Sheila Harding Lying Again

[Syd Snitkin]

The chimp is getting properly riled - he's started using potty language. Looks like madame has ordered him to attack - obviously she's too busy taking enquiries.

Oh wait, it's after 10pm, so let's give her half hour to empty her colostomy bag, wring out the old flannel and await her latest fairy tales.

Looks like I'll have to invest in a new poking stick.

[Schedule 12]

She is getting rattled over nothing.

[Syd Snitkin]

I know - that's what makes it even funnier.

[Syd Snitkin]

Usual chaos elsewhere. OP had a payment arrangement to pay on the 10th of the month, made payment on that date. OP received a letter today from Jacob's dated the 9th to say the plan had defaulted and are demanding £600.

Sheila says the plan had defaulted and the title of thread is wrong. Brassnecked says Jacob's probably expected cleared payment on the 10th. Sheila advises against contacting the council or making a complaint, instead advising to contact Jacob's welfare department.

Dear oh dear.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... ost5097964

[John The Baptist]

Jacobs threatening imprisonment unless the debt is settled in full and Harding doesn't think that this warrants a complaint to the council? Yeah right, let's just ignore it so Jacobs can use this reprehensible and dishonest threat in the future towards other people who are struggling to pay their council tax.

In another thread, Harding has demonstrated clearly why she should not be let loose near a debtor who is receiving communications from bailiffs. Put simply, Harding is a bluffer and a chancer who knows very little about bailiff law and enforcement in general. This is Harding's latest shocking piece of misinformation:

In the first instance, you need to be making the creditor aware of Item 12 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014

As the creditor is a private landlord, the National Standards are not applicable to him/her. This is outlined in the very first paragraph of the standards:

These standards are intended for use by all enforcement agents, public and private, the enforcement agencies that employ them and the major creditors who use their services....

Harding has clearly not read the standards properly and clearly has no hands on experience or working knowledge of this scenario. If she had, she would be aware that the National Standards only apply to MAJOR CREDITORS

As most High Court writs have been obtained by private creditors, it is very rare that the National Standards will be applicable to them. This would be one of the first things Harding should know if she had any experience of dealing with High court writs.

[Schedule 12]

In legal arguments, I often give then National standards clauses but with a comment about paragraph 1 & 4 making them applicable to major creditors.

Accept it's not binding, but persuasive. It also packs out a legal argument a bit as well especially if it's otherwise a brief one.

This NOT a Sheila endorsement.

[John The Baptist]

This should be good:

Anyway, I have asked BA to look in, she is expert in these matters.

She's been looking in constantly for the past 24 hours chimp - That is all she does all day and every day. BA will just waffle on about trivialities. When she's finished, the OP will be no further forward from post #1. If you genuinely want the OP to be helped, send him/her over here.

I told you that this one should be good.

2 weeks later and they're still going around in circles, even after being given an almighty clue as to what to do and ho to proceed.

The chimp is getting overly excited at the prospect of turning it into another one of his obsessive "paying the creditor directly" epics. Calm down chimp - I'd hate to see you back in hospital so soon after your last spell.

[Syd Snitkin]

Surprised she's got the time - she's currently getting very giddy about some OOTs that she says Jason has written for clients now approaching her. Of course, no evidence of any such forms, nor anyone signing up to complain about anything. Strange that ain't it?

[Schedule 12]

I don't charge for OOT. Sheila Harding does.

I make enough money finding clients and doing paralegal work for solicitors. It's a shame Peter Fel-ton works for Newlyn. I have plenty of work on the table that would keep him busy for a good long time.

As for Sheila, Let's see the TE9.

[Schedule 12]

Meanwhile over on the CAG board.

Guys is there anything i can do? I seem to be running out of options....

Sheila is as useful as a wet paper bag.

[Syd Snitkin]

Mr Shifter's cerebral input to that thread:

If it is not to rude, can i ask how old you are?

Could he be any more snide?

[Syd Snitkin]

Pote you flowery moron, there is a particular significance regarding defaulted fines, when the defendant is under the age of 18, dandy head.

I've sanitised his potty mouth for the benefit of any ladies present.

So let's hear from the learned chimp.

[Schedule 12]

Peter Bardsley is on top form today.

If you cannot pay a fine the options are for the bailiff to apply to the court for further action to be taken, this would be facilitated by a means test.

Wrong. The CPR's don't provide for bailiffs to apply for further action let alone a means test.

If Peter bothered to read his original post, he said:

• After contacting either collectica and marston (by sending my budget and calling them),a payment plan was refused.

I would contact the CAB, they have specialist advisers in criminal matters.

Wrong. The CAG does not give legal advice. They give a list of solicitors.



Also in his original post he said:

• One more thing is that property i live in is not mine,

There is your answer. Both Sheila and Peter missed it.


https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... a55f40be47

[Michelle]

Pote you flowery moron, there is a particular significance regarding defaulted fines, when the defendant is under the age of 18, dandy head.

I've sanitised his potty mouth for the benefit of any ladies present.

So let's hear from the learned chimp.

Thank you, flower.

Is that what's being posted on CAG these days? You go away for a few weeks, next thing you know, the whole place turns into a zoo!

[Syd Snitkin]

Peter Bardsley is on top form today.

If you cannot pay a fine the options are for the bailiff to apply to the court for further action to be taken, this would be facilitated by a means test.

Wrong. The CPR's don't provide for bailiffs to apply for further action let alone a means test.

You can always tell when it's him, the copy and paste is a mess and the reference is irrelevant.

(2)
A warrant of commitment may be issued as aforesaid either—
(a)
where it appears on the return to a [F3warrant of control] that the money and goods of the defaulter are insufficient to [F4pay the amount outstanding, as defined by paragraph 50(3) of Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007] ; or
(b)
instead of a [F5warrant of control] .

[John The Baptist]

Bless:

The £250 they "tried to add" was passed on eventually to B and s where it accumulated the second lot of enforcement fees.

He thinks that B&S can (or would) enforce for Equita's fees.

What a prat?

[John The Baptist]

2nd Feb:

Well firstly you need to clarify why the fees are £310. If they are only now sending you a letter you are still at compliance stage and the fee due to the bailiff should therefore only be £75, the other £235 should only be due after the bailiff calls on the 7th.

Today:

The £250 they "tried to add" was passed on eventually to B and s where it accumulated the second lot of enforcement fees.

Well is the £235 payable or not? Make your mind up.

Talk about conflicting advice. The shifter shifts as much with debtors as he does with us.

[John The Baptist]

OMG:

Indeed however, if the bailiff returns the warrant with a sum remaining the court may commence committal proceedings in any case, in which case the mans test will be a prerequisite. (this has nothing to do with any application to the bailiff of course).

If this happens fees will remain and be recoverable under committal rules.

It also appears to me that the search mentioned will be under section 80 of the MCA which also covers arrest.

I think it has t be remembered that coiurt bailiffs can do much more than just use schedule 12

Has he just been reading the MCA recently? he seems to be obsessed by it all of a sudden, quoting it at every chance. I read his drivel last night about the bailiff applying for a means test. I wondered if Harding would correct him (and doubted that she would). This morning Harding has indeed corrected him so he's come out with the above nonsense.

Ironically, when somebody else mentioned getting the debt returned to the court recently, Harding, in all her evil splendor, stated that we couldn't do this as the courts wouldn't be able to cope with all of the returned cases.

[Syd Snitkin]

Still no evidence of those OOTs. Funny that, ain't it?

[Schedule 12]

She just tried to rip another client off with her £30 OOT's x 2.

I just heard the whole kaboodle from the client about Sheila Harding and her parking ticket appeal scam.

[Syd Snitkin]

I thought the first one was £45 and £25 for additional ones?

Tell us more.

[Schedule 12]

The client said it was £30, maybe Sheila has changed her prices.

The client lost confidence in her when he learned of her and Peters website.

[Syd Snitkin]

Speaking of Mr Shifter, he's just come out with this corker -

It is the “procedure”(schedule12) which governs now the bailiffs enforce, and there is nothing within the procedure which states HP cars cannot be taken under control. Told you this before, and this is why it is only you and your crackpot mates who come up with this nonsense.

Indeed, sch12 does not specifically say HP cars cannot be taken into control...... neither does it specifically say a lease car cannot be taken under control, nor does it say a neighbour's car on your drive cannot be taken into control, nor does it say your child's Xbox cannot be taken into control. And do you know why it doesn't say these things you buffoon?

Because it is all covered by para 10 - "An enforcement agent may take control of goods only if they are goods of the debtor."

HP cars are not goods that the debtor owns - don't you recall the court hearing last year? Perhaps that judge is also a crackpot.

Why does he make it so easy?

[Schedule 12]

He is back on his Hire Purchase horse again. Let him gallop into the sunset.

[John The Baptist]

Nonsense?

He wrote a fckin essay to JK stating that HP goods can't be taken. He gets a glimpse of Peter Satan's reverse argument and he's shifted a full u-turn again.

[John The Baptist]

It is noteworthy that Peter Satan's argument failed in court and that he can no longer brag to Harding that he's never lost a court case.

[Syd Snitkin]

He continues with his inability to actually read what's written. He seems to think that if a neighbour has parked their car on a debtor's drive then para 14 stops a bailiff from clamping the neighbour's car.

And here's me thinking it was para 10 as it's not the debtor's car. Perhaps my Asperger's is kicking in.

[Syd Snitkin]

Morning all. My Asperger's has ensured I'm up bright and early again (does it do that?)

The chimp is in great form again - he now believes that a bailiff can take control of goods that he wouldn't be able to actually sell. So that would include Granny's mobility scooter, Fido the pet dog, the refridgerator, your dining table and all the chairs, your bed, your wedding rings, your combi-boiler and your carpet, amongst other things.

Do you think he does this on purpose? Oh and it's hilarious that they haven't yet figured out the reason for the change in the title. It'll dawn on them eventually.... perhaps.

[John The Baptist]

I presume that he's referring to the HP vehicle that is clamped and being discussed on this thread?

Why argue with an imbecile? He will only drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

Nobody would really go with the chimps advice ahead of ours, not even his fellow idiotic OAP trio. He's a washed up old cretin whose days of bluffing and being taken seriously have long since passed.

[John The Baptist]

On the subject of HP cars, even using the bailiff cartels argument, it will only cover a minute proportion of vehicles as there is hardly ever any beneficial interest in them if they were to be sold at auction- the proceeds in nearly all cases would be less than the amount needed to pay off the hirers.

Bailiffs do not want to sell the cars, they want to abuse their power by depriving the debtor of the use of the vehicle in order to force him/ her to PIF rather than in instalments. Once it's shown that there is no beneficial interest, the vehicle is released immediately. It is not kept under control as that moronic degenerate has suggested. Goods may only be controlled if they can be sold. Bailiff companies HAVE paid out to debtors who have had their HP cars removed as my old mate the master of the sausage rolls will confirm.

[Syd Snitkin]

He cannot grasp the idiocy of his latest statement so continues to try and convince himself.

The whole point of taking goods under control is so they can act a surety for future payment, otherwise they would just be taken and sold.

Perhaps he can explain what happens should the debtor not pay and items acting as a surety cannot actually be taken.

To help him along, let's remind him that HHJ Wulwik ruled last year that HP cars cannot be taken as the debtor was merely the hirer, not the owner. So if the EA clamped a car on HP and the debtor didn't pay, the EA couldn't actually take the car. By clamping a car on HP the EA is doing nothing more than depriving the debtor of it's use.

You would think that the old nannies would be championing the ruling that benefits the debtor rather than looking for ways to benefit Peter Felcher and the bailiffs but I think we've cro$$ed that bridge before.

So perhaps he can once again try to understand that the EA can only take control of goods that can actually be taken and sold if the debtor doesn't pay, unless he truly believes that any item can be taken into control.

[John The Baptist]

Can you imagine just what a nightmare this remedial would have been for his parents and teachers? He would drive me to Valium after 20 minutes.

Has he thought about the 7 day minimum period before goods can be sold? I wonder if he can comprehend that the might be the reason why goods need to be controlled?

[Syd Snitkin]

Unbelievable. The man is still trying to argue the point. His dodging and twisting is nothing short of an embarrassment. The only saving grace is that no-one takes him seriously, not even his fellow nannies.

Why he is still trying to say that goods that cannot be taken and sold can still nevertheless be taken into control is beyond comprehension. No-one has said anything about claiming for a breach (that's breach you plum, not breech, which means arse although quite apt for where he's talking from), but just trying to make him understand that unless goods can be actually taken and sold, ie they are not exempt or third party goods, then they also cannot be taken under control. Any such action would be an unlawful interference with goods. HP cars are not goods of the debtor, as clarified last year.

The legislation doesn't need to say 'only goods that can be sold can be taken under control' as it already covers this by explaining what items cannot be taken under control. Anything on this list is safe from being controlled as it cannot be sold anyway.

The Sheriff's Office understand this, CAB understand, Stepchange, Council Tax Advisors and the solicitors on Just Ask all understand this. Only the buffoon drinking his PG tips fails to comprehend. Again.

By the way, still no sign of those OOTs nor realising what the title name change means.

[John The Baptist]

It's like Animal Farm:

All goods are exempt but some are more exempt than others.

I wonder if he thinks that you can clamp a son or daughters car in order to force a parent to pay a debt?

[Syd Snitkin]

I wonder if he thinks that you can clamp a son or daughters car in order to force a parent to pay a debt?

That seems to be precisely what he trying to argue. Such car cannot be taken and sold so cannot be taken under control, but because the clown says 'the legislation doesn't say that only goods that can be sold can be controlled', he feels it can be taken under control.

It's both baffling and hilarious when he corners himself like this. Thing is, he knows he now cannot say any different - well not until he thinks we've all forgotten about it.