Really?

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

#36 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Jul 2017 22:50

Is “Pob” an abbreviation for Pote’s Bum?
ha.gif
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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

#37 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Jul 2017 23:33

Ally McBeal doesn’t live here, quit while your ahead.
Yes, on reflection, I realised that only the chimp could be so stupid and unable to read posts properly.

Is Clive OK? I'm getting a bit worried about him. We haven't seen or heard from him since his humiliation and tantrum the other day. Tell him to keep his head up, all is not lost. His biggest problem is that he has this attitude that he has lost a battle before it has started (this is Sheila's influence over him). He needs to stop being so pessimistic and start looking at each individual case on its merits and objectively, rather than automatically assuming that the debtor is wrong and the bailiff is right and that there is no hope.
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

#38 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Jul 2017 09:02

It's outrageous that he's still arguing that sch12 p20 allows an HCEA to force entry into a debtor's home without previous entry, and even more outrageous that no-one over there is prepared to correct him. Why won't they do it? Are they scared of upsetting his Madame and feeling her vicious wrath as others have?
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

#39 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Jul 2017 15:45

Bless, he's off again :lol: :
Can we see what they are admitting to, please. As far as I can see there is no reason why the enhancement of 7.5 % cannot be incurred on the fee paid to the court, as I said.

The amount paid by the debtor is added to the sum due to the court as costs. This is due to the creditor out of costs recovered and included in the writ. It is a disbursement
see here:

8.—(1) The enforcement agent may recover disbursements from the debtor only in accordance with this regulation and regulations 9, 10 and 11.

(2) The following disbursements are recoverable provided that they are reasonably and actually incurred—

(a)the cost of storing goods which have been taken into control and removed from the premises or highway;
(b)the cost of hiring a locksmith to gain access to premises when using reasonable force to enter them in accordance with Schedule 12, and to secure them thereafter;
(c)court fees in relation to any applications made by the enforcement agent in relation to the enforcement power which are granted.

The 7-5% is calculated on the "sum to be recovered(" this will include the court fee), or the amount the creditor will accept in payment. This will include the sum he paid to the court for the move UP

Calculation of fees by reference to value of sum sought to be recovered(this is the amount due under the writ)

7. The percentage fee or fees are to be calculated—

(a)where enforcement takes place other than under a High Court writ, by multiplying the amount of the sum to be recovered which exceeds £1500 by the percentage indicated in the relevant column of table 1 in the Schedule

So it is quite correct to raise the enhancement on the fee paid for the move up to HC.

Now having said that the sum paid by the creditor is still a "cost", and it says as much on the writ.
Costs are recovered separately as disbursements.

The recovery of this cost is different to the recovery of fees, as it is given to the creditor so he can recover his court fees. Enforcement fees, of course, go to the bailiff and are his to keep as payment for his services.
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ges./page2

(The OP is complaining that the fee has been charged for TWICE, not that it cannot be charged :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: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#40 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Jul 2017 16:16

Once again, a failure to read what is written - or perhaps he's under Madame's instructions to fight the bailiff's corner.

Mr Shifter, please understand that no-one has disputed whether the 7.5% uplift can be applied to the court fee - the OP has said the court fee has been added twice then pointed out the 7.5% uplift would also be added to this second errant fee. You went into a 400 word rant to point out the EA can add another £8. How sad.
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

#41 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Jul 2017 21:56

Can you imagine what it must have been like for his school teachers, trying to educate him? It must have been so stressful. It's no wonder that teachers are opting out of the profession at the earliest opportunity when they have hopeless cases like this to try to do something with. Here's his latest:
In fact, it will only be charged once.

And here is what the OP stated earlier on today:
the firm have now admitted "error" on the double charging

He then comes out with this nonsense:
What I attempted to show was that although the payment to the court appears in the original debt owed under the writ, it is enforced and added to the costs account so it will appear in that column, along with other charges like fees in the breakdown.
Now notwithstanding the fact that he has never seen a breakdown in his life, nor is there any prescribed layout for such a document, he very likely has never even heard of Penham Excel before today. He certainly would have no idea what a breakdown document of theirs looks like.

What has clearly happened is this:
1. The debt is listed as the amount outstanding (nothing wrong with that) and will include the execution cost
2. The bailiff has come along and furnished a breakdown of fees which will look something like this:
(a) Compliance fee
(b) Enforcement stage 1 fee
(c) Execution fee
3. Total payable

This means that the execution fee has been added in point 1 & 2. The OP was under the intense pressure of a bailiff visit and would understandably not have picked this up until he had the chance to review the paperwork away from the pressure cooker situation of a bailiff visit.

I'm beginning to think that the chimp is quite possibly not quite the full shilling as well as being hopelessly unable to comprehend basic scenarios. This is not normal, rational behaviour and it is actually difficult not to feel a degree of sympathy for 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.

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

#42 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Jul 2017 22:23

I don't feel one drop of sympathy for the silly old count. Pity, yes. Sympathy? Jog on.
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

#43 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Jul 2017 23:21

No, he's been a truly repulsive individual, regularly putting his own warped agendas ahead of the interests of people who visit the forums for help. Then there has been his bullying of other individuals who post. I have no sympathy for him and believe that he deserves everything life throws at him.

I just cannot for the life of me grasp how one person can manage to misunderstand so much and get so much wrong. It is clearly more than just him being simple. There has to be a screw loose somewhere. I mean, how difficult is this to understand?
The CCJ was a little short of £7k. On applying for a writ of control, the HCEO added £117.75 for "fixed costs on issue". This took the debt over £7k.

On his notice of enforcement, the HCEO started with the debt at over £7k ie including his "fixed costs on issue". He then added "enforcement costs incurred up to the date of this notice" for £117.75, thus adding it twice. Additionally he also added 7.5% of the debt in his first stage fee, effectively adding £8.81 to his bill, to which we then also add VAT, another £25.31.
Yet still he goes on, flip flopping every 5 minutes. The last few days have shown me that this is more than just plain ignorance and stupidity - there are mental issues here as well.
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

#44 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Jul 2017 10:01

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ost5042021
As I had said in my post number 10, if it is the case that you have been overcharged, then you should be due to be refunded the sum of £117.75 and additional 'interest' charges of £8.81. Thankfully, you now have a cheque for £126.56 on it's way to you. Well done.

I was very surprised to read a post from you on another thread yesterday where you said this:
I have just caught Penham Excel trying to charge double application fees on a writ of control. At £117.75 that is not a bad earner. It seems common with them and really amounts to fraud that can only really be delved into with a police investigation and a forensic analysis of their accounts. We need numbers, anyone similarly ripped off should complain to the HCEOA at HCEOA.org.uk
In my post number 10, I mentioned that I have looked back at fee breakdowns for 16 cases that I received enquiries about in the past couple of months, and in all cases, the execution costs have only been applied once.

You have now revealed the name of the enforcement company (Penham Excel). I can confirm that I have now looked back at fee breakdowns for 2 cases from this company and I am pleased to see that in neither case has there been double charging as in your case.
I wonder if she's got round to registering to allow processing of personal date yet?
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

#45 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Jul 2017 10:02

Where's my edit button? Personal date...... I ask you.
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

#46 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Jul 2017 10:10

To try and illustrate further.
Say a debt is £100 and a court fee is £50, the writ will say amount due to creditor £150.

The receipt (breakdown) given to the debtor on request will say.

the amount paid to the creditor as per writ £150 ie including court fee.

Fees and costs say £130 fees plus admin cost of £50. (court fee) =£170

This looks like a double charge but it isn't of course because the £50 is paid to the creditor out of the costs.
Anyone?
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

#47 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 09 Jul 2017 10:12

Oh dear - And still he continues:
or it may be that it is easier just to pay the amount than it is to explain the technicalities.
There is no obligation to explain anything. Nobody with the slightest business acumen is going to refund money that is not due.

The point is, we do not want people complaining about being charged twice when it is not so
Nobody has done so. Are you suggesting we treat people like criminals every time they come onto the forums seeking help with a problem?

just because the charge is listed as a cost, that is just the way it works.
The charge is NEVER listed as a cost. It is included in the sum outstanding. If you think different, ask your friend BA to post up redacted versions of the many fee breakdowns that she claims to have (I wouldn't hold your breath though, I doubt she has 1). In this particular instance, the charge was included in the sum outstanding AND as a cost. This is where the double charging has occurred and you in your infinite wisdom have mistakenly assumed that the execution fee appears as a cost in standard breakdowns - IT DOES NOT. A bailiff's breakdown breaks down HIS fees and HIS costs, NOT the costs incurred prior to him receiving instructions to enforce.

I have seen similar things many times before on customer accounts,
Where? You don't advise people and you never have. When could you possibly have seen documents that are private and confidential?
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
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4087
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#48 Re: Really?

Post by Amy » 09 Jul 2017 13:08

Pote Snitkin wrote:
09 Jul 2017 10:10
To try and illustrate further.
Say a debt is £100 and a court fee is £50, the writ will say amount due to creditor £150.

The receipt (breakdown) given to the debtor on request will say.

the amount paid to the creditor as per writ £150 ie including court fee.

Fees and costs say £130 fees plus admin cost of £50. (court fee) =£170

This looks like a double charge but it isn't of course because the £50 is paid to the creditor out of the costs.
Anyone?
Did he go to the same maths classes as that idiot who got his invoice wrong? Can't even remember his name, he must be that forgettable.

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

#49 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 09 Jul 2017 16:32

Has anyone any idea why the chimp has made more posts on CAG in the past 7 days than he has in the previous 2 months?

Has he suddenly developed some new found desire to help people?

If so, why are almost all of his posts directed at either "Whitely" or "alreadyexists"?

It all seems rather odd to me. Then again, it is the chimp that I'm talking about.
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

#50 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Jul 2017 17:17

I've a sneaky feeling it's solely to antagonise - just a guess though. :roll:

Nice to know he's got somewhere to play.
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

#51 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Jul 2017 18:43

Shirley forgets herself again.

July 9th:
My personal experience of Bowley is that he is a liar. He lied to me about his new username on BHF being JimUK1 and for that reason, I cannot, and will not believe anything he has to say. As I said when posting about him being JimUK1, I was willing to bet my life on that identity being him.
__

June 1st:
The evidence pointing towards D*** L*** being JimUK1 is overwhelming. What the hell does D*** think that he is playing at?
Wish she'd make her mind up.
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

#52 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 09 Jul 2017 20:07

Is that the same "Shirley" who claims not to be "The Management", "Kay Moose", "Martha" etc? The same Shirley who claims to only read this board once a week on Sundays? The same Shirley who claims to have got 3 criminal convictions overturned by simply sending in a SD to the court? The same Shirley who claims that bailiffs will trace you in a period of 3 months but claims that she wasn't traced in a period of 4 years? The same Shirley who claimed to now be living on the East coast?

What a shining example of honesty that woman is.
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

#53 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 10 Jul 2017 12:12

A hilarious lie that the unhinged woman once told:

She claimed to have paid a small fortune to have the open book image "designed" by a professional for her website.

A quick search of "images of open books" on Google quickly brings up her image as well as several almost identical images. :lol:

She also claimed to have worked at CAB although she never has :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
Schedule 12
Posts: 13227
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#54 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 10 Jul 2017 14:12

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

#55 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 10 Jul 2017 15:23

I mean, she does realise it's meant to be a Bible with a heavenly light shining on 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
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6548
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#56 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 12 Jul 2017 10:16

Poor old Mark n CAG , getting all confused with himself.

He spotted something which he thought may provide him with another of his silly bailiff bashing theories and now it is drifting away from him.

As before with his “proceeds” and his silly misunderstood section 75A notions, not to mention all the rest. He will continue arguing, making a bigger fool of himself, as long as CAG permits.
So....... the OP confirms the £117.75 was added twice, the EA confirms it was added twice and is sending a refund..... yet Mr Shifter still says he's correct and there has been no double charging, and that the OP is looking at it wrong. Hmmmmmm.

I can see only one fool arguing against all the evidence - the one drinking the PG Tips.
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

#57 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 12 Jul 2017 11:02

As I said last week, there is more than just stupidity and ignorance here. I believe there are mental health issues as well. The chimp mis-read post #1 and it all went downhill from there for him. It has got to the point where I doubt that even he knows what his argument is any more. Unfortunately, the OP is just one more in a long line of innocent people who have been targeted by the chimp for his own selfish agendas. In this case though, even his staunchest allies are not allowing themselves to get drawn into his car crash of an argument.
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:

#58 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 12 Jul 2017 11:16

He's been smoking weed and playing his guitar.
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

#59 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 12 Jul 2017 11:34

Perhaps someone should bring to the OP's attention Dodgeball's true feelings about them:
The poster has been sorted for weeks. (I personally find the whole situation dubious, to say the least, the poster seems to me to be on some kind of mission.)
It seems he doesn't believe them.
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

#60 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 12 Jul 2017 13:55

Oh dear, he's now pretending not to realise the OP was talking about the execution costs.
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

#61 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 12 Jul 2017 14:16

I'm sure that the OP would be heartbroken to discover that such a "legend" thought that of him. The "legend's" latest:
The amount outstanding on the NOE would be inflated
How can they do that when it is written clearly on the writ that they are COMMANDED to enforce? Are you suggesting that they will "accidently" inflate the amount by £117.50?

Are we talking about execution fees now
10 days, 50 posts and the penny finally drops for the chimp what exactly is being discussed

There is no notice given at the enforcement stages one or two
Actually, the notice is given prior to enforcement, hence it being called a NOTICE OF ENFORCEMENT

what would he have to check?
A complete stab in the dark here but the fees he's been charged?

The Chimp:
Ignored by some
Laughed at by many
Respected by none.
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

#62 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 12 Jul 2017 14:29

And he has the gall to claim 'alreadyexists' only joined to create an argument.

He knows full well that no-one said there is a NOE given at the 1st enforcement stage - alreadyexists said that the debtor wasn't able to check the figures, ie, nothing in writing was given. Even then, if paperwork was given would the average debtor even understand all the figures?

He cannot accept that this company appears to have a practice of including the transfer up fee with all the other fees, when the transfer up fee will already be included in the debt on the writ. The HCEO company has admitted the error yet still he flounders.
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

#63 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 12 Jul 2017 14:31

Dumbo:
There is no notice given at the enforcement stages one or two

Regulation 30 of TCGR 2013:
Form and contents of notice after entry, and/or taking control of goods on a highway

30.—(1) This regulation applies to the notices required by paragraph 28(1) and paragraph 33(1) of Schedule 12.
(2) Subject to regulations 31 and 32, the notice must be in writing, be signed by the enforcement agent and contain the following information—
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013 ... on/30/made
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:

#64 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 12 Jul 2017 14:40

JimUk1 wrote:
12 Jul 2017 14:16


The Chimp:
Ignored by some
Laughed at by many
Respected by none.
Poetry, not his strong point. He has to create it using this: https://www.rhymezone.com/
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

#65 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 12 Jul 2017 20:37

Pote Snitkin wrote:
12 Jul 2017 13:55
Oh dear, he's now pretending not to realise the OP was talking about the execution costs.
His educated reply....
Erm Pote, he was talking about costs incurred by the creditor, these are not an execution cost dear boy. They are incurred when the judgment was moved up prior to execution, at this point, there wasn’t even a writ.
So..... he now believes the transfer up fee is no longer a cost incurred by the creditor. Does he never stop?
Is there a collective term for a number of cretins I wonder? Perhaps a crop of cretins or a huddle maybe, sorry mind wondering.
'Wandering' my dear boy. I happen to know a collective of cretins is known as a Cag of Cretins.
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

#66 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 12 Jul 2017 22:08

Yet in post #9 of the thread, he claims that it is a cost incurred by the creditor and that when the amount outstanding is recovered, the execution fee is "given" to the creditor.

In post #18 the buffoon claimed that only the "sum adjudged" can be collected as the principle debt, everything after that is a cost of enforcement". This nonsense is of course at complete loggerheads with the writ which commands the HCEO to raise the sums detailed in the SCHEDULE (which obviously includes the execution fee)

As usual, he is arguing for arguments sake and the crap that he is posting only serves to show him up for the fool that we all know he is. I find it best not to allow him to suck you into his pathetic squabbles. I prefer to keep my distance and highlight his silly mistakes as a source of amusement when there is nothing better to post about.
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

#67 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Jul 2017 09:32

Eeeeeh. Int it gone quiet o'er thar?
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:

#68 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Jul 2017 09:52

Last activity is " Bailiffs evict teacher from her quaint cottage....another one with links to FMoTL." a revived thread from 2016 lambasting FMOTL again.

She has about a dozen FMOTL threads on the go over on CAG. There'll be a reason to ask someone to bump one of them.
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

#69 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Jul 2017 20:40

Y'know... we all know that a certain person spells my second name incorrectly, but there can only be one person with the (in)ability to do so with my first name. Perhaps it's done to distract from his general misinterpretations?
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

#70 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Jul 2017 13:15

The usual moronic tongue-flapping elsewhere continues. For the past 2 years, Shirley has continually advised that when a person is unaware of court proceedings and a SD is made, the person must at same time enter a plea. Not once has she questioned the logic of this. How can someone possibly enter a plea for an alleged offence they know nothing about - no notices, no evidence, no dates, no knowledge whatsoever about what they are alleged to have done.

I have questioned this as it seems this advice comes from a contradiction and incompatibility within the CrimPR. However, as usual, her lapdog misunderstands what is being said:
Pote, it will cause no problem at all, because if the defendant does not believe he was guilty on the grounds you mention he should have made the not guilty plea and would be asked to justify it on the hearing.

Just to refresh your memory. There are two possible pleas in a criminal case, innocent or guilty.
To my knowledge, there no. I am guilty, but I want to put off any proceedings so that Jason can get his fee.
He seems to believe it is OK for a person to be asked 'how do you plead' without that person knowing what they are pleading to. He seems to think that you simply plead 'not guilty', then happily trot off to trial without ever seeing any evidence against you. Really?

Oh, and to further highlight his ignorance, he believes that when a judge asks you how do you plead, you say either "innocent" or "guilty". Perhaps a jury foreman also stands up and declares they find the defendant "innocent". Dear oh dear.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Post Reply