Really?

Post Reply
User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#141 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 21:35

JimUk1 wrote:
25 Jul 2017 21:28
He's been busy PMing CAGs resident chocolate teapot all day.
You'll need to narrow that one down.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#142 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 21:38

It is soo funny over on CAG, Mark trying to show how clever he is and just showing himself to be an arse.

Mark. ” Now if you want to fill this form in, don’t forget to have a pen handy”

Duh yes fanks Mr. Bowley, never thought of that.
He has turned a simple task into a nightmare, idiot.
Perhaps the OP should follow Madame's advice of filling in an N244 for a variation, putting herself down as the claimant and then not actually signing it. Duh.

JimUk1
Posts: 219
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#143 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 25 Jul 2017 21:47

And demanding a full hearing for a matter revolving around a £300 debt.
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: 219
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#144 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 25 Jul 2017 22:17

Pote Snitkin wrote:
25 Jul 2017 21:38
It is soo funny over on CAG, Mark trying to show how clever he is and just showing himself to be an arse.

Mark. ” Now if you want to fill this form in, don’t forget to have a pen handy”

Duh yes fanks Mr. Bowley, never thought of that.
He has turned a simple task into a nightmare, idiot.
Perhaps the OP should follow Madame's advice of filling in an N244 for a variation, putting herself down as the claimant and then not actually signing it. Duh.
Note that the chimp was nowhere to be seen in the OPs hour of need.
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: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#145 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 22:23

Mark, can't you take control over there or get Beckz to come back here? They're still telling her to use N244 for a 'redetermination'. That can only be done if she admitted the original claim. This is a default judgement - an N244 for a set aside needs doing.

FFS, all the chat about taking a photo of the claim form, pdf this, pdf that.... the fact is Beckz needs to print out the forms, sign them and post them. Surely someone else nearby can let her print them out.

The comment from brassnecked is hilarious - aside from Andy, who's been telling Beckz for 2 days what to do, madame and dx are all over the place.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#146 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 22:25

JimUk1 wrote:
25 Jul 2017 22:17
Note that the chimp was nowhere to be seen in the OPs hour of need.
Just his usual snide comments:
Alreadyexists. Can I ask.

You know where it says claim number, is that number next to it the claim number?
Let's just hope he doesn't write something that's liable.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#147 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 25 Jul 2017 22:41

Something not right about the "Beckz" thread. Nearly 100 posts to do an N244, and they still can't do it.

Earlier, someone advised completing a TE9 for a box junction contravention!

The advice on there is getting worse. CAG should stick to bank charges, not try to be a jack-of-all-trades.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#148 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 22:42

Andy has said she needs to put Bradford court - the original CCJ came from Northampton, Bradford are enforcing it locally.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#149 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 25 Jul 2017 22:46

I’ve been entertained watching it. Nobody knows what they are doing, so together, they muddle through it.

The job could have been done in minutes.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#150 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 22:50

Schedule 12 wrote:
25 Jul 2017 22:46
I’ve been entertained watching it. Nobody knows what they are doing, so together, they muddle through it.

The job could have been done in minutes.
It was, on here, on Sunday.

JimUk1
Posts: 219
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#151 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 25 Jul 2017 22:52

Pote Snitkin wrote:
25 Jul 2017 22:23
Mark, can't you take control over there or get Beckz to come back here? They're still telling her to use N244 for a 'redetermination'. That can only be done if she admitted the original claim. This is a default judgement - an N244 for a set aside needs doing.

FFS, all the chat about taking a photo of the claim form, pdf this, pdf that.... the fact is Beckz needs to print out the forms, sign them and post them. Surely someone else nearby can let her print them out.

The comment from brassnecked is hilarious - aside from Andy, who's been telling Beckz for 2 days what to do, madame and dx are all over the place.
Just reading PD14, it appears that this is the correct course of action because a decision has been made without a hearing (which was the case here as the judgement came from CCBC)

What is more worrying is Andy's "letter" Firstly it should have gone in box 10, secondly and more worrying is that it looks like a 12 year old has written it. Furthermore, he hasn't even mentioned to pivotal fact that the debtor is on ESA. By supplying evidence, there is of course a requirement to sign the statement of case.

If he's been having success in the past submitting such amateurish nonsense into court then it makes a mockery of having to do things correctly.
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: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#152 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 23:01

If you want to vary a judgement when you never admitted the claim you use N245. N244 can only be used if the claim was admitted and you made an offer at the time.

Andy even copy and pasted when an N244 is to be used then completely ignored that part.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#153 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 25 Jul 2017 23:02

Yes its your county courticon Bradford Combined Courts...and the Order you ask....
Wrong court. The file is at Northampton. Bradford only issued the warrant.
" I wish to apply for the above judgment to be redetermined under rule 14.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules"
That will get nowhere.


  • The defendant applies to redetermine the rate of payment at his home court [COURT NAME] under CPR14.13 to pay [AMOUNT] on [DATE] and each month until the amount outstanding is paid because the rate was determined without an assessment of means.


Must attach a completed N245.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#154 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 23:03

CPR13 not 14 should be followed.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#155 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 23:14

And now the silly c*nt has modded me again. Why are they continuing to allow Beckz to be misinformed?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#156 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 23:18

Let's educate him.

You can only apply for a redetermination if all of the following apply.

You cannot afford the payments that you have been asked to make.
You admitted the claim and made an offer of payment, but the creditor did not accept your offer.
After the creditor did not accept your offer, the court set the rate of payment, but there was no hearing.

Once you have been served with an order to pay the CCJ, you only have 14 days to ask for a redetermination. You can usually ask for a redetermination by sending a letter to the court, although you can sometimes be asked to complete form N244 instead. Check with the court. The case will normally be transferred to your local County Court hearing centre if there is going be a hearing. There is no fee to pay.

If you have run out of time to apply for a redetermination, you may still be able to apply to vary the CCJ. See the later section Vary using form N244.

You can apply for a variation using form N244 if you admitted the claim and:

the rate of payment was set at a hearing;
the rate of payment was set by redetermination; or
you could have applied for a redetermination, but have run out of time.

However, you will normally only be allowed to vary the payment if your circumstances have changed since the original decision was made. For example, the court might accept your application if your income has reduced because you have lost your job.

You can apply for a variation using form N245 if:

you did not reply to the claim form;
you replied admitting the claim, but did not make an offer to pay;
you replied admitting the claim, and the creditor accepted your offer of payment; or
you defended the claim but lost.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#157 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 23:25

I mean, ffs, a redetermination under CPR 14.13 has to be made within 14 days of the judgement. The judgement was 2 years ago.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#158 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Jul 2017 23:55

andyorch wrote:Scrap the N244 Beckz and use the N245....having checked and advised above because its a default judgment you should use the N245 in this instance as you did not initially defend the initial claim...apologies.
This is the advice I gave tonight - the advice was removed by Andy and I've been modded. Nice.

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 2005
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#159 Re: Really?

Post by Michelle » 26 Jul 2017 00:03

I see not much has changed in that place since the days I used to post on there, and that wasn't yesterday... it was back when Brigadier2JCS and his evil twin DX were running the show... those were days... and still are...
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.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#160 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Jul 2017 00:11

I still strongly believe that a set aside should be applied for, not a variation. It'll cost Beckz nothing and could see the debt wiped out.

JimUk1
Posts: 219
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#161 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 26 Jul 2017 00:55

Pote Snitkin wrote:
25 Jul 2017 23:55
andyorch wrote:Scrap the N244 Beckz and use the N245....having checked and advised above because its a default judgment you should use the N245 in this instance as you did not initially defend the initial claim...apologies.
This is the advice I gave tonight - the advice was removed by Andy and I've been modded. Nice.
He's made a string of mistakes on that thread from start to finish but to his credit, he's held his hands up for the good of the debtor in the end and you can't fault him for that.

I doubt very much whether you'd see the same from that DX idiot and you certainly wouldn't from madame or her chimp.
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: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#162 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Jul 2017 10:17

Shifter wrote:I see that, he has just realised he was helping the debtor fill in the wrong form. LOL
Lest we forget madame's advice ......
Firstly, well done for completing the EX160. Now onto the N244
Nope, it's the N245
The court is indeed Bradford Combined Court.
Nope it's Northampton
The defendant is Lowell
Nope the defendant is Beckz
The claimant is you (most people completing these forms get this part wrong and wrongly assume that they are the defendant).
Nope the claimant is Lowell. Seems there's only one person who gets this part wrong.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ooooh, she's going to be mad at him.

JimUk1
Posts: 219
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#163 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 26 Jul 2017 10:34

How strange that he didn't pick this up at the time. Funny how he always claims to have known after someone else points it out for him. Yesterday, it was "a simple task", compounded because of a pen or something like that. Looks to me like he's the one who's just realised that the N244 was the wrong form. Hats off to Pote on this one - He was the only one who argued this and he stuck to his guns.

What we definitely learned from that thread is just how misinformed the posters on CAG are and how they jump to each others defence when they are shown to be wrong. As I said, fair play to Andy for being man enough to admit his mistake but the rest of the inaccuracies are still there in bright lights for all to see.

We also had it confirmed what we've always suspected - Madame has never assisted in filling out an N244 in her life - How can she if she thinks that you simply type out the applicants name in the signature box. I'd leave madame to her pretty little OOTs and let her think that she's being useful whilst the rest of us get down to the nitty gritty of real bailiff issues.
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: 219
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#164 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 26 Jul 2017 10:42

Imagine the glory that the chimp could have had if he'd actually have known the law and known at the time that it was the wrong form? He'd be dining out on one of his daughters big fat cakes now.

Instead, his only contribution to the thread was this pathetic, snidey comment:
Alreadyexists. Can I ask.

You know where it says claim number, is that number next to it the claim number?
Oh what might have been eh chimp? If only you knew what you were doing. Instead of asking childish nonsense, you could have asked if it was the right form.

:lol: :lol: :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: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#165 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Jul 2017 10:44

JimUk1 wrote:
26 Jul 2017 10:34
We also had it confirmed what we've always suspected - Madame has never assisted in filling out an N244 in her life - How can she if she thinks that you simply type out the applicants name in the signature box. I'd leave madame to her pretty little OOTs and let her think that she's being useful whilst the rest of us get down to the nitty gritty of real bailiff issues.
It was getting the defendant/applicant the wrong way round and calling it a common error that did it for me. If she has been filling in N244s for anyone, then each one will be wrong and it's never been brought to her attention.

Head in the clouds.....

JimUk1
Posts: 219
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#166 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 26 Jul 2017 10:49

Pote Snitkin wrote:
26 Jul 2017 10:44
JimUk1 wrote:
26 Jul 2017 10:34
We also had it confirmed what we've always suspected - Madame has never assisted in filling out an N244 in her life - How can she if she thinks that you simply type out the applicants name in the signature box. I'd leave madame to her pretty little OOTs and let her think that she's being useful whilst the rest of us get down to the nitty gritty of real bailiff issues.
It was getting the defendant/applicant the wrong way round and calling it a common error that did it for me. If she has been filling in N244s for anyone, then each one will be wrong and it's never been brought to her attention.

Head in the clouds.....
There was absolutely no way that she made a "mistake" there as she claimed. She even went on to emphasise that many people get the claimant and defendant the wrong way round (oh the irony). There was also her suggestion that the OP could ask the court for a hearing. That would have really gone down well considering the overall debt was a measly £300.
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: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#167 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Jul 2017 11:58

Madame...
I receive endless enquiries about N244 applications in relation to rejected OOT applications and have done for many years.


Yet you don't even know who the defendant and claimant are, even emphasising your error.

:lol:

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#168 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Jul 2017 12:00

And still they ignore the fact that the debt is from 2008. N244 citing statute barred is my advice.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#169 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Jul 2017 12:13

He shouldn’t be surprised if a High Court claim is issued against him, and neither should Mark. As for Pote, his ID is known to a few of us so he’s not as safe as he thinks.
Ooooh... first it was just madame, then "Bailiff-can-take-your-hire-purchase-car " Felton-Gerber, now it's a few of them. No sign of those spilled beans yet. Funny how they're so quick to name everyone else, where they live, the reg of their car..... yet they keep my details under wraps.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#170 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 26 Jul 2017 12:20

There is fresh accrual from the date title of the debt, until the judgment date.

If six years lapsed between the due date and judgment date, Beckz can apply to set aside because of section 2 of the Limitation Act
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#171 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Jul 2017 12:25

Schedule 12 wrote:
26 Jul 2017 12:20
There is fresh accrual from the date title of the debt, until the judgment date.

If six years lapsed between the due date and judgment date, Beckz can apply to set aside because of section 2 of the Limitation Act
Which is what I've been advising since Sunday.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#172 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Jul 2017 12:42

Just noticed that Peter has edited his 'liable' comment (or perhaps some other poor soul has tried to hide his illiteracy). Fortunately I grabbed a copy - couldn't resist, it was comedy gold mate.
liable.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

JimUk1
Posts: 219
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#173 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 26 Jul 2017 12:56

What's with his obsession with "making a complaint to the blog"?

Is he autistic or something?

I don't believe that you are (cough) legally bound to make a complaint to the blog LOL. In fact you may do whatever you wish if you want to take issue with something.
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: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#174 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Jul 2017 12:58

Comedy gold continues....
Does he mean a “wealth of experience”? I’ve never heard of a “vast sum of experience”.

You should tell Mark Sweeetkins, I was copying his earlier post.
What Mark said was....
I have vast experience...
"Vast sum of experience" is a Shifterism. Bit like 'liable'.

JimUk1
Posts: 219
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#175 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 26 Jul 2017 13:02

He's also managed to change "N244" to "N1"

Hopefully someone can explain the difference to him.
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.

Post Reply