Really?

Post Reply
User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13251
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#351 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Aug 2017 21:13

I've just looked through his posting history, ever since he signed that name up on CAG, he has only made posts to cause inflammation on the thread or to hurl abuse at other members.

The CAG knows where there is Sheila, there will be flame wars. It took LB a while to learn, but when they banned her and Peter for flaming, LB has not seen any flaming since.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#352 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 23 Aug 2017 22:03

Great post by LFI:

"Are we trying to confuse them?"

Well the chimp certainly confused the hell out of me and after several attempts at trying to translate his latest drivel into grown up language, I gave up.

Half way through he has just randomly written "see above" without even telling us what he is referring to. It has all the hallmarks of the chimp's "writing age of an 8 year old" style, complete with a token reference to FMOTL
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#353 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 26 Aug 2017 19:08

Anyone able to translate this nonsense from the chimp?
Actions after the making of goods has occurred is not what I commenting on, and do not intend to, it has all been gone over a million times before
Is he claiming that he's branching out from making cakes to the manufacture of other types of goods? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


PS Chimp - Your spellchecker is set on American mode:
it is offence, not offense. :lol:
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6559
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#354 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Aug 2017 08:43

JimUk1 wrote:
26 Aug 2017 19:08
Anyone able to translate this nonsense from the chimp?

Having to continually decipher his posts gives me diabetes.

PS Chimp - Your spellchecker is set on American mode:
it is offence, not offense. :lol:
Is that the same spellchecker that allowed "purposesx" in that same post? It's nothing to do with an American, English or even Mongolian spellchecker - he's just an illiterate buffoon.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#355 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 27 Aug 2017 17:59

And he wonders why we call him a moron?
Post #32
Where entry is denied (which is very unusual in PCN recovery because bailiffs have details of the vehicle and go straight for that) then the debtor has no grounds to claim a disproportionate levy.

Post #34
If entry has previously been refused then this argument will not stand up.

Dodgeball (post #44
If the debtor wanted the goods on the premises and of a lesser value to be considered he should not deny entry.
44 posts on and this brain dead buffoon still doesn't understand what is being discussed :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh well - At least dear little Honeybee has been able to be a dear little busy bee and report another thread zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What an absolute bunch of no-mark, clueless jobsworths these people are. I think I'm going to put this down as another forum not to be read. The level of stupidness is quite frightening. I think these forums served a purpose 10 years ago but nowadays, they have been taken over by thickos, ego maniacs and trolls.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13251
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#356 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Aug 2017 18:22

I quit the CAG years ago. We have helped thousands of people with bailiff queries.

The CAG today is blighted by troll-warfare. They help nobody as far as bailiff concerns go.

Hello there.

  • Honeybee

Thread tidied
  • dx
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4088
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#357 Re: Really?

Post by Amy » 27 Aug 2017 19:09

I left CAG in 2007 and they are the very reason LB was formed, much to Gander's chagrin. He went nuts and demanded it be closed in fact. I still have the letter he wrote.

Ironic really that LB is as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#358 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 27 Aug 2017 19:20

I don't know why you don't get a debt section up and running.

Yourself & Michelle are wasted on here currently.

As I said though - Things have moved on since 2007. I see very little good advice out there in 2017. Most people worth their salt have turned their backs on the forums. What we're left with is a mixture of oddballs (literally), misfits, weirdos and nutcases.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13251
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#359 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 27 Aug 2017 20:03

If Amy wants a debt board, it can be arranged but It's a crowded market. We would need (ideally) someone qualified or experienced to head it.

I pooled the idea of a motoring forum due to the current gap in the market, but I cannot monetise one anymore than a debt advice forum.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1987
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#360 Re: Really?

Post by Michelle » 27 Aug 2017 21:16

Debt advice is a regulated activity so it really has to be just a discussion forum, which is how CAG, LB, MSE, etc. manage to run their sites without FCA authorisation. We all know AAD, a more specialist debt forum, got hit by the FCA a few years ago, despite offering mostly free advice, although there were some paid services as well. Needless to say, any attempt to monetise debt advice would require at least one person to be FCA authorised.

A lot of what they do on LB is not really debt advice, as they deal mostly with court claims. Although still money claims over upaid debts, once it gets to court it's not debt advice anymore but advice on court procedure, how to respond to a claim, etc. which falls between the activities regulated by the FCA and the SRA, and covered by neither (don't ask how I know all this ;) ).

CAG have been given crap debt advice since around 2010/2011, when they gave too much power to DX and The Brig under whatever name he posted. MSE always focused on saving money rather than the practical side of debt, i.e. save up to pay up. LB relied on a certain guy who used to run a "debt charity" until 2013, after that, they went more and more into court claims, since they can monetise those due to their association with solicitors and law firms, although they also welcomed "The Brig" with open arms for some unfathomable reason, after he got kicked out from CAG for giving crap. As for AAD, well, better not go there, suffice to say, they specialised in unenforceability, which is still useful in some cases but, 10 years after the repeal of the bit of the CCA that made many accounts unenforceable, it's hardly the solution it used to be all those years ago.
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#361 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 27 Aug 2017 22:27

The penny has dropped in Stalybridge.

The chimp no longer argues that the debtor should not deny entry.

His argument now is that the bailiff can take expensive cars because it's not written in legislation that the debtor can demand the goods are changed. :lol:

Durrrrrrr chimp - How else does the debtor show that there are alternative goods available? If he doesn't notify the bailiff then nothing is going to happen is it? Duuuuurrrrrr

Nice flip flopping chimp - Pity none of it makes sense to the intelligent viewer.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6559
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#362 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Aug 2017 14:22

It seems he believes I'm AbrahamL on that thread. Perhaps the mods will clarify with him.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#363 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 28 Aug 2017 14:24

Pote Snitkin wrote:
28 Aug 2017 14:22
It seems he believes I'm AbrahamL on that thread. Perhaps the mods will clarify with him.
What did you expect?

Him to actually get something right?

More the fool you if you did.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6559
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#364 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 28 Aug 2017 15:39

It's nice to know that passion for accurate information is going strong, along with the chimp's assertion that he advice is always 'spot on':

Madame -
  • For the avoidance of doubt, if a vehicle keeper fails to notify a change of address with DVLA on his V5C (Log Book), DVLA does not take enforcement action.
Government website -
  • You must update your vehicle log book (V5C) if you change your address or name. It’s normally free to update it. You can be fined up to £1,000 if you don’t tell DVLA when your address changes.
All that research eh?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13251
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#365 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 02 Sep 2017 16:30

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ost5057599

The OP is directed to post 3 which goes on about the HMCTS historic debt project, which does nothing to help.

The correct advice is to make a statutory declaration.and give it by recorded delivery..
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Post Reply