stormsegal - A W Wilson

Tell us how you beat the bailiffs.
Post Reply
User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4089
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#1 stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Amy » 22 Apr 2015 20:08

Post away.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6569
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#2 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Apr 2015 11:18

I assume this is for the Wilson case? Oooooh, the suspense is doin' my nut in! :mrgreen:
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

#3 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Amy » 23 Apr 2015 12:08

She'll be here, don't panic.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#4 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Apr 2015 13:17

Ironically I just came off the phone from a DWB Client. A company who paid the judgment debt but bailiff threatened with enforcement action to recover his fees.

He disputed my legal position and said "you dont know nothing" of the Murgatroyd Wilkinson case.

He hung up the telephone so I sent him this text.
Hello Mr. Foster this is to confirm for the avoidance of doubt. The judgment debt has been paid, therefore the power conferred under the writ of control ceases to have effect under Paragraph 58 of Schedule 12 of the TCE Act 2007. There has been no Statutory notice of Enforcement because the address you quotes is wrong, and that is compelling evidence that service is not effected under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. As the schedule 12 procedures have not been used, there are no fees due. Regulation 3 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. If Mr. Evans reports his goods are interfered or a threat of the same is made, then the creditor is at risk of an injunction under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 and further costs action under section 3 of the Interference with Goods (Torts) Act 1977. Please seek legal advice before continuing further. Many thanks.
Let's see if he will be the next mug to stuff another couple of grand in my pocket.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4089
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#5 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Amy » 23 Apr 2015 13:24

Stand by for a STICKIE on the subject then.

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1492
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#6 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Andy » 23 Apr 2015 13:30

You don't know nothing, so you know something then :lol:

He must have been absent the day they taught English.
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#7 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Apr 2015 13:44

I can't see the CAG making a stickie with Murgatroyd because the bailiff trying to take goods to recover fees was defeated.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

stormsegal
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Dec 2014 20:08

#8 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by stormsegal » 23 Apr 2015 16:50

The Wilkinson/Murgatroyd case in which the HCEO was Wilson and co

Hi all Im so happy to be here and able to report Dealing with Bailiff website saved my sanity, Jason spanked mr Wilsons arse well and truly in court and got me my car back :D :D a Lexus is250 8-) I will post pics soon
Mr Wilson was demanding almost £5000.00 his thugs visited my home several times and yes they were THUGS my Gran would have used several bars of coal tar soap to wash their mouths out!!! :twisted:
They were told the judgement had been paid in full but decided to chance their arm and carry on intimidating me to the point I was so Ill I was hospitalised on two occasions with chest pains
Jason was a life line, solicitors I had been to couldnt get their heads around what was going on even with all the paperwork !!!
I found the website dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk and telephoned Jason and thank god I did.
Jason made numerous telephone conference calls on my behalf to the THUGS, Mr Wilson himself and Mr Murgatroyd stating the facts and points of law which they all argued lol lmao :lol:
Jason and his partner travelled 7hrs to attend court with me against THE MR ANDREW WILSON of wilson and co
MR Murgatroyd and Mr Wilson make a good pair very alike, liars, cheaters,conmen, The Judge ruled my car was UNLAWFULLY TAKEN ............more instalments to follow

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6569
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#9 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Apr 2015 16:58

For what reason did they take your car? Was it to cover their fees?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

stormsegal
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Dec 2014 20:08

#10 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by stormsegal » 23 Apr 2015 17:11

They didn't send me the first enforcement notice at all yet Mr Wilson swore in court they had LIAR LIAR they switched courts to Oldham from my local court to obtain their writ yet informed nobody, massaged a couple of dates in the process but yes basically they took my car to cover their fees..........fees which I disputed with the help of DWB

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6569
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#11 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Apr 2015 17:13

Did you have representation in court?
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

stormsegal
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Dec 2014 20:08

#12 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by stormsegal » 23 Apr 2015 17:28

:evil: Murgatroyd had been paid the amount in cash once then pulled a money claim saying he had never had the cash so I ended up with a judgement and had to pay the sleeze ball again!!!! sent him cheque for paper trail .... b*****d sat on it for 3 weeks whilst he transfered it up to instruct HCEO before he banked it.
Just plain nasty

DWB Jason Bailee was my representation in court he spoke on my behalf and did an outstanding job of it, he questioned Wilson and had him squirming like hell. Jason laid the facts and points of law out before the Judge and with the questions he put to Wilson omg it was just brilliant.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#13 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2015 17:42

He questioned Andrew Wilson in court? Are you sure? I read a so called highly respected message board and this is what they said:

Charlie the Chimp said:
The fact is that the MFs are supposed to be there to support the LIP, they can take notes and offer"quiet encouragement and support", they cannot litigate, they neither have the training nor the skill of a professional solicitor.

The court has to look after the interests of all parties in litigation and allowing an untrained person to cross examine witnesses and present legal argument would occur only on a very rare occaision indeed.
Saint Sheila said:
MK's are very rarely able to address the court and

cannot examine witnesses and
Now that's two people who claim to be experts and both have said that Jason would not be allowed to question a witness (Andrew Wilson)

stormsegal
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Dec 2014 20:08

#14 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by stormsegal » 23 Apr 2015 17:47

Judgement had been paid in FULL, the amount of almost £5000.00 was HCEO WILSON AND CO FEES only!!!! they were told it had been paid in FULL but they said NO it had NOT we want our FEES AND CHARGES
MR J THOBURN was one of the THUGS name em and shame em I say.....rough and foul mouthed unlike Wilson snappy dresser with plum in mouth obviously he presents well to Court and Judges .

Jason Bailee had to teach Mr Andrew Wilson the Law

Jason was a MKF and he was allowed to speak on my behalf and question Mr Wilson, the Judge Matthews allowed it Mr Wilson did not object as he was so cock sure he had it in the bag. Jason DID address the court.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#15 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2015 18:17

Oh I see. Maybe they are wrong then?

But once they took your car, how did you stop them selling it?

The chimp and the saint say that you have to say "pretty please, do not sell my car" and then you have to put a cherry on top. Then they won't sell it.

They say that (and I quote) :
It just seems insane for anyone to want to apply for an injunction in one of these cases
Surely, if you had asked them nicely, they would have returned your car?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#16 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Apr 2015 18:19

I'll tried pretty please with AW but he was having none of it.

I got an injunction to stop the sale of the car. It have it somewhere
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#17 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2015 18:24

jasonDWB wrote:I'll tried pretty please with AW but he was having none of it.

I got an injunction to stop the sale of the car. It have it somewhere
I'm sorry Jason, you should not have got an injunction, I read it here:
Sorry BA, and yes as you say the injunction is an entirely inappropriate and unnecessarily costly action to take in these circumstances.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#18 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2015 18:25

You really ought to have considered applying "common sense" (oh the irony :lol: )
Yes it is a general rule that courts do not grant injunctions where another statutory remedy exists. Common sense really.

stormsegal
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Dec 2014 20:08

#19 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by stormsegal » 23 Apr 2015 18:37

J Thoburn the thug AND Andrew Wilson were asked and asked again very politely to return my car oh and Murgatroyd was also asked. Spent 3 days jumping through hoops with Mr Plum AW providing documents of proof etc then he still flatly refused to return my Lexus so It was a case of having to go get an injunction to stop the sale
Not Insane at all one has to follow the correct procedure well unless your AW or Mr M!!then you can just do what the hell you feel like including making me so ill and frail with the stress
An injunction was granted forbidding the sale or disposal until a proper hearing took place

MR AW HAD NO SENSE COMMON OR OTHERWISE

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#20 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Apr 2015 18:44

Mark1960 wrote:
Yes it is a general rule that courts do not grant injunctions where another statutory remedy exists. Common sense really.
An injunction IS a statutory remedy. Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

stormsegal
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Dec 2014 20:08

#21 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by stormsegal » 23 Apr 2015 18:47

8-) Jason Im so glad you do things and say things others feel you should not :lol: :lol: :lol: Its called getting the morally and lawfully right results, fighting against snakes and vipers is never going to be pretty there is no white picket fences just lots of slime,spit and bullshit from the AW s of this world
We need more people who are prepared to stand up and do battle with the bad guys :twisted:

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#22 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2015 18:47

Yes, I know. The people making the comments that I quote have no common sense either. In fact, they have no sense of any description. If they had, they would have kept their big mouths shut until they knew the facts of this case.

They do it time and time again-They are one of the highlights of the internet. The "saint" is an outdated old dinosaur whose methods have been overtaken by new, vibrant and effective measures. She hates the fact that "the new kids on the block" do things better than she can. The "chimp" is a semi-literate cretin who hangs onto the saints coat tails in the hope that it will give him a bit of credibility that he so obviously craves.

They are both obsessed with this message board and have thus far gone to 4 pages discussing your case. It is highly amusing but bear in mind that there is nothing else going on in their sorry lives.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6569
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#23 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Apr 2015 20:51

So let my tired little grey cells get this clear....

Murgatroyd/Wilson took your car as you hadn't paid their fees? The car was taken to cover their fees only?

You had paid the principle debt to the creditor, but did not include the fees. Also the creditor did not pass any fees onto Murgatroyd/Wilson.

When Murgatroyd/Wilson were asked to return the vehicle as it had been taken unlawfully, they refused? You followed the regulations as required - section 85 of the Civil Procedures Rules, but they refused to comply?

You contacted Jason, who arranged for an injunction. At the court hearing, Jason accompanied you as a McKenzie Friend and was permitted to address the court and question Murgatroyd/Wilson with no objections?

The judge ruled that goods cannot be seized and sold for fees only and ordered Murgatroyd/Wilson to return the car?

I assume you were awarded all of your 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.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4089
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#24 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Amy » 23 Apr 2015 21:26

Pote wrote:You had paid the principle debt to the creditor...
Twice. Once in cash and then by cheque.

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#25 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2015 21:35

jasonDWB wrote:Ironically I just came off the phone from a DWB Client. A company who paid the judgment debt but bailiff threatened with enforcement action to recover his fees.

He disputed my legal position and said "you dont know nothing" of the Murgatroyd Wilkinson case.

He hung up the telephone so I sent him this text.
Hello Mr. Foster this is to confirm for the avoidance of doubt. The judgment debt has been paid, therefore the power conferred under the writ of control ceases to have effect under Paragraph 58 of Schedule 12 of the TCE Act 2007. There has been no Statutory notice of Enforcement because the address you quotes is wrong, and that is compelling evidence that service is not effected under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. As the schedule 12 procedures have not been used, there are no fees due. Regulation 3 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. If Mr. Evans reports his goods are interfered or a threat of the same is made, then the creditor is at risk of an injunction under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 and further costs action under section 3 of the Interference with Goods (Torts) Act 1977. Please seek legal advice before continuing further. Many thanks.
Let's see if he will be the next mug to stuff another couple of grand in my pocket.
Jason

How does Par58 have any relevance if no goods have been removed?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#26 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Apr 2015 21:39

Pote Snitkin wrote:So let my tired little grey cells get this clear....

Murgatroyd/Wilson took your car as you hadn't paid their fees?

Yes.

Pote Snitkin wrote: The car was taken to cover their fees only?
Yes.


Pote Snitkin wrote:You had paid the principle debt to the creditor, but did not include the fees.

Yes. No fees had been incurred at this point.


Pote Snitkin wrote: Also the creditor did not pass any fees onto Murgatroyd/Wilson.
He didn't need to. No fees had been incurred at this point.



Pote Snitkin wrote:When Murgatroyd/Wilson were asked to return the vehicle as it had been taken unlawfully, they refused?
Yes, I tried to get them to agree to return the vehicle at their own expense. It took over 41 minutes of mp3 telephone recording to get a flat refusal.


Pote Snitkin wrote:
You followed the regulations as required - section 85 of the Civil Procedures Rules, but they refused to comply?
No. Part 85 only applies to claims of exempt goods and non-debtors goods. See Part 85(1)(2) of the rules. I followed Para.66 of the Schedule 12.

To start the recovery procedures, I only need to get a recorded refusal from AW and Co after clearly giving the legislation to him why his action was unlawful.



Pote Snitkin wrote:You contacted Jason, who arranged for an injunction. At the court hearing, Jason accompanied you as a McKenzie Friend and was permitted to address the court and question Murgatroyd/Wilson with no objections?
Nobody objected. The judge allowed me to stand and address the court and say why this application is being made.



Pote Snitkin wrote: The judge ruled that goods cannot be seized and sold for fees only and ordered Murgatroyd/Wilson to return the car?
Yes.


Pote Snitkin wrote: I assume you were awarded all of your costs?
No costs for either party. It is not possible to determine at this stage what the costs will be.

My clients' costs are dealt with at a later hearing, which is brought under a different Act of Parliament. In this case, its the Torts Act 1977. This proceeding was under paragraph 66 - only to recover the client's vehicle.

We also have to await the loss adjusters report on the clients' losses and deprivation of the use of the vehicle, a £20,000 Lexus was accepted by the court. We also have to examine the vehicle for damage and get it all statements by a Lexus dealership, which is then recovered using paragraph 35 of Schedule 12. My costs will be sorted out in these proceedings under the rules of court. I doubt the creditor will get much change of about £8,500. Whether he recovers that from the enforcement company, is not our concern.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#27 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Apr 2015 21:44

Mark1960 wrote:
Jason

How does Par58 have any relevance if no goods have been removed?
It says no further enforcement steps can be taken. If no goods have been removed then none can be removed. It a car is clamped, the clamp must be removed, otherwise that amounts to an enforcement step.

The bailiff should apply diligence because the moment the enforcement power has ceased, any enforcement that follows attracts a liability under the Torts Act. That was recently demonstrated in a recent Injunction I did on a Newlyn bailiff for using a clamp. A copy of that Injunction is kicking around the members board. It landed LB Barnet a big bill. A BMW Z4.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#28 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2015 22:00

No-Par58 only applies AFTER goods have been removed.


58
(1)
This paragraph applies where the debtor pays the amount outstanding in full—

(a)
after the enforcement agent has taken control of goods, and

(b)
before they are sold or abandoned.

It is no use to anyone who simply pays a debt after bailiffs have become involved.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6569
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#29 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Pote Snitkin » 23 Apr 2015 22:09

So para 58 can be used even if no goods have been taken? I don't see that.
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: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#30 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Apr 2015 22:10

Taking control of goods isn't necessarily removing them. Clamping amounts to taking control of goods. It's an enforcement step in reg 17 or 18 of the TCGRs
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#31 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Mark1960 » 23 Apr 2015 22:19

Yes but the amount outstanding includes all fees.

Any money paid at that point onwards is "proceeds of enforcement" as the enforcement action has prompted the payment.

If it were that simple, debtors could simply not pay any debt until goods are removed, pay the original debt off minus fees and then demand that goods are returned immediately. You could have cars being towed away and returned a week later on a regular basis.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#32 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Schedule 12 » 23 Apr 2015 22:57

The amount outstanding is the sum adjudged less sums paid.

AW argued that sum outstanding is the sum adjudged less sums psid but plus fees plus anything else an HCEO thought he could get away with.

The only fee owed was execution £111.75. But AW could not take control of goods in respect of it.

A side issue I raised on the witness box was his compliance stage fee was on his paperwork as £90 when the regulations set £75. It was an admin error. I asked whether he applied this policy to all his cases. He did. It paved the way forward for a future section 993 Companies Act 2006 investigation.

AW admitted he had not paid any miscellaneous disbursements giving rise to his thousands of pounds of rule 12 miscellaneous costs he was seeking from my client. This set the way forward to a Lord Lucas 2007 April 20 House of Lords Fraud Act investigation
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Mark1960
Posts: 3813
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#33 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Mark1960 » 24 Apr 2015 06:14

The "amount outstanding" is anything that may be recovered out of proceeds. Bailiff fees can definitely be recovered from proceeds so therefore form part of the amount outstanding.

As I am reading this case, it hinged on the debtor arguing that no NOE was received. The judge accepted a SD as proof of this. This meant that AW could not enforce for anything, including the original debt. It does not set a precedent that Par58 may be applied across the board as soon as bailiffs become involved.

I think you are onto a looser by claiming Par58 is relevant if goods have not been controlled. We are regularly seeing in the case of magistrates courts fines, bailiffs enforcing just for their fees after the original debt has been paid to the court.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#34 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Schedule 12 » 24 Apr 2015 06:22

There has been other para 58 injunctions since Murgatroyd.

The fees can be recovered out of proceeds but in this case, there aren't any proceeds. Nothing was sold. Enforcement power ceased. A para 59 notice was given.

If no goods are controlled then there is nothing to injunct. Unless it's a section 1 protection from harassment act.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6569
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#35 Re: stormsegal - A W Wilson

Post by Pote Snitkin » 24 Apr 2015 09:02

Seems like this success story is being dragged off topic. Who wants to start a 'para 58' thread?
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