Really?

Post Reply
User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#1 Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Jun 2017 09:13

I really think it's about time this idiot gave up and turned his laptop off.
OP1 wrote:I had a Bailiff knocking this morning they posted a removal notice through my door. On the back it says about them using lock smiths to gain entry. The money they are chasing is for an unpaid parking fine. My question is are they able to gain access using a locksmith?
dx100uk wrote:YES its a court fine. but very rare

tell us more please

tell us about the PCN
why have you ignored it till now?
So he seems to think a bailiff can force entry for a PCN. He also believes a PCN is a 'court fine'. Moving on....

------------
OP2 wrote:Got a letter saying i have been overpaid/fraud last year. They say they will be going back 15 years.

It has liability order on it, each year has been sent so it will be a stack of them at this rate.
dx100uk wrote:liability order?
that's for council tax!
nothing to do with benefit over payment?
So... that would be a council tax benefit overpayment then. The council would seek LO's to recover the council tax due.
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#2 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 07 Jun 2017 09:22

It's why nobody goes there for advice anymore.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4087
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#3 Re: Really?

Post by Amy » 07 Jun 2017 11:04

Oopsie!

I love the way all these armchair warriors want to find out why something was ignored. What's that got to do with the price of eggs and what does it have to do with them?

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#4 Re: Really?

Post by Michelle » 07 Jun 2017 11:44

Since when does dx100 have any clue about enforcement? All he ever did was copy and paste the same text over and over again, without even bothering to use caps or punctuation. You could tell he was copying and pasting because of the line breaks. All he ever advised was to check your credit files, no idea what would be achieved with that.
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: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#5 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Jun 2017 17:48

Some rather strange comments on here - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/sho ... #topofpage

It seems that 'Simon the Poet' (whoever that is) believes that pushing for an attachment of earnings order is somehow an attempt to avoid the debt. No doubt he'll soon be calling the notion of an AOE a FMOTL scheme. He is also concerned that an AOE may not be in the best interests of the council - and here I was thinking we were meant to be helping the debtor.

I also see that 'Herbie' (whoever that is) is more concerned with the bailiff industry being 'defamed' rather than helping the debtor in removing the hastily added fees. They also believe that because the OP paid £50 per week rather than the £48 asked for means they didn't keep to the payment arrangement.

What a strange pair these unknown people are.
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#6 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 07 Jun 2017 19:15

If the member loses money on the MSE forum then it brings their forum into disrepute like CAG and LB. The latter had sense to ban her for it.

The board guides know who poet and herbie are as well as where they live. We also know MSE has deep pockets. I have met its founder albeit casually.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#7 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Jun 2017 21:14

And as usual, the two bailiff lovers have managed to get the thread locked. How on earth can any of their followers take them seriously now? When Herbie was upset that the bailiff industry may have been defamed I almost choked on my polo mint. Along with the imbecile 'simon the poet' claiming that an AOE was a method of avoiding the debt.... well, words fail me.

He'll be claiming that fees can be added to an AOE next.
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#8 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 07 Jun 2017 22:19

Where there is Sheila, there will be a flame war. The inevitable happens.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#9 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 29 Jun 2017 19:21

Oh sorry, tax on a bailiffs income is not income tax, that would be tax on the person, not his job.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ost5039338
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#10 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 29 Jun 2017 21:00

Someone give him his bananas.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#11 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 05 Jul 2017 16:09

I've just been reading that Plodder and Dodge both believe that an HCEO can apply for a warrant to force entry to a debtor's home if they can see high value goods through the window. They seem to think that if you are well off, then the court can authorise an HCEO to break your locks to satisfy a civil debt.

Hmmmmm. Perhaps we need to draw their attention to reg 28 of the 2013 regs.
28.—(1) This regulation applies where the enforcement agent has power to enter premises under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule 12.

(2) The conditions of which the court must be satisfied before it issues a warrant under paragraph 20(2) of Schedule 12, or includes provision in a warrant under paragraph 21(2) of that Schedule, are—

(a) either—

(i) the enforcement agent is attempting to recover a debt enforceable under section 127 of the Finance Act 2008(1); or
(ii) the premises are premises to which the goods have been deliberately removed in order to avoid control being taken of them;


(b) there are, or are likely to be, goods of the debtor on the premises of which control can be taken;

(c) the enforcement agent has explained to the court—

(i) the likely means of entry, and the type and amount of force that will be required to make the entry;
(ii) how, after entry, the enforcement agent proposes to leave the premises in a secure state; and

(d) in all the circumstances it is appropriate for the court to give an authorisation, having regard (among other matters) to—

(i)the sum outstanding;
(ii)the nature of the debt.
As you can see by the highlighted parts, this rule is to be used when using s.20 of sch12. There are only two scenarios that allow forced entry into a residential property for a civil debt (where there has been no previous entry).

1 - it's owed to the Government
2 - the debtor has deliberately moved his goods to another location

Dodge seems to think that (d) means it can be used in any circumstances - wrong, (d) is referring to the two scenarios in (a). I think he believes (b), (c) and (d) are separate scenarios when they are actually the four provisions that must be met to issue a warrant. All four, not a pick and mix.
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
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#12 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 05 Jul 2017 20:49

I wonder how long Dodge is going to insist that TCE s62 says what he thinks?
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#13 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 05 Jul 2017 21:04

It says what is says.

Enforcement Related Services is just that.

So what does dodge think it means?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#14 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 05 Jul 2017 21:12

It's typical Dodge. He said costs was under "section 62 TCE". It was pointed out that S62 was about Enforcment by Taking Control of Goods. What he meant was para 62 of sch12, but he's now spinning like a dying bluebottle, refusing to admit he was mistaken and coing out with ridiculous comments such as:
  • there are lots of section 62s, you could say I was talking about any act.
Which is why you need to be clear about which "62" you mean. He's currently in full, incoherent flow.
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
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#15 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 05 Jul 2017 21:15

He's now claiming a Magistrate Court warrant will already have all fees added to it.
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#16 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 05 Jul 2017 21:20

Not under section 76 it doesn't.

We know he cannot follow legislation. Leave him to it. He will have other things to be more concerned about before long.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#17 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 05 Jul 2017 21:26

jasonDWB wrote:
05 Jul 2017 21:20
We know he cannot follow legislation. It's pointless trying to tell him.
It's not fair on any new posters who may take his version as accurate. God only knows why they continue to let him post his garbled uneducated ramblings - it's beyond embarrassing.

Did anyone also feel nauseous at Shirley's determination to defend the bailiff who wrote "locksmith £250" on the warrant?
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#18 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 05 Jul 2017 21:35

At least he is doing it on the CAG board. Its their reputation he has screwed.

The locksmith £250 idea comes from a client who sued for the cost of having a locksmith remove an illegal wheel clamp. It was actually £230, not £250. The bailiff was dumb enough to say it was okay to cut off his clamp and dispose of it. The call was recorded and he couldn't deny it. I expect Shirley learned the Locksmith £250 idea from this claim.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#19 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 05 Jul 2017 22:26

Pote Snitkin wrote:
05 Jul 2017 21:26
jasonDWB wrote:
05 Jul 2017 21:20
We know he cannot follow legislation. It's pointless trying to tell him.
It's not fair on any new posters who may take his version as accurate. God only knows why they continue to let him post his garbled uneducated ramblings - it's beyond embarrassing.

Did anyone also feel nauseous at Shirley's determination to defend the bailiff who wrote "locksmith £250" on the warrant?
I doubt any poster can make head nor tail of what he's saying, let alone act upon it. I find it funny that he thinks he can hold his own. At least Oddy had the good sense to crawl back to the mongrels site before spitting his dummy out. It really is like taking sweets from a baby arguing with these clueless clowns.
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#20 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 05 Jul 2017 22:47

At least Shirley is creating her mess on the CAG board and not here.

The moderators on there seem to like it. Otherwise, it would be history. Let them play the trolls.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#21 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 06 Jul 2017 00:19

Legislation:
28.—(1) This regulation applies where the enforcement agent has power to enter premises under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule 12.

(2) The conditions of which the court must be satisfied before it issues a warrant under paragraph 20(2) of Schedule 12, or includes provision in a warrant under paragraph 21(2) of that Schedule, are—

(a) either—

(i) the enforcement agent is attempting to recover a debt enforceable under section 127 of the Finance Act 2008(1); or
(ii) the premises are premises to which the goods have been deliberately removed in order to avoid control being taken of them;

(b) there are, or are likely to be, goods of the debtor on the premises of which control can be taken;

(c) the enforcement agent has explained to the court—

(i) the likely means of entry, and the type and amount of force that will be required to make the entry;
(ii) how, after entry, the enforcement agent proposes to leave the premises in a secure state; and

(d) in all the circumstances it is appropriate for the court to give an authorisation, having regard (among other matters) to—

(i)the sum outstanding;
(ii)the nature of the debt.

Oddy:
28.—(1) This regulation applies where the enforcement agent has power to enter premises under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule 12.

(2) The conditions of which the court must be satisfied before it issues a warrant under paragraph 20(2) of Schedule 12, or includes provision in a warrant under paragraph 21(2) of that Schedule, are—

(a) Lives in a big detached house

(b) 2 nice expensive cars on the drive

(c) Looked through the window & theres a 72 inch TV in the lounge

(d) The nasty debtor stuck 2 fingers up at the bailiff

Chimp:
I'll have a lucky dip please - a,b,c or d. Oh look....I got d. That means the bailiff can force entry
:lol: Keep it up guys....Life would be so dull without you
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: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#22 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 06 Jul 2017 16:16

I am astounded that he is still flapping about insisting he is correct on this. I do feel however that he know's he is wrong but simply cannot bring himself to admit it due to who is correcting him. I notice that no-one else has come to his rescue since the relevant legislation has been shoved under his nose and spoon-fed to him.

He now says that para 21 of sch12 allows forced entry for any type of debt, so it looks like we'll need to try, yet again, to educate him. Perhaps someone over there will put him out of his misery and have a quiet word. He can then pretend that is what he said all along. So....

Regulation 28 of the TCGR2013 state clearly that for an application for forced entry to be successful, it must pass four conditions.

1 - it's owed to the Government OR the debtor has deliberately moved his goods elsewhere. Once that test is passed then...

2 - there is (or likely to be) goods that can be controlled at the premises the EA is applying to use forced entry. Pass that test then....

3 - the EA has explained how he intends to force entry, the costs etc, and how he intends to secure the premises afterwards. If that is passed then....

4 - taking into account all of these conditions, is it really worthwhile - eg is it a high or low value debt, are the goods likely to be able to be sold, do the benefits outweigh the negatives, that sort of thing.

The application MUST pass all of these tests, not 1 or 2 or 3, but all four. Reg 28 says the court must be satisfied of the conditions, the plural; if it was a case of choosing which ones, the regulation wouldstate 'one or more of the following conditions'.

So please can someone, anyone, suggest to him that he stops embarrassing himself. Even the bailiff websites say that HCEOs cannot force entry into residential properties.
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#23 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 06 Jul 2017 16:35

You cannot persuade a banana. It will keep smiling back at you.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#24 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 06 Jul 2017 17:22

It would be a sad day for all of us if the chimp ever miraculously begun to understand just what a fool he makes of himself. Imagine an internet without chimpisms? I think that it is now abundantly clear to even the staunchest of Cagger that the chimp will argue for arguments sake, regardless of the effect it has on a debtor.

Anyway, on a brighter note, here is an edited version of todays entertainment:
I think that we are all aware of the legislation regarding forced entry
In fact, until somebody else mentioned Regulation 28 yesterday, you were quite content to spew irrelevant drivel about paragraph 21. You are anything but aware but as is always the case, you are learning as you go along by way of other peoples posts.

I do not agree with your last statement, regarding the subsection of section 28,
Given your complete inability to read what is written, your statement hardly comes as a shock.

That is about all that needs to be said on here.
That was by far the most sensible thing that you have come out with for over a week. Regrettably, as is normal for you, you were unable to resist the temptation to return, embarrassing yourself further in the process.

OK . There is no misinformation on here, at least not written by my hand, this is your opinion.
We can list it on here for you if you like - Be forewarned though - it will be a long list

You are wrong. The origin of the statement was in reference to a comment that the bailiff was misrepresenting his powers in stating he could apply for a warrant to force entry on a civil debt, he is not because he can apply.
No - As is the case in every single instance, it is you who is wrong. Nobody suggested that the bailiff misrepresented his powers. It was simply stated that a bailiff could only return with a locksmith if he had previously gained entry and secured a CGA. You and the newsagent then took it upon yourselves to give the incorrect legal advice that bailiffs could apply to the court for permission to force entry. It is a classic example of why people should seek legal advice from a solicitor and not their newsagent.

There is sufficient leeway under section 28 of the regulations for the judge to issue a warrant if he thinks it is in the interest of justice to do so
There is no leeway whatsoever. What is in the interests of justice? Everyone has been judged to owe the debt, how can there be greater interest in justice in specific cases? Do you ever actually think ahead before writing this nonsense?

...however, to say you can sue a bailiff for misrepresenting his power when saying he can apply for a warrant is not correct...
Nobody said that you can. This is just something that you have somehow convinced yourself is relevant to the argument, despite nobody ever making such a claim. It is one of you biggest downfalls when you try to read other peoples posts - You have a tendency to imagine things.

There is no misrepresentation.
Correct - But then again, nobody suggested that there was, only you have mentioned "misrepresentation", for some bizarre reason that I doubt even you can explain.

I should add that forced entry to specified premises is regularly permitted under warrant
Please provide evidence of this. Should you fail to do so, we will request that the site admin team remove the ridiculous, silly claim as unsubstantiated.

Hopefully, he'll be back tomorrow with more whoppers.
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: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#25 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 06 Jul 2017 17:31

For me there was misrepresentation from the bailiff. He had handwritten on the enforcement notice "Locksmith - £250". He was implying that a locksmith can be used despite no previous entry. The fact that he manually added this cost shows that it should not have been on there.
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#26 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 06 Jul 2017 17:33

I haven't read the CAG thread, but is Peter saying bailiffs can break entry to private homes?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#27 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 06 Jul 2017 17:54

jasonDWB wrote:
06 Jul 2017 17:33
I haven't read the CAG thread, but is Peter saying bailiffs can break entry to private homes?
He's saying that an HCEA can get a warrant to force entry into a debtor's home, even without previous entry or CGA. He relies on para 20 of sch12 but then misinterprets reg 28 of the TCGR2013 that prescribes the conditions that para 20 must meet. Reg 28 show 4 conditions that must be passed - he believes that you can pick or choose which conditions you can use.
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

#28 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 06 Jul 2017 17:58

Pote Snitkin wrote:
06 Jul 2017 17:31
For me there was misrepresentation from the bailiff. He had handwritten on the enforcement notice "Locksmith - £250". He was implying that a locksmith can be used despite no previous entry. The fact that he manually added this cost shows that it should not have been on there.
The letter stated "may be done in the presence of the police" If a CGA had been entered into, it may well be the case that the police and a locksmith would be required to attend if the CGA was breached. There is no misrepresentation there, just a clever play with wording. It is the same when they write "we may remove goods in your absence It is just a play with words

The bailiff did not claim that he could go back to the court to apply for permission to force entry - This is just something the chimps brain has decided has been posted somewhere along the line.
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: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#29 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 06 Jul 2017 18:02

So if Peter, let's say, gets a CCJ and its transferred to HC, and the HC breaks open his house with a locksmith, he would be okay with that because he thinks it is legal?

In 28(2)(a) its either (i)or (ii), but all of (b) (c) and (d) apply.

What part of that, doesn't he understand?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#30 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 06 Jul 2017 18:14

JimUk1 wrote:
06 Jul 2017 17:58

The letter stated "may be done in the presence of the police" If a CGA had been entered into, it may well be the case that the police and a locksmith would be required to attend if the CGA was breached. There is no misrepresentation there, just a clever play with wording. It is the same when they write "we may remove goods in your absence It is just a play with words

The bailiff did not claim that he could go back to the court to apply for permission to force entry - This is just something the chimps brain has decided has been posted somewhere along the line.
Yes you're correct that he didn't threaten to get a warrant however this is what the OP said was on the letter:
Enough time has been wasted with this matter and failure to respond.
As you have failed to contact me in reference to the above warrant issued.
You leave the court no option to enforce the warrrant by removing goods to the value of the warrrant plus added court costs, this may be done in the presence of local police.
( then theres a hand written part " locksmith £250")
That is clearly implying that a locksmith will be used. Very naughty.
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

#31 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Jul 2017 20:35

The newsagents wife:
neither have a backbone
Shall we let the rough old diamond into the members section for 24 hours?

Or better still, let's remind her of her own backbone in all its splendour:
On a personal note I would like to offer a big thank you to BA, I often wonder where we would all be without your input
The newsagents wife is currently on a waiting list to have her tongue surgically removed from BA's arse.
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

#32 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Jul 2017 21:38

Which one of the mongrels is "Ally McBeal?
Post by earth angel » 17 Jun 2017 15:38
p.s no. No badge displayed at time of enforcement action. =(

Post by jasonDWB » 07 Jul 2017 18:38
Its an invalid PCN (Badge displayed) and is being appealed.
My money's on the newsagent.

Anyway:

No badge displayed at time of enforcement (for the benefit of Ally McBeal, this is when the bailiff visited)

Badge displayed when PCN issued (for the benefit of Ally McBeal this is when the PCN was issued)

Duuuuuurrrrr
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: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#33 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Jul 2017 21:45

Seems they're getting extra giddy tonight.
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
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#34 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Jul 2017 22:08

Ain't it good that we're not afraid to criticise each other so openly on here, comfortable in the knowledge that nothing is removed or edited. We're able to point out faults and disagree on subjects.

I wonder when others elsewhere will point out Mr Shifter's latest misunderstanding about forced entry?
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

#35 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Jul 2017 22:38

Imagine one of them questioning the unhinged lunatic from Somerset about the charges she makes to struggling single mums to draft worthless OOTs?

Anyway Mr Shifter was instrumental in bringing the new procedure into fruition, didn't you know that? Just ask Leakie, he'll tell you.

By way of example here is a recent quote from Mr Shifter:

, the section I quoted is there in the regulations, no matter ow much we tried to get it removed.
He actually sat down and argued the toss with the MOJ - He transformed from weak, insecure, cowardly Peter into assertive, confident Peter overnight.

Not quite sure why he was so keen to get it removed in the first place but then again, as with all things Peter, is/was there any logic behind it?
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