Sheila Harding Lying Again

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

#36 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by JimUk1 » 27 Oct 2017 08:38

I would suspect that UB & LFI are as sick to death of the woman as we are and both appear to ignore her, preferring to post occasionally when they feel their input may be helpful.

Advice forums are generally outdated and in the main, nobody of any worthwhile value offers input these days, CAG is full of people like Harding and her chimp who are desperate to pretend to be something that they are not.

CAG is overrun with click on adverts and "valued members" are those who post regularly, regardless of the quality contained within their posts. The general quality of information given out appears to be poor and rarely gets down to the nitty gritty that the OP had hoped.

The forum owner, Marc Gander also uses the forum as a platform to sell his "handbook", Gander has previously stated that the book is really designed for those who haven't found the forum yet appears happy to still flog it to unsuspecting visitors to the site. The reason for doing so can only be by way of a motivation to make more money, despite the book being useless to people who are using the forum.

The best example I can use to show CAG in its true light comes ironically from a bailiff. The bailiff in question made the best comment on there that I've seen in a long time. He called DX100 a clueless little troll. Needless to say the quote was deleted, we all know that they don't like the truth being ousted over there do they?

It is also noteworthy that nobody has had the common decency to correct the chimp's misinformation about a new LO being required. This silly guess was of course ridiculous and if he actually thought about it first, even he may have been able to work out that the time and cost in doing so would be horrific, given the sheer quantity of backdated claims. The poor OP is using the argument that a new LO is required as the basis of her complaint. To me, this is far more serious than Harding's misinformation because it has effected the OP directly.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

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

#37 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Dec 2017 13:14

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... ost5085415

Sheila misleading another debtor - does she not remember that Newlyn's own barrister said that to apportion payments the council has taken directly was nonsense? She has never given an answer to that question.

So, once again, let's explain. Direct payments have not been collected using the schedule 12 procedure so cannot be called proceeds of enforcement. Only money takn by the bailiff or the amount raised from goods taken and sold are proceeds.

No doubt she'll repost Shailesh Vara's mistaken reply again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

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

#38 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Dec 2017 13:54

Why not post it in the public forum?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#39 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Dec 2017 15:04

I thought this was in public?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

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

#40 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Dec 2017 16:15

So it is...
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#41 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 20 Dec 2017 17:20

In fairness to Harding, I would guess that her misinformation is due to an inability to understand the correct position rather than any sinister attempt to mislead debtors - Just count the number of times she has got her grubby knickers in a twist over the Explanatory Memorandum of the Fees Regs. She doesn't even understand that it is the actual regs that are legally binding, not the Memorandum.

I see nothing wrong with a creditor dividing payments pro-rata but they are not legally obliged to do so.

The outcome of the consultation was an absolute nonsense in any case. How can receiving the compliance fee in full influence whether bad practice is carried out? The compliance fee will no doubt keep all the fat cats happy in their moronic masonic lodges but how does it inspire the bloke knocking the door to act within the realms of legislation? After all, he is the one who is losing out if less than the amount outstanding is collected. If bad practice is to be averted, it should be the man knocking the doors who is paid first, not the mega rich institutes that he is representing. To me, it is just another example of the sheer greed that this industry spews.

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

#42 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Dec 2017 18:32

John The Baptist wrote:
20 Dec 2017 17:20

I see nothing wrong with a creditor dividing payments pro-rata but they are not legally obliged to do so.
If the creditor chooses to apportion a direct payment that is their choice, but it shouldn't be at the expense of the original debt. In the case above, the debtor was told quite clearly that the debt to the council had been paid but the EA might pursue for their fees separately. The debtor found out some time later that their council tax account had been dipped into and all or some of the payment had been diverted to the EA leaving the account in arrears and subject to further enforcement. That is wrong and the debtor would not have known this had happened.

As you say, there is no legal obligation to do so, therefore the council should not be adjusting the account in such a manner. They cannot rely on part 13 of the TCG(F)R 2014 as they believe they have to. We all know that direct payments are not bound by this regulation.

I believe it is a deliberate lie by Sheila and she will never change her mind - to do so would be to agree with this board, and she'd rather be flayed alive and cooked in bubbling shite than do that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#43 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 20 Dec 2017 19:09

Harding is an idiot - She didn't even understand the meaning of joint liability until it was explained to her fairly recently. She clearly doesn't grasp the direct payment issue. She even thinks that just because an agency stipulates certain payment methods on an NoE that the debtor is bound to make payment exclusively by one of these methods. She hasn't the intelligence to realise that if this was correct, then her "pro-rata" theory would not be relevant in any case.

The problem you have is that it was certainly intended for payments to be divided pro-rata. The NS state at Section 9 that creditors who accept direct payments must ensure that fees are paid. By dividing direct payments pro-rata, the creditor is ensuring that the interests of the agency is being catered for as well as the interests of the original debt. The only potential loser is, as I stated previously, the bloke who is doing all the work.

The problem in the case being discussed was that Harding went out of her way to discourage "sitting it out", quoting the obvious regarding Reg 9(2) of the TCGR as if nobody else was aware of it. Again Harding has contradicted herself because she has previously claimed that an EA will hold a debt for between 3 - 6 months. It doesn't matter if the enforcement power lasts for 1 year or 100 years, if a bailiff can't gain peaceful entry, he ain't getting paid and the warrant/LO will soon be returned. As the OP had paid less than £200 in total, he would still have stood to save around £200 in fees if he had decided to sit it out. Instead, Harding and that moronic chimp talked the OP out of the only method available to him in which he would legally avoid paying at least some of the fees. That is fair enough, it is their choice. What grates is that they did so (as they always do) under the guise of pretending to be helping the OP on a forum that claims to exist to help people.

Neither Harding nor the moronic chimp have any aspirations or motivation to help others and CAG has none either. We won't change that so it is pointless trying to. It won't last for ever though.

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

#44 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Dec 2017 19:26

You mean NS 11. I'd argue that only applies if the creditor asks for the warrant to be returned or arrange their own payment plans directly, not if the debtor makes a voluntary full or part payment. With voluntary payments I'd say NS 9 applies - the creditor only needs to inform the EA.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#45 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 20 Dec 2017 19:41

But every arrangement is going to be voluntary. You are stretching it a bit to try to argue that payments made without the creditor knowing about them (which I think is what you are talking about) is different from a creditor agreeing an arrangement. In what possible circumstance would a creditor not want a payment of money owed to them? It could equally be argued that the creditor leaving the facility to make payment still open to the debtor constitutes the creditor agreeing to ANY payment arrangement. If the creditor did not want to agree payment arrangements directly, it would not leave the option open to do so.

Paying directly is not going to work if a debtor seeks to avoid fees. We had some small successes in the early days but I don't see it ever working now. Sometimes you have to accept that an argument is not going to work and just move on, concentrating on topics that you can influence.

Regardless of dividing payments, a court has deemed that a bailiff may enforce for his fees. Unless there is a reverse precedent in a higher court, it must be accepted that paying direct is not going to work for someone looking to avoid fees.

Ultimately, the intention was for payments to be divided. Continually looking for loopholes in legislation and guidance is futile.

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

#46 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Dec 2017 20:21

It's not quite what I'm saying. If a creditor asks for the warrant to be withdrawn or arranges a payment plan direct with the debtor, then in both cases the creditor has decided to no longer enforce using EAs. In such cases, the creditor should pay any fees due, as per NS11 and as is the case with HC debts.

However, should a creditor make a direct payment whilst the account is with the EA, the creditor should accept that payment and inform the EA of the payment, as per NS9. Enforcement continues for any of the debt still owed, but there is no obligation on the creditor to pass all or any of that payment to the EA.

You say that there wouldn't be a situation where a creditor wouldn't want a payment owed to them but that is precisely what we see if the creditor apportions direct payments - plus we've seen councils return PCN payments in similar situations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#47 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 20 Dec 2017 21:07

Either way, the bailiff has to be paid. It is silly to expect the bailiff to work and not get paid. You cannot simply ignore a debt until it goes to bailiffs and then suddenly pluck the amount owed from under the pillow and pay the creditor in full. If you have the money then pay it when it's due, not when the matter is at crisis point.

Sections 9 & 11 are in conflict with each other (like a lot of legislation). Both refer to payment arrangements.

Whatever way you word it, once the bailiff is called in, payment to him is due at the expense of the original debt so it makes no difference if it is received by way of pro-rata or under S11 of the NS.

You are never going to win this argument, I doubt a solicitor would even take it on now so I don't see the point in continuing with it. A creditor is entitled to do what it wants with money paid directly. If it decides that the EA is to administer the account then that is their prerogative. There is nothing anywhere that states a creditor cannot pass funds to an agent to administer.

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

#48 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 20 Dec 2017 21:56

It's true that there is nothing that states that they cannot apportion, however the argument they rely upon when they do is part 13 of the 2014 regs, as does Sheila. It seems any council and all of HMCTS have taken the interpretation of the EA companies, in particular Paul Caddy. I've never argued that fees aren't due but I will continue to argue that this cannot come from direct payments. I say let the EA work for his fee, not be handed it on a plate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#49 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 20 Dec 2017 22:46

As I said earlier, Harding is an idiot. What she posts is usually not worth the paper that it is printed on. I think that anyone with a basic ability to read can see that Reg 13 only applies to goods sold at auction - Her spin doctor certainly does. My personal feeling is that this was not the intention. However, it is what it reads.

The thing is, creditors don't have to rely on anything - They are not compelled either way. In the case of councils, they are entitled to engage bailiffs to administer overdue accounts via the Contracting Out Regs.

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

#50 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 20 Dec 2017 23:00

I've had a look at the username Peter_Moxon posting history, and his original writing style is different to the style on his current thread.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#51 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 20 Dec 2017 23:07

Have a look at Harding's :lol: :lol: :lol:

She was like the original rebel without a cause when she first started posting.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#52 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 21 Dec 2017 12:25

An example of Harding's idiocy can be seen in the following thread:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... -agreement

At post #15 the idiot stated this:
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.
This is truly shocking information from a woman who claims to have been helping debtors for 12 years. It is possibly the most appalling interpretation of legislation that I've ever come across - And I don't say that lightly given the chimp's almost daily clangers. How can anyone with an iota of intelligence think that a person doesn't have to be named on a LO for their goods to be removed? And how many times must she be told that all debts are enforced identically. There are no special circumstances for one particular debt.


Once the penny finally dropped for the idiot, she came out with this gem @ post #44:
In the past 24 hours I have received quite a number of enquiries regarding this thread....... 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
An indication into Harding's mindset can be seen in the first part of the quote. She sees herself as some kind of pied piper, leading the confused Caggers into the light - A self appointed authority on the subject of bailiffs. I doubt there is anyone, anywhere who really believes that people contact her privately for information, after all, there are only about 5 regular posters on the CAG bailiff forum and all of those know Harding isn't as clued up as she likes to make out. Then we get on to the second part. Harding now does a complete U-Turn from her previous crazy claim that anyone in a household is at risk for council tax debts. After being corrected, Harding now adopts the correct position (3 months later) and confirms that a LO doesn't only need one name in order for the entire household's goods to be at risk.

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

#53 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 21 Dec 2017 13:17

If Sheila feels so well informed on the happenings in the bailiff industry then she can ask Peter Felto.n what happened on 1 December 2017.

We await the answer on the CAG board.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#54 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by JimUk1 » 22 Dec 2017 10:57

Harding is a very small cog in a much larger wheel. She is drip fed snippets that the bailiff industry want posted on the internet for propaganda.

Anyway, much more importantly, has anyone seen or heard anything from the chimp lately? I do hope his absence is nothing too serious. I can't describe just how much I miss his constant battles with the world's most unpredictable spellchecker.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

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

#55 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 30 Dec 2017 12:05

Sheila's getting very confused about the Government's plans on default CCJs
So if for instance a judgement had been obtained by a debt purchasing company against a statute barred debt, the debtor making an application to court to remove the judgment would only succeed in his application......if he immediately pays the judgment in full.

This could be good news for debt purchasing companies????
It's based on her reading of the Gov's proposal of automatically setting aside a CCJ where:
  • The court is satisfied that the defendant was unaware of the claim/judgment when originally issued/entered

    The court is satisfied that the defendant has only just become aware of the claim and judgment

    The defendant immediately pays in full
Obviously this proposal is when a debtor acknowledges they owe the debt and would have paid if they had known of the claim. It's not to do with defended claims.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

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

#56 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 30 Dec 2017 13:00

I am forever setting aside writs transferred up from default judgments. Many are from parking companies looking to monetise dead tickets from private land parking.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#57 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 02 Jan 2018 13:18

She's floundering around again, not reading what has been written. A few months ago on this thread - https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... ment/page3 - she got her bloomers in a twist in trying to prove the user 'alreadyexists' wrong rather than help the OP. Alreadyexist's posts have sadly been removed so the thread is very disjointed.

Most of Sheila's posts were to demand the OP answer irrelevant questions she previously posted. The OP has now returned for advice, seemingly having been forced to pay £250 a month. Sheila is straight in:
From reading back on your posts, it seemed to be the case that the payment arrangement that you were looking to have accepted was £300 per month.
FFS Sheila, read it properly. It was the council that wanted £300 a month, with the OP saying that was completely unaffordable, so offered £80 a month, then £100 per month. Get your thumb out of your butt and actually do something to help the OP rather than look down your nose at those you deem beneath you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

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

#58 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 02 Jan 2018 21:18

Its another example of Sheila losing an innocent victim money with wrong advice. She does the CAG more damage than anyone else can possibly do.

Let them carry on.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#59 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 02 Jan 2018 23:04

That thread should go down in the CAG hall of fame - it has the lot.

First of all you have Harding's incredible U-turn regarding joint liability, followed swiftly by her advising the debtor to inform the bailiffs that controlled goods have been removed.

Then you have the chimp with his usual brand of illiteracy accusing the OP of misrepresentation as well as begging the OP not to complain (bizarrely thinking a bailiff will be sanctioned because of a complaint)

The geek Craig then pipes up with a claim that a sense of proportion is needed (translated this means no complaint and no reduced repayment plan)

Finally (and my particular favourite was the input from the idiot that is DX:
CAG will always help

Dx
Help? DX, Harding & the chimp??????? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I can't imagine a greater banker for a car crash. Thankfully, even the OP sussed the idiot that is DX out:
Dx100uk

We have two separate bills it's complicated... this is my husbands debt
You clearly don't have anything constructive to say .. so don't bother
As for the OP - She had her chance to sort this months ago. If she had taken it, the matter would have been resolved by now. If she thinks that Harding or anyone else on CAG "will always help" then more the fool her.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#60 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 03 Jan 2018 12:22

Harding gets it wrong again:

25.10.2017 (Harding):
As Jacobs Ltd were still enforcing the Liability Order, the council should have passed your payment over to Jacobs Ltd so that they could deduct the Compliance fee of £75.

The following fairly recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsmanicon may assist with understanding the position with paying the council direct:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.u...iliff-fees-due.
26.10.2017 (Harding):
What cannot be argued I believe is that you owe the Compliance fee of £75 which would have been outlined in the initial letter from Jacobs Ltd (called the Notice of Enforcement).
03.01.2018 (OP):
Hi all, just to let you know that I contacted my local councillor and he was very helpful is sorting it out. I didn't have to pay anything in the end
So, the idiot that is Harding was wrong. Not once did Harding encourage the OP to challenge the fees, instead she posted a link to an LGO decision (that was as usual irrelevant to the matter in hand)

Harding - To quote your bailiff boyfriends every time they are presented with an LGO decision: "The decision is not binding and is specific to that individual case)

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

#61 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 03 Jan 2018 13:18

Then DX in his usual illiterate manner amends the title of the thread incorrectly. He seems to think the council has wiped both the fees and a debt. No you twit, the OP paid the debt direct to the council - Jacobs were then chasing for their fees. It's only the fees that have been removed.

Can't bring themselves to admit the truth on direct payments can they?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

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

#62 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 03 Jan 2018 14:04

Looking at DX posting history, he is a debtor that came to CAG for help. Now he is an expert.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#63 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Michelle » 03 Jan 2018 16:19

Schedule 12 wrote:
03 Jan 2018 14:04
Looking at DX posting history, he is a debtor that came to CAG for help. Now he is an expert.
DX is a waste of space and oxygen! He's gone through stages where he told people to challenge their debts, then started accusing everyone of "debt avoidance", alongside his Bestest Mate "The Brig" under his various user names. Both aimed at increasing their post count and very little else, their posts being largely text they copied and pasted time and again, without even bothering to write properly. The use of initial caps was totally lost on both morons. No idea why of all people, he should have been promoted to Site Team.... :roll:
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.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#64 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 05 Jan 2018 09:34

Ah bless. The clown must be reading this thread - He's amended the title.

Where would you be without us DX, eh?

At least he knows where to look to get the accurate information he craves. And it certainly isn't from Sheila Harding, AKA the Dianne Abbott of the Enforcement Industry

Tony72
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Sep 2016 21:13

#65 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Tony72 » 05 Jan 2018 18:51

Schedule 12 wrote:
03 Jan 2018 14:04
Looking at DX posting history, he is a debtor that came to CAG for help. Now he is an expert.
Does it matter how he came to Cag ?

Maybe being in debt is the best way of learning

But he has learnt nothing ever

Over the years he has followed unenforceability , then called it debt avoidance, now uses the tactics to fight claims but he has no idea. he still thinks that last payment is the key to statute barred, he also thinks that for a pre 2007 agreement, no signature means no enforcement - ever ( ask Mrs Frost)

He does not understand S87(1) DN's

Should I go on

he really is a liability

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#66 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 05 Jan 2018 19:21

How about this classic at post #4?
but ad the LO was faulty [wrong value]
it should have been cancelled
He actually thinks that you just randomly cancel LOs in the same way that you'd cancel a hairdressing appointment. The bloke is a first class ignoramus.

CAG was probably a forum that served a purpose 10 years ago. Today, there are few, if any people on there who are actually in a position to give solid advice. Even the owner is more concerned about hits and advertising than he is the people who go there seeking help.

Harding is a woman who has spent her entire life craving recognition - She thought she'd found it on CAG but like all bluffers, she got found out in the end. The same with the chimp - A man who can barely read or write who bluffed his way along for 5 odd years, plagiarising other people's posts. He then got too cocky and actually began to post his own opinions and theories. He was laughed out of town and from then onwards has been little more than a laughing stock.

It really is beyond me that people with such stupidity take it upon themselves to give what they think is advice - It can only be to satisfy their own warped egos. certainly such poorly informed people can rarely post anything of use to a debtor.

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

#67 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Michelle » 05 Jan 2018 19:45

Tony72 wrote:
05 Jan 2018 18:51
Schedule 12 wrote:
03 Jan 2018 14:04
Looking at DX posting history, he is a debtor that came to CAG for help. Now he is an expert.
Does it matter how he came to Cag ?
It does when people brag and lie about their experience, as was the case with his Evil Twin The Brig, who claimed to have 40 years experience as a debt advisor (presumably an unlicensed one). Then you go to CAG and find the posts he made in 2009, showing he didn't know a CCA request from his rear end...
Tony72 wrote:
05 Jan 2018 18:51
Maybe being in debt is the best way of learning

But he has learnt nothing ever
His favourite line was that DCAs are out to "fleece you" and turn you into a cash cow. His view was that you shouldn't pay DCAs, before he moved on to condemn "debt avoidance".
Tony72 wrote:
05 Jan 2018 18:51
Over the years he has followed unenforceability , then called it debt avoidance, now uses the tactics to fight claims but he has no idea. he still thinks that last payment is the key to statute barred, he also thinks that for a pre 2007 agreement, no signature means no enforcement - ever ( ask Mrs Frost)
Funny that, because it was after Carey, when he started accusing everyone of "debt avoidance" as soon as a CCA request was mentioned... and The Brig always joined in, till he got banned for his "outstanding knowledge" of the ins and outs of The LA 1980... :xmas_twisted:

We all know that in Carey, it was established that you didn't need a wet ink signature, well, everyone except HIM!
Tony72 wrote:
05 Jan 2018 18:51
He does not understand S87(1) DN's
That's way way over his little head, his single brain cell isn't capable of handling such advanced concepts.
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
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 2005
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#68 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Michelle » 05 Jan 2018 19:47

John The Baptist wrote:
05 Jan 2018 19:21

CAG was probably a forum that served a purpose 10 years ago.
10 years ago, it lost its purpose, having been set up to fight bank charges.
John The Baptist wrote:
05 Jan 2018 19:21
Today, there are few, if any people on there who are actually in a position to give solid advice.
Not only today, that was already the case since around 2009...
John The Baptist wrote:
05 Jan 2018 19:21
Even the owner is more concerned about hits and advertising than he is the people who go there seeking help.
...which hardly makes him any money and just irritates and puts people off!
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.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#69 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 05 Jan 2018 19:50

His favourite line was that DCAs are out to "fleece you" and turn you into a cash cow. His view was that you shouldn't pay DCAs, before he moved on to condemn "debt avoidance".
Funny - That is exactly what Sheila Harding did.

She initially told people on CAG to pay the council direct, in order to avoid paying bailiff fees.

These days, if anyone suggests the same, she deems it debt avoidance.

They're all as mad as March hares over there.

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

#70 Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 05 Jan 2018 20:57

You can always tell the ones with the biggest egos - they always want the last word. They can't resist responding to a comment and can never admit they're wrong. Oh the hours of fun I've had poking a pursed-lipped response from them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

Post Reply