Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post Reply
User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Mar 2018 09:31

You can serve a stat dec at your local court no matter which court gave the fine. Like I've said many times, if people want to make an appointment and attend then fin, that's their choice. But when Harding and her goons continue to insist that an appointment MUST be made and you CANNOT serve a SD by post then I can't sit by and watch a debtor being told lies.

I am convinced that Sheila has a vested interest in forcing appointments to be made, along the lines of the deals she's had with Marstons et al in the past. Is she receiving some sort of payment in exchange for pushing wrong info? She and Shifter continually cite the 'many' letters the courts have sent regarding the issue but never produce any evidence of this other than the email from the court admin posted on here that a debtor received. Even then she embellishes it claiming the forms were returned when no such thing happened.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Mar 2018 09:47

Yes but you can't plead guilty at any old court you choose. Harding has argued that you attend and make the SD followed by the case being dealt with if you plead guilty.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Mar 2018 12:45

Sheila Harding has just made a post on CAG that demonstrates the lengths she will go to. The post includes a so called extract from an email from the court:
If your address is in the Cannock, Telford or North Staffordshire area you will need to telephone the court on xxxxx to book a Statutory Declaration appointment.

This will mean you attending your local court to swear on oath before a magistrate that you were not aware of the hearing. Once the declaration has been made, you will then be given a chance to plead to the original offence against you etc etc .
Harding claims that the person had emailed the court because he found that he had 6 points on his licence when he tried to renew his insurance. The person had moved home so this would mean that he did not update his driving licence details and did not pay for forwarding mail (which almost everyone does when they move home). Of course it would also mean that bailiffs had not been able to trace him.

Strangely though, the email does not give information on what to do if the person lives outside of Cannock, Telford or North Staffordshire. More puzzling is why those particular areas are mentioned. Cannock is in South Staffordshire so why wasn't that included? Why was Telford included? Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Walsall are all nearer or at least as near to Cannock as Telford is.

I suspect the answer lies in the fact that one of Harding's sons living in Cannock. She has most likely looked at some paperwork belonging to him which listed Cannock, Telford and North Staffordshire. Being the idiot that she is, she probably thinks that will suffice to hoodwink people that the court have listed those places.

Finally, why would someone contact a bailiff advice telephone number when the issue is about a court procedure and there is no hint that bailiffs are involved. Then of course there is the usual Harding "I just so happened to be dealing with an identical case" that she always drops when she's getting herself pushed into a corner. What a coincidence that she "just came off the phone" less than 2 hours after I made my last post.

Funny how in all these months, if not years that she has preached about attending in person to swear SDs, she has never mentioned about people attending a local court and then within 2 hours of the impracticalities of people travelling all over the country to do so being pointed out, she receives this email.

Absolute bullsh%t from start to finish.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Mar 2018 13:03

Cannock, Telford or North Staffs? Looks like O-level geography was failed as well. Bit of a difference between Cannock and the Peak District.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Mar 2018 13:15

The correct advice in her 'example' would be to email back and ask 'under what provision do I need to book an appointment? My understanding is that a stat dec can be served by post.' Then see what reply they give.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Mar 2018 13:24

That's assuming that an email was actually sent.

Let's face it, if you wanted to renew your insurance and found that you had points that you knew nothing about, would you waste time emailing or would you be on the phone straight away? I know for a fact that I would be straight on the phone.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Mar 2018 15:16

Pote Snitkin wrote:
15 Mar 2018 13:03
Looks like O-level geography was failed as well.
She apparently did not take any O'Levels.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Mar 2018 17:38

Neither did the Chimp if he still can't understand that s14(3) of the MCA is regarding serving a SD outside the 21 day limit.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Mar 2018 18:05

I don't know if Peter Bardsley took O'Levels. Given his intellect and his life's achievements, it's probable he didn't.

A senior partner in law firm reviewed his website (bailiffhalpforumarewrongagain.com) went as far to say he has mental health problems.

Somebody with mental health problems doesn't normally sit O'Levels.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Mar 2018 18:44

Schedule 12 wrote:
15 Mar 2018 18:05
I don't know if Peter Bardsley took O'Levels.
Are you being serious? I'm of the opinion that he is special needs. He clearly doesn't have the ability to sit O level examinations. I'd be shocked if he attended mainstream education.

There are clearly mental issues and anyone who regularly reads his internet posts cannot help but notice them. He will frequently argue the most ridiculous, pedantic issues, often misunderstanding the post he is responding to. He regularly turns a one page thread into 5 or 6 pages. Then when it becomes clear that he is wrong, he simply moves the goalposts and pretends that he was arguing a different point. Another 5 or 6 pages then mount up. Only someone with no sense could possibly think that he is being taken seriously or fooling anyone. I liken him to a schoolchild who has been caught red handed but still denies guilt.

I imagine the inside of his grotty house to be dark, dated and depressing. His only life appears to be the internet. I urge you to ignore him and deprive him of that platform and leave him to stew all day, every day inside his depressing cesspit. Mentioning him or responding to him only drags you down to his level and gives him something to do.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Mar 2018 19:25

I've not met him, only spoken to him by phone, so I cant tell whether he required special educational needs. We only know Sheila had delayed learning difficulties.

I can still go round and visit him, but I have a feeling he will call the police. The only result is an interesting youtube video on entrapping an internet troll - akin to a Dark Justice Peadofile entrapment video. Maybe another "Jack Tish" moment.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Mar 2018 20:03

Schedule 12 wrote:
15 Mar 2018 19:25
I've not met him, only spoken to him by phone, so I cant tell whether he required special educational needs. We only know Sheila had delayed learning difficulties.

I can still go round and visit him, but I have a feeling he will call the police. The only result is an interesting youtube video on entrapping an internet troll - akin to a Dark Justice Peadofile entrapment video. Maybe another "Jack Tish" moment.
That phone call alone should tell you all you need to know. It was like trying to extract an answer or a response from a 6 year old.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Mar 2018 20:11

A youtube video would be better. See him hiding behind that curtain in his living room window.

If he is a lunatic, it will soon become prevalent. I'll be able to get his 999 call from the CAD as I do with bailiffs 999 calls.

Many bailiffs 999 calls are quite funny, but since they are obtained under the authority of a law firm, I cannot post them on the internet.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Mar 2018 20:52

Sheila is now claiming the Government are wrong with their stat dec advice and guidance and that her (incorrect) advice is doing a vital service. Unbelievable.

Sheila dear, I know you read this site 24/7 so please, please, for the love of baby Jebus can you let everyone know which rule, regulation or legislation backs up your assertion that a stat dec must be made in person and cannot be sent by post. Even your mods are now questioning you.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Mar 2018 21:15

For clarification, the latest Government approved stat dec template is from October 2015 following from an update on the CrPR regarding stat decs. It can be found here: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... forms-2015

I've already posted this, but let us double check the wording.....
2. Make the declaration before a magistrate, a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts), or a solicitor or Commissioner for Oaths. You can ask for help at any magistrates’ court office. See also the notes for guidance beneath.

4. Send or deliver the completed declaration to the court office for the magistrates’ court where the trial took place. They must receive it not more than 21 days after you found out about the case. The court may extend that time limit, but if your declaration is late you must explain why in the box above.
Yes, all seems to be in order. Your turn Sheila.

Ooh, plus look..... it also says to send or take it to the original trial court. Bit of a bind to be making an appointment if that took place in, say, Newcastle and the defendant lives in Taunton.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Mar 2018 22:25

The part that's causing the most contention is highlighted in this part of the Gov's SD template:
5. Where the charges were tried under the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) you must also respond to the SJP notice in writing at the same time as serving the declaration.
However, seeing as the SD is being served due to the SJP notice not being received, it's impossible to respond to it. The SJP notice must include the following information as set out under CrPR 24.9 (1)(c):
  • (i) a written charge,

    (ii) the material listed in paragraph (2) on which the prosecutor relies to set out the facts of the offence,

    (iii) the material listed in paragraph (3) on which the prosecutor relies to provide the court with information relevant to sentence,

    (iv) a notice that the procedure set out in this rule applies,

    (v) a notice for the defendant’s use if the defendant wants to plead guilty,

    (vi) a notice for the defendant’s use if the defendant wants to plead guilty but wants the case dealt with at a hearing by a court comprising more than one justice, and

    (vii) a notice for the defendant’s use if the defendant wants to plead not guilty
The defendant must then be given up to 21 days to respond, as set out in CrPR 24.9 (4). So there seems to be a conflict within the rules - 24.9 states that under the SJP a notice must be served containing the required information giving the defendant up to 21 days to respond; yet 24.17 says a SD relating to a case under the SJP must include a plea despite the defendant not having seen the SJP notice nor been given 21 days to respond.

It is clear that being advised to make an appointment to serve a stat dec in person and make a plea at the same time is not in the interests of justice. It is advising that you must make an uninformed plea - common sense says that is clearly not just.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Mar 2018 22:36

Jason, I'd advise that your SD template is altered with the line:
  • I cannot respond to the SJP notice under the Criminal Procedure Rule 24.17 (2)(b)(i) as I have not been served the notice as required under Criminal Procedure Rule 24.9 (1) & (2).
Often by this stage the defendant may know what the case relates to - the sentence ensures they are not declaring complete ignorance of what it may relate to but puts the court on strict liability to follow its own rules.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2018 07:54

Let me see advice on amending the SD. I follow what solicitors give me.

What is SJP? I can't use abbreviations in a legal document without defining them
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Mar 2018 08:12

Schedule 12 wrote:
16 Mar 2018 07:54
What is SJP? I can't use abbreviations in a legal document without defining them
You kidding me?

I'll let you decide - either Sarah Jessica Parker or Single Justice Procedure.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2018 08:42

I'll have to get advice and approve the amendment.

Most section 14 clients do not have a SJP notice. They come to me after getting an unexpected bailiff with an unknown court fine. I kill it with a section 14 SD. I think adding the text you give would not be a correct approach.

The section 14 notice only follows section 14 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, nothing else.

It already addresses the reason for not entering a plea, because the defendant does not know of the proceedings.

Asking the defendant to enter a plea is a court service tactic to determine wither the defendant making the SD knew of the nature of the accusation and therefore, knew of the proceedings. Its a policy of detecting a dishonest declarant. That is why our section 14 notice is worded the way it is. We do not use "forms", they are designed to defeat the declarant without him realising, so I advise not to use them.

I expect Sheila knows this. I do know that court service does not cooperate with Sheila in any official capacity. She is a known activist and her MO includes intermeddlement.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 16 Mar 2018 13:42

Schedule 12 wrote:
15 Mar 2018 20:11
A youtube video would be better. See him hiding behind that curtain in his living room window.

If he is a lunatic, it will soon become prevalent. I'll be able to get his 999 call from the CAD as I do with bailiffs 999 calls.

Many bailiffs 999 calls are quite funny, but since they are obtained under the authority of a law firm, I cannot post them on the internet.
He reminds me of that character played by Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man".

Just ignore the fool - Trust me, nothing will hurt him more than being ignored.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 16 Mar 2018 19:12

I love it when he starts swearing - it means he's getting riled.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 16 Mar 2018 20:00

Where is he swearing? Can I see it?

That would make excellent Youtube material. It's only reasonable the public sees him in the flesh. Afterall, its public money that is supporting him (and paying his mortgage interest) and they like to see he gives the taxpayer good value.

For someone that tried to pass himself off as retired, it's laughable he has the resource to spend all day playing internet troll. The dole office can offer him a job search workshop when they see his troll videos and his website.

Didn't someone say he was made to attend a "restart" course? a welfare-to-work programme for longterm layabouts. Clearly, he didn't pass because he is still jobless and sponging off the state.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Mar 2018 16:26

Anyone fancy a debate about VAT on fees and whether a company director is liable for the debts of a ltd firm? Some people are a little confused :lol:
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Mar 2018 17:48

Paragraph 10 is FMOTL.

VAT avoidance is FMOTL

Evading car tax is not FMOTL
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Mar 2018 22:35

Well, I was hoping for something a bit more detailed. Guess it's down to me then....

First off, are directors liable for a ltd company's debt? In general, no. Unless the director is a personal guarantor, the debt is owed to HMRC (eg PAYE payments) or acted fraudulantly then a director is not personably liable for the debt and his personal items cannot be seized. More info here > https://www.companydebt.com/articles/co ... ess-debts/

The case we have today, the OP has confirmed he is not a guarantor for the company's debts.

Can a HCEA charge VAT on his fees and make the debtor pay?

VAT is applied to all enforcement fees, however in the case of non HCEA enforcement such as council tax, the VAT is charged to the creditor (eg the council) who can then reclaim the VAT from HMRC. I won't pretend to know what systems they have in place but I would hazard

With HCEA fees, if the creditor is VAT registered then the HCEA should direct the VAT invoice to them and they can reclaim this from HMRC - the debtor should not be paying the VAT. For clarification here is the relevant part HMRC's guidance VBNB41720:
Therefore, where:

the judgment creditors are registered for VAT; and
the debt relates to their taxable business activities

the VAT on the Under-Sheriffs and Sheriffs Officers enforcement services may be recovered by the judgment creditors.

Sheriffs are aware that, although judgment debtors pay the cost of sheriffs’ enforcement fees, the supplies are always to the creditors. VAT invoices for the services must be addressed and sent to the creditors. Any documents issued to debtors should make it clear that they are not VAT invoices.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual ... /vbnb41720
I'm sure we've gone over this before - shame it never sinks in with them.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 2008
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Michelle » 17 Mar 2018 23:26

The whole purpose of a limited company is precisely so the directors/owners/shareholders are not personally liable for the company's liabilities. Some creditors, banks in particular, require personal guarantees, in which case the director/owner/shareholder who gave the guarantee would be personally liable, but in this case, the claim would be issued against the individual(s) who acted as guarantors, rather than against the company, so the resulting judgment would also be against him/her/them.

One problem I can see is when companies, particularly personal services companies, are registered at a director's home address, in which case one could expect the EA to turn up at this address to enforce a judgment against the company, and it may be hard to argue that the computer, etc. belong to you rather than the company.

As far as I know, HCEOs always charge VAT on their fees.
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: 384
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by John The Baptist » 17 Mar 2018 23:59

One of Harding's rituals is to read this forum and then post the exact opposite.

In recent weeks, she's advised that:

1. NoE's for council tax can be sent to "the last known address"
2. NoEs must be resent if previously sent to the "last known address"
3. NoEs are deemed served under the interpretation Act
4. NoEs are not deemed served under the interpretation Act.

Most people are now aware that she posts in order to fit in with her rituals and that what she posts is usually to suit her agenda as opposed to being accurate.

Legislation provides for EAs to visit any address in England & Wales connected to the business. It does not have to be the address on the writ/warrant as Jason incorrectly advises debtors. EAs are on commission, they will use their power to threaten people within their homes to pay business debts regardless of whether they are liable or not. One of the biggest abuses of power is to threaten households with removal of privately owned goods for a business debt.
Dodgeball on committal for council tax being a coercive measure - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Mar 2018 05:53

The warrant has a 'life' of 12 months
What a load of Cockrel.

If Simon Cowell's buzzer from Britains Got Talent was sounded every time Sheila come up with this stuff, the CAG board would sound like what Peter hears after having a joint and playing his guitar.

He may have been careless where he throws his cigarette butts. This tends to happen:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ester.html
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 2008
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Michelle » 18 Mar 2018 11:32

John The Baptist wrote:
17 Mar 2018 23:59
Legislation provides for EAs to visit any address in England & Wales connected to the business. It does not have to be the address on the writ/warrant as Jason incorrectly advises debtors. EAs are on commission, they will use their power to threaten people within their homes to pay business debts regardless of whether they are liable or not. One of the biggest abuses of power is to threaten households with removal of privately owned goods for a business debt.
My point precisely! Obviously if one was expecting the company to get into debt, one wouldn't use one's own address to register it, but then debts can arise from things other than asking for credit. In my case, a late filing penalty which I had to pay to avoid the above situation. :evil:
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: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2018 12:46

Mr Shifter seems to struggle with the notion of a director being allowed to pay a company debt against being liable for the debt. Has anyone got any smaller words I can use to get it through to him?
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2018 14:25

Once again as soon as he realises he's been rumbled, he moves the goalposts.

It's clear he hasn't understood the thread. The address the EA enforced at was the OPs mothers address, the OP is an optometrist so the EA would've clearly seen there would be no business assets. The OP paid as the EA was pressuring his old mum.

I would wager that the business has very few assets and the OP rents premises and equipment or has his services hired.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2018 15:28

Nope, he still doesn't get it. OP's address is the same as mum's address. Clearly not an optician's shop, no goods of the business present, personal items can't be taken. The bailiff is free to visit, but wouldn't be able to seize anything. It would be interesting to know what threats the bailiff made.

Still, at least we can give Shifter something to do today.
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2018 18:56

Once again, showing his complete inabaility to read and understand, Shifter comes out with his latest:
Ahhh,Pote doesn’t seem to think a HCEO can call at a businesses registered address.
Bit odd seeing as I said this above:
The bailiff is free to visit....
Will he ever learn? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6782
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

Re: Sheila Harding Lying Again

Post by Pote Snitkin » 18 Mar 2018 19:22

Has anyone seen the goalposts? I'm sure they were here a while ago?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Let's just have a look at his pointless comment that started this. I told the OP that as it was a ltd company, he is not personal liable for the debt and that he should be seeking a refund as he was not the debtor. Shifter's reply:
The OP was the managing director of the company.
So what? DCBL pressured him (by hassling his old mum) into paying for a debt that he wasn't personally liable for. The NOE was sent to an address the OP no longer uses and they charged both enforcement stage fees. Being DCBL, we all know what their next move would've been. Wonder if this was Shifter's mate Gary Brown involved again?
Dodgeball on the Criminal Procedure Rules - "FMOTL nonsense". Discuss.

Post Reply