 

I say this because he has commented that he is attending the Magistrates Court next week to 'appeal' the offence. Clearly this is nothing more than an appointment for a Statutory Declaration. A very common and everyday application.

 

This is a very silly comment from him:

 

“If I’m found guilty next week they might lock me up".
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...