Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • As I recall the only thing you tried telling us was based on a quote that you selectively edited by Lord James of Blackheath. You misrepresented it as a statement of fact when it was actually a question which was laughed at by his peers in the House of Lords.  We told you it was garbage, you asked us to prove it and we did.   Remember?
    • you need to realise that for every person that does come to CAG and register and tell their story...there are poss 10'000 that don't but search the interweb whereby threads that are here pop up relating to like issues they are searching upon.   Most CAG siteteam and many other registered Caggers give advice that bears this in mind and post information which not only informs the starter of a thread upon what to do, but also takes into consideration the readers from the interweb that also read the relevant advice given that might not be brave enough to register and fess up.   to that end, there is very little alternative than to appear to give 'grief' [you deserve it - tough] to a cagger should certain previous advice not have been followed.....yours is a very classic case of such. hey I've found a backdoor CCJ.   to put it bluntly, had you have followed such previous advice, you most certainly would not be in the situation you are in here now.. .so by example, not giving you grief, for future readers...………..   ...never ever move without informing a debt owner of a move of address on any consumer debt that you last used or paid within the last say 7yrs. your credit file is a major key to ascertaining that information.... .but don't just read this advice come to the consumeractiongroup.co.uk website and let us help.   lecture over... what can you do..or more importantly....what can a claimant do now they have a default forthwith judgement against you. well we can't guess.... they might simply ignore it as 1000's of people with CCJ's find out..but it becomes an issue should you wish to say get a mortgage, remortgage or further credit.   i'm not going to enter into any of that here...that's for the reader to start a thread here and seek advice on their individual situation specific to them as you have done....   so...  bearing the all of the above in mind...over to you with regard to this backdoor CCJ.   as for the other debts that you didn't action before...go read your old thread and action what appropriate advice is given there for each type of debt that has been given should you wish to avoid any further backdoor CCJ's.   dx                    
    • hello my very good helpful friend. I am afraid to say that i did not. As i did not realise the relevance of it.   Should i be doing this right now of anyone on my credit file ?   Plz don't give me grief if u have already advised me...   do i do the ccs request now to everybody in that thread ?    
    • aha busted and stupid ...no wonder you've got mixed information here. never trust anything they say ..they have a very bad reputation for stating the truth.   now can you go get your credit file please..   there are cases whereby a council on historic CTAX debts do go for a county court CCJ, but a liability order from a magistrates court has far more clout legally than a county court CCJ and i've never heard of a court sending a bailiff out for 'multiple' CCJ collection.   me thinks he is pulling the wool here a bit and has looked at your credit file and seen CCJ's too so thought he'd chance his arm and use those as further leverage.   don't worry about the sat visit simply ignore do not answer the door if he appears. your task is too gather data at present.   credit file please..        
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 522 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

Not sure if anyone's seen this, I doubt it will make it onto the Can't Pay show.

 

 

DCBL agent forces his way in to a residence where the occupant has told him he is not the debotor and does not know the debtor, Police are called and as usual support the agent in his incorrect actions

 

 

https://tinyurl.com/yad63obg

Edited by dx100uk
link sorted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many wrongs....

On behalf of the owner of the property.

I'll pick up on two.

The person named on the warrant is linked to the address.

So I the named person isnot resident then the owner must prove the items belong to them and nit the debtor.

2nd.. A warrant has to be shown and signed. Statement by the owner..

Wrong. The existence of the warrant is all that is needed. However they normally carry an electronic copy to ease arguments and it has to be wet signed.. Wrong. Stamp of the court I all thas needed.

 

This all stems from wrong sites spouting wrong info along the unicorn food lines of FMoTL...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to Discussions.

 

 

Andy


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

sniff sniff fMoTl


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HCEO bailiff can gain peaceable entry via any unsecured entry point.

When confronted with Bailiff, most people lie.

Bailiff should take steps to confirm/deny his assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% fotl just like all the other YouTube videos


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy did himself no favours, all he had to do was fetch ID, rather than wind Sandbrook's finest up; deffo FMOL angle in that one.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sniff sniff fMoTl

 

 

The video maker might be but I'm not and Crimebodge is not.

 

 

Ignoring the rubbish the video maker says the agent does push his way into the property.

 

 

My opinion is that if the video maker had said hold on there I'll just go and get you some ID the agent would have walked in and the video maker knew that so tried to shut the door but the agent wasn't having that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to be hard without sounding like a FMOTL... But if the EA is there to enforce against a previous householder (for example), why should someone have to prove their identity?

 

Whilst I agree that this would make the EA realise that the person they're looking for is no longer there, surely it is up to the EA to prove that they do have the correct address, not up to the householder to prove that they don't.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its for the current to prove who they are. The courts have gone to great lengths to try to make sure current addresses are correct.

How many times do you think the debtor turns round and says that's not me.

But they are on the lease or recently connected to the address.

 

The EA CAN sieze goods and its up to the owner , if they are not the debtor, to prove ownership.

That is quite clear in legislation. Taking control of goods act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm not saying you're wrong and that's not how it is, but it just doesn't sit right with me. Someone comes to your door and demands to see ID.

 

They'd only get one answer from me :evil:


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DPA should prevent discussing debt with anyone named on the writ. Anyone can decline to show ID and suffer the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I'm not saying you're wrong and that's not how it is, but it just doesn't sit right with me. Someone comes to your door and demands to see ID.

 

They'd only get one answer from me :evil:

 

 

 

I agree, to any tom dick of harry.

 

But they are commanded by the court to enforce a warrant.

Different kettle of fish entirely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Indulge me.

 

An EA comes to my door looking for a debtor that I have never heard of, and, as far as I am aware, has never lived at my address. Therefore the debt is absolutely nothing to do with me.

 

Whilst I agree that some people will always lie to an EA, what right does an EA have to demand that I show them ID? They may well be commanded by the court, but I'm not and therefore I feel that I do not have to prove anything to them. And I'm afraid that if they attempted to force entry or otherwise enter my home, they would very quickly find themselves in a heap on the pavement.

 

I'm not talking about scenarios where a debtor is (correctly) linked to an address and the person at the door is lying through their teeth, but if there's been a mistake at some point, an EA demanding ID from me and/or trying to enter my property is not going to end well for them.

 

If they asked nicely, maybe they'd get my ID, if I was in a good mood. But if they come at me with the attitude that some do have....

 

 

 

I must stress that this is entirely my own opinion and may not be the opinion of the site and/or any other member of the site team.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Dragonfly.

 

Any warrant is to recover money or goods of value from the debtor.

A third party living at an address has nothing to do with the matter and no enforcement officer has any right command any action from them.

 

Has to be peaceful entry, which is either being invited in or entering through an unlocked/or open door. If they are met by a third party at a door and advised the debtor is not at the address, then it is up to the EO to make further enquiries if the third party does not wish to assist them.

 

An EO acting on a court warrant must have access to resources that enable them to trace people and if if their searches still show the address, then there are other court actions that the debtor can take e.g. Bankruptcy if relevant, court request for debtor to attend court for questioning.

Edited by dx100uk
Quote

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

Problem is EA might try to accuse the occupier of obstructing him, at which point any innocent might get done and summonsed. Anyone can be accused of obstructing the EA even a passerby who intervenes, or a courier delivering a parcel to a debtor's address EA cannot demand parcel as not signed for and is not an authorised signatory, but could try obstruction for spite.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragonfly, you are correct that your not commanded by the courts but as you choose to live in the country you abide by all its laws so it does have a sway. If you dont like the laws then move or petition to have the laws change. Its a democracy.

 

The courts go to great lengths to check addresses.

 

The thing that needs to addressed here is yes Te EA has to gain peaceful entry on the warrant shown in the video but its not always like that.

Civil or high court warrants require peaceful entry.

Magistrates warrants do not. Forced entry is automatically granted if required.

 

This is where people get confused sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dragonfly, you are correct that your not commanded by the courts but as you choose to live in the country you abide by all its laws so it does have a sway. If you dont like the laws then move or petition to have the laws change. Its a democracy.

 

I can assure you that I do, and always have abided by the laws of the land.

 

However, what I wouldn't do is allow myself to be pushed around on my own doorstep. If the EA comes up with a law that says that I must identify myself to them, I'd be happy to comply. But until then...

 

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one I think.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not disagreement.

I'm not for one minute suggesting you fall foul of the law.

 

 

99% of enforcement agents are extremely professional and polite.

 

The videos that appear on YouTube are the exceptions not the norm and unfortunately, in most of those the EA is reacting to a debtors attitude and not the other way round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, I don't disagree with that. There are always the proverbial bad apples.

 

But taking the video linked in the OP as an example (bearing in mind that there may (or may not) have been events that happened before the video starts) the EA's opening gambit appears to be "you need to prove it to me" when the person at the door says that he is not the debtor named on the writ.

 

For the EA to then go on and compound that by (seemingly) pushing the person backwards so that he can gain entry is just not on. It would very much end in tears if an EA tried that with me.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EA tries to snatch parcel, he stumbles

EA hits the ground

Ambulance hits 90

 

Well officer he fell over when he couldn't snatch the parcel I was trying to deliver, and he grabbed and threw my delivery tracking device at the wall

Edited by dx100uk
Quote

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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

There is nothing on the writ or warrant about any address for the debtor , if you look on the CPR it is not required.

The address may be sent as an aid to enforcement with the writ, but the only legal instruction as to delivery is in the TCE Part 14 which states "where the debtor lives or carries out a business".

 

The only point is, that it may lend credence to the NOA not being delivered earlier and therefore the

debtor not receiving notice under section 7.

Interestingly, if the address is not a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under Part 66.


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

Great discussion guys and one of particular interest to me as recently I have started getting phone calls from JBW for a person I have never heard of.

 

 

I have lived in my home for 6 years (I own it) and I have the phone number for about 5 years.

 

 

It seems in my case the information held by JBW is out of date and I presume they got that information from the court.

 

 

I have told JBW they have the wrong number every time they have called but they keep calling so I suspect a visit is imminent.

 

 

I am inclinded to agree with Dragonfly but I shall judge my reaction (if they visit), on their attitude at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show them a council tax bill then tell them to Foxtrot Oscar whilst filming them. having gone outside and closed the door behind you to deny them access.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good to me.

 

I have a porch so the door gets locked behind me before I open the porch door.

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...