Really?

Post Reply
User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13275
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#246 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 31 Jul 2017 22:45

Pole tax?

Is that a Dole Pole? an NHS-like walking stick carried by disability claimants who can bounce around like a rubber ball, then hobble like a 90-year old when climbing into a taxi to the dole office for the medical check.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#247 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 01 Aug 2017 19:02

Madame showing her lack of knowledge again:
Excellent response as usual SS.
It was not an excellent response - His posts rarely are. In this case, he was wrong on every point

I was also surprised to read the advice given by the previous poster. Just because the OP works part time and is struggling financially (as are most people whose cases are referred to bailiffs) does not mean that her circumstances are 'quite exceptional'. In fact, far from it.
Are you really that unbelievably stupid? How many times do you tell people that councils expect payments within 3 - 6 months? Well surely they expect this because most people can afford to maintain these payments and anything else would be the exception, not the norm? Or are you telling us that councils demand these payment time scales, despite the fact that most cannot afford them? Of course you have to claim it is exceptional if you are seeking a longer period in which to repay. The supporting I & E supports your request.

I also don't known where the misinformation comes from regarding the reference to a local authority supposedly having to provide the OP with a 'request for further information'. Thankfully you have resolved the misinformation on this point.
There was no misinformation you idiot - Just because you are clueless and don't know what you're talking about half the time (as demonstrated by your regular "multi-tasking" moments), doesn't mean that everyone else is. The council tax geek did not resolve anything - He just showed that he is as clueless as you are.
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#248 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 01 Aug 2017 20:17

Craig posts all over the net on different forums and his posts always seem to assist the council staff never the debtor. Did you know he wants students to pay some sort of 'fee' to councils to compensate being exempt from council tax? The crank loves him as he always agrees with her - MSE is a proper love in. I wonder what he charges debtors from his website? He doesn't state what his fees are, just that you ask for a 'quote'.

He could've written absolutely anything in his post - he could've written that likes to eat kebabs made from kittens and fluffy bunnies and she would've called it an excellent response. These people are quite simply lunatics with no desire to use the forums to actually help debtors but only to argue against anyone from these boards.
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#249 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 04 Aug 2017 18:50

DX wrote:They live in the same property
They are jointly liable for ctax
After 11 years on the forum, he still thinks that's correct. You'd have more success teaching algebra to a rock.
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

#250 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 04 Aug 2017 19:34

He probably got the idea after reading this nonsense from madame:
The problem with council tax debts, is that unlike court fines and parking debts, a Liability Order only needs to name one member of the household even though the council tax debt itself is considered is joint debt.
She's another idiot who claims to have been advising for 11 years yet she still cannot understand the very basic and simple principle of joint liability.

She's trying so hard lately - The trouble is, the harder she tries, the more mistakes she seems to be making :lol:

She's getting very angry in the process as well. I think she needs some anger management therapy :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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#251 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 04 Aug 2017 20:34

I noticed she's digging deep for some LGO decisions to argue against your 'make a complaint' advice. Why are they so against people standing up for themselves? Like it was said, it costs nothing, nothing to lose, much to gain. If it's deluging council staff then good - maybe it'll make them address the underlying problems.
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

#252 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 04 Aug 2017 21:02

LGO decisions are available for anyone.

I love how madame goes on like she is privy to secret information or that she posts the decisions "for the good of the board" She basically posts a decision in order to support her own claims about a certain scenario (usually opposing something Jason has said)

Notice she isn't so quick to hold her hands up over that elementary failure to understand enforcing debts involving joint liability.
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

#253 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 04 Aug 2017 21:15

2 old fossils with a combined age of over 130 years playing pin the tail on CAG

You couldn't make it up :lol:

Pity neither of them are able to assist debtors isn't 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.

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

#254 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 04 Aug 2017 21:30

OMG - Even Ma Oddy is at it now:
To the OP....it is certainly 'complicated' as you say and until such time we get to the reason why it is complicated people can only 'suggest' a way forward.
What's with all this "we"? Since when have you been able to advise anyone? :lol:

It is not complicated at all, it is very simple. Your mistress just wants to make things complicated because there's nothing that winds her and her big ego up more than someone else's advice working over hers. Then she has the bare faced cheek to claim she cares about debtors. The woman is sickening.
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#255 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 04 Aug 2017 22:39

Has the thread been removed?
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#256 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 05 Aug 2017 09:54

It's back again - notice how DX has removed his nasty posts and all replies about his 'rival forums' and 'going on holiday' posts. He must spend a fortune on whitewash.
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
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4089
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#257 Re: Really?

Post by Amy » 05 Aug 2017 10:04

They don't have anything better to do, that's why they are mods on CAG. Always been that way over there.

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

#258 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 05 Aug 2017 11:09

:lol:
In the past 24 hours I have received quite a number of enquiries regarding this thread on the subject of 'joint and several' liability for council tax.

The legal position is that people living together as husband and wife are jointly and severally liable for council tax. This means that each person is responsible for the full council tax charge. If the joint bill is unpaid a local authority can pursue either person for the debt.

In almost all cases, a local authority will address all communication (including the summons) to the husband and wife as Mr & Mrs.

In this particular case (which the OP confirms is 'complicated'), the debt appears to be one that is not a joint debt and instead, is a debt in the husband's name only.
Why have you just repeated what was stated in post #49?

Excepte the misinformation that you added about numerous people receiving a single summons :lol:

Never mind - You're getting there. We'll have you up to speed regarding joint liability before the weekend is through, just remember this:

1. People cannot be enforced against if their name is not on the LO
2. Individuals must receive individual summonses, in their names only.

After that, we'll have a closer look at your anger issues and ss what we can do about that. :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
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1989
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#259 Re: Really?

Post by Michelle » 05 Aug 2017 12:21

Pote Snitkin wrote:
05 Aug 2017 09:54
It's back again - notice how DX has removed his nasty posts and all replies about his 'rival forums' and 'going on holiday' posts. He must spend a fortune on whitewash.
DX and his Evil Twin the Brig who has now gone over to troll on LB are a waste of space. The oxygen they consume would be better used to grow vegetables with higher IQs than them.
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#260 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 05 Aug 2017 18:02

Lairy Mary can't resist a dig can she?
Morgan,

I notice that you have also posted your query on another social media site. On there you have been advised to apply to the HIGH COURT for a Stay of Execution and a Variation using Form 245. You need to disregard that advice. Your husband's debt is for council tax arrears and accordingly, such an application (N245 to the High Court) is entirely the wrong procedure.
She means this thread - viewtopic.php?t=4709&f=7

However, it's a bit difficult to give the right advice when the OP posts in the High Court section and never mentions council tax. Anyway, I thought she only came on here on Wednesdays.
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
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1989
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#261 Re: Really?

Post by Michelle » 05 Aug 2017 22:09

OK, thread moved to the council tax section. My sincere apologies, crystal ball tends not to work weekends...
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

#262 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 06 Aug 2017 08:58

Further signs of her own stupidity. She hasn't been able to offer any constructive advice of her own yet is quick to criticise Jason, who clearly stated "IF the debt was enforced by HCEOs" (which he said was unlikely). She is also adamant that a complaint should not be issued, despite this guaranteeing the councils' prompt attention. Notwithstanding the fact that she was totally unaware of the probability that the controlled goods agreement is void, she also made the following inaccurate and extremely dangerous howlers:
The problem with council tax debts, is that unlike court fines and parking debts, a Liability Order only needs to name one member of the household even though the council tax debt itself is considered is joint debt.
Not long ago, she told a young girl on CAG that her goods were in danger because she was jointly liable with her boyfriend for his council tax debt. Despite the situation being explained to her at the time, madame still hasn't understood that a LO does not enable the bailiff to enforce against anyone who lives in the household. It is an appalling misunderstanding of very basic legislation

In almost all cases, a local authority will address all communication (including the summons) to the husband and wife as Mr & Mrs.
We are not talking about sending invites out to a 21st birthday here - We are talking about a summons to appear in court. She actually thinks that you can send a summons addressed to "Me & Mrs" :lol:


Finally and (in this particular case) most worryingly, she came out with this ridiculous piece of advice:
It may well be a good idea to speak with Bristow & Sutor on Tuesday and explain that the items listed on the Controlled Goods Agreement were destroyed a short while ago and if evidence if required, the agent can view the items in a skip on the driveway.
I cannot believe that even she would be so stupid. She actually advised a debtor to invite the bailiff back to her home to inspect a skip on the driveway. This stupid statement immediately gives the bailiff reasonable belief that the items have been replaced and therefore additional items have been taken onto the premises. This exposed the debtor to the risk of a further bailiff visit and all her new goods being taken into control.


The woman has a very worrying and extremely over inflated opinion of herself and her ability to deal with bailiff matters. In practice, if you take her away from her OOT comfort zone, she is lost. An example of her stupidity is a claim yesterday that she had received "quite a number of enquiries" These kind of statements are madness - Does she seriously believe that anyone thinks there are lots of lost souls on CAG who continually ask for her pearls of wisdom and guidance? None of this is the behaviour of a normal, rational, sane woman in her mid 60s. She made that post purely as an attempt to cover up her previous howler.

Her obsession with Jason has seen most normal people distance themselves from her, save for a couple of internet trolls who thrive on conflict and name calling from behind their PC screens. She is now frantically trying to save what little face she has left on CAG by swamping every thread. It is quite painful to watch as she displays more and more inability to understand situations and deal with them accordingly.
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#263 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 06 Aug 2017 10:12

There seemed to be a determination for her to make the OP pay more with Madame saying:
If Jacobs request an updated Income & Expenditure, will this show an improvement in your financial circumstances since last year.
The OP replied that their financial situation is actually worse than 12 months ago. Madame helpfully replies:
I know that it is difficult, but would you be able to increase your fortnightly payments very slightly (perhaps to £60 a fortnight?)
Eventually the OP speaks to Jacobs and they confirmed the payments will stay as they were. Of course Madame knew this all along:
An excellent outcome and one that doesn't surprise me.
She then goes on to lick the cracks of Jacob's. I wonder if she would find out whether they have amended their unlawful NOEs 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.

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

#264 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 06 Aug 2017 10:27

That thread showed madame in all of her splendour. The query was resolved in post #2 - End of story until madame comes along, trying to be clever. There are times when additional information is needed and times when it is not. In this case, it was simply an issue of the OP not having the means to up her payments. All the information required was contained in the first post. 11 posts later and madame repeats the advice given in post #2 :lol:

Along the way, madame displayed her standard inability to read and understand what was written:

Post #1 (OP):
We write regarding your current arrangement of £50 every 14 to clear your debt by installments.

Post #4 (madame)
What is the current payment arrangement?

Post #5 (OP):
Payment is currently £50 every 14 days

Post #6 (madame):
It's unusual for an enforcement company to accept such a low figure of £50 per month
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#265 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Aug 2017 08:14

What a sad, vile old troll Ma Bacon is. No desire to offer any advice. only to disrupt and snipe. Weird behaviour from a woman in her 70s.
Clearly alreadyexists is in direct contact with Morgan...I suspect, by acessing the confidential email the poster made with the other forum during registration( there is history to confidentiallity being breached this way) or by private message through the same.
Norris is no better, only there to cause disruption (I wonder if DX will highlight this :roll: ). He was asked to start a new thread on his query but no, he prefers to take the OP's thread off topic.
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

#266 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Aug 2017 08:19

The reason why madame is so determined to stop people making formal complaints to councils:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... d***/page5

She knows full well that it's the only way to make these people (councils) sit up and take notice but it will also mean that she has to admit that (yet) again, she was wrong.

Madame is proving time and time again that her ego is all that is important to her, NOT the debtor's well being. This time, in a frantic attempt to disrupt the thread, she has ordered her uneducated lackeys to cause problems.

Ignoring the chimp's nonsense, post #14 made by madame is interesting as she again demonstrates her total ignorance and stupidity concerning joint liability:
Is the debt solely yours? If it is a council tax debt, and both you and your partner were residents in the property during the period that council tax was due, then sadly, even if the account is recorded i your name only, it will nonetheless be considered a JOINT debt. Many people make this same mistake.
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

#267 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Aug 2017 08:24

Pote Snitkin wrote:
07 Aug 2017 08:14
What a sad, vile old troll Ma Bacon is. No desire to offer any advice. only to disrupt and snipe. Weird behaviour from a woman in her 70s.
Clearly alreadyexists is in direct contact with Morgan...I suspect, by acessing the confidential email the poster made with the other forum during registration( there is history to confidentiallity being breached this way) or by private message through the same.
Norris is no better, only there to cause disruption (I wonder if DX will highlight this :roll: ). He was asked to start a new thread on his query but no, he prefers to take the OP's thread off topic.
She is evil. It was a disgusting thing to post, even by her reprehensible low standards and even allowing for her stupidity. It was a terrible misjudgement that says a lot more about her and her cohorts than it does about us. The one saving grace is that it's perhaps better for the OP to read drivel like that than it is for Ma Bacon to give "advice". The OP is already in enough trouble due to madame's shocking advice to tell B&S that the old furniture has been damaged by flood.
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#268 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Aug 2017 08:49

JimUk1 wrote:
07 Aug 2017 08:19
The reason why madame is so determined to stop people making formal complaints to councils:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... d***/page5
The chimp was an absolute disgrace on that thread, determined to prove that the bailiff must be paid his fees, finding any argument to show the OP had to cough up. When the end result was that the fees were removed his pathetic response was to interrogate the OP demanding that the council's reply was posted word for word as he was sure it would still back up his argument. When the OP posted the reply showing he was wrong his response was -
Very good, nice to see that the authority showed a little common sense and didn't apply the strict rule of law.
Yet throughout the thread he insisted that 'the strict rule of law' must be applied. He is truly a low-life.
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#269 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Aug 2017 09:12

He really needs to get off the forums. He's now suggesting the OP is guilty of an offence and looking at up a year in chokey by citing para 68 of sch12 (bless him, he wrote para 8).

Perhaps he can explain how the OP would be guilty of obstruction?
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

#270 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Aug 2017 09:19

They're just unbelievably thick people and it winds them up immensely that they cannot compete with us - Look at the chimp's latest suggestion that the OP has committed an offence. :lol: What the hell goes on inside that molecule of a brain of his?

Madame then asks how the husband is going to be writing a letter, clearly forgetting that only 2 hours earlier, she had advised him to do exactly that.
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

#271 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 07 Aug 2017 10:32

Well mongrels - How did that work out for you? Another satisfied debtor or another debtor who has been used for your own pathetic, selfish agenda?

Keep trying mongrels but remember one thing:

good will always triumph over evil

(oh and brains will always triumph over ignorance of course)
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#272 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Aug 2017 10:46

The usual clear-up job is under way. Which mod is currently logged in 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
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#273 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Aug 2017 07:39

He truly is one the nastiest, vindictive little men the world has ever seen.
From what I read the OP has indeed "defaulted". in that he has failed to adhere to the stated payment arrangement. The word default does not only refer to the money, but also the method of payment, but f course you know this.

There is no question of anyone "manufacturing" anything, Their systems will be set to watch for your payments as you agreed to make them, and will register a default if they do not arrive on time.
I think it should be noted that this is a debt you are required to pay, and not some shopping account with Littlewoods.

I should contact the bailiff, apologize humbly and ask for the account to be set back to that agreed previously, Guarantee that this was an error, yes point out that the sum was in fact paid although admittedly not at the right time, and ensure them it will not happen again.

As for making a complaint, forget it no one has done anything wrong, except you.
So the OP paid all monies due by the date specified, in fact paying an extra week on top, and this clown says they've defaulted. Default doesn't apply to method of payments and in the case of credit cards weekly payments (or micropayments) are encouraged by debt advisors.

The cashflow evens itself out and no default on the amount needed should ever occur. It seems he's privvy to how Jacob's 'systems' work - I wonder if he would care to share how he knows this. The response will probably be something along the lines of "it's obvious that's how they work" without ever explaining why it's obvious.
I think it should be noted that this is a debt you are required to pay, and not some shopping account with Littlewoods.
So in his world you can open up a home shopping account and not be required to repay anything. Will he explain that? Of course not, because he's a buffoon who just types what plops into his head to suit the argument without ever thinking it through.

The fact remains is that Jacob's have received all amounts required and never been paid late, yet they are now trying to engineer a visit simply to add a further £235. The OP must make a complaint ASAP and say their trust in Jacob's to administer the debt fairly has been lost and suggest that direct payments be made for future payments.

Now, I'm off to open a Freeman's account, lob £1000 on it knowing that I'm not required to make repayments.
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

#274 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Aug 2017 08:19

I thought it was quite funny that, that was the best this grubby waste of space could come out with. I doubt even the OP will take him seriously and as we saw yesterday with Morgan, his silly snipes are doing CAG more harm than good.

With all this time on his hands, you'd think that he'd do something constructive with what is left of his sorry life - Like write a diary or something. Now that WOULD be an interesting read 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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#275 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Aug 2017 15:13

Ahem... if I may...

Who do you reckon this is?
  • Thinks wilfully refusing to pay council tax is culpable neglect

    Thinks spending money on a holiday rather than paying council tax is not culpable neglect

    Thinks there was a Pole Tax

    Thinks rulings in the High Court are setting a president

    Thinks the written version of ‘slander’ is called ‘liable’

    Thinks that if you type the word ‘label’ an autocorrect will change this to ‘liable’

    Thinks private bailiff fees can be added to an attachment of earnings even though the bailiff is not involved

    Thinks that although Tameside Council rely on repealed legislation to allow fees to be added to an AOE order, there’s no reason why this cannot be applied universally

    Thinks written legislation is called legislature

    Thinks income tax is not a tax on your income

    Thinks that paying the amount due by a certain date by weekly instalments rather than monthly is defaulting

    Thinks an HCEA can apply for a warrant to force entry into a private household under any circumstances

    Thinks that even though a local authority has no legal obligation to apportion direct payments that they should do so anyway out of manners

    Thinks taking control of goods and selling them doesn’t mean actually taking control of goods and selling them

    Thinks that when legislation says you must follow a list of criteria, you can pick and choose which ones to follow

    Thinks ‘may not’ means ‘may’.

    Thinks you’re not required to pay a home shopping debt

    Thinks a bailiff can add items to a CGA after the debtor has signed it without the debtor knowing

    Thinks EA fees are already added to a warrant

    Thinks asking for an attachment of earnings is debt avoidance
And that's just the recent ones. God knows what would crop up if anyone looked back at 10 years worth of this guff.
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

#276 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Aug 2017 18:00

Thinks that the execution fee is not added to the "sum to be recovered" but is listed as "costs"

Thinks that adding a breach of legislation by a bailiff to a formal complaint is "ludicrous"

Thinks that paying a monthly instalment in 4 weekly stages is defaulting

Thinks that taking disproportionate redress is a regulation "breech"
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: 13275
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#277 Re: Really?

Post by Schedule 12 » 08 Aug 2017 18:09

BA confused a PCN NTO appeal with a £235 enforcement fee dispute.

I enjoyed the read, it was so stupid it was actually funny.

BA and the monkey give wrong advice just to wind you up. The CAG poster is the only one that loses.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#278 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Aug 2017 18:20

As I said before, there is very little difference in the level of stupidity between BA and the chimp. Neither can read and understand what is written.

Does she seriously, even in her wildest of dreams think that someone is claiming that the LGO should be required to investigate OOTs?

The woman is an idiot and is currently absolutely seething after her latest round of humiliation in the Morgan case. She's absolutely desperate to score a few petty points and her stupidity and over inflated opinion of herself blinds her to the fact that she is 3 or 4 divisions out of her league.

All hail the saving grace though - She's been posting 10 years and doesn't need to be told what to do.
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: 6571
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#279 Re: Really?

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Aug 2017 18:37

Please calm down. I have been posting here for over 10 years and I don't need a new visitor suggesting whether a subject should be moved to a 'discussion thread'.


So has DX - just look at the guff he comes out with.
Just because the Local Government Ombudsmanicon's decisions show that your advice is wrong is not a reason to hide them away in a discussion thread. They will very likely assist other visitors viewing this popular forum.
She cannot understand that the OP's thread is about adding and enforcement stage fee without a NOE being given. The conceit that this pair show is mind-boggling. To quote Epictetus - “It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.”

Those two down to a T.
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

#280 Re: Really?

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Aug 2017 18:47

Where has he said that?
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