JBW the Fraudsters

Post Reply
User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1956
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#141 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Michelle » 17 Nov 2016 18:58

alanA1 wrote: If I drop my case before its struck-out could I still be liable for their costs or am I only liable in the case of a strike out?
You wouldn't be automatically liable for their costs but if you bring a case and then discontinue it, they will apply for their costs and it would be up to the court to decide whether to award them or not. I know of a number of cases where creditors have issued small claims and then discontinued them when confronted with a defended claim that left them unable to produce the necessary evidence, where the defendant had a solicitor acting for them, the court has often awarded costs to the defendant. Naturally, the level of costs at this stage would be lower than if the case had gone all the way to court.
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.

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#142 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 19:48

Thanks for all the input... the old regulations are quite short and limited, very limited to pick and say "this paragraph was broken" unlike the 2014 version which is more extensive and covers a lot more of the bailiff standards.

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#143 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 19:52

Can anyone elaborate on why Tuco says the the tribunals, courts and enforcement act 2007 isn't relevant here ??

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#144 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 19:59

It isn't relevant because it did not come into force (Part 3) until 2014.

Have you actually had any correspondence from JBW? It may well be that this is at an early stage and they have not even engaged lawyers yet. Have their lawyers written to you yet?

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#145 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 20:03

2007 part 2 lists many of the regs i feel he broke... you think this might be useful?

i've received a letter from their legal team saying they intend to defend all the claim... same lady i've received correspondence from when originally complaining to JBW in the first place.

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#146 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 20:13

If you do want to back out, it might be worthwhile giving her a call and stating that you may be prepared to drop the claim now, if they are prepared to walk away. As it appears to still be in house, it could well be that they have not incurred any legal expenses to date. Your other option may be to re submit your claim along the lines of Jason's draft but including the bit that I mentioned about the van fee.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#147 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 17 Nov 2016 20:19

alanA1 wrote:Can anyone elaborate on why Tuco says the the tribunals, courts and enforcement act 2007 isn't relevant here ??
It wasn't in force at the time, but is only persuasive. I wouldn't rely on it.

If you are going to withdraw, then make an offer that all parties pay their own costs.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#148 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 20:24

pat of me wants to continue as i've come this far and i'm still burning that this guy has gotten away with fraud. But I am going to struggle to make a solid case by Monday (will need to be sent tomorrow at the latest), and dont want to then be forced to pay their costs due to a strike-out.... if I had more time (which i've asked for) then i'd be more inclined to continue.

Surely if they sense I am going to back out they won't agree to pay their own costs and will probably look to have me pay them?

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#149 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 20:33

If it's in house, they won't have had any costs as such. No solicitors fees etc.

I honestly think that you are clutching at straws with your "phantom visit" claims. The onus to prove that he didn't attend is on you and all you have is a family member to support this. It really isn't the strongest of claims. I know you're angry but it is what it is.

You can post a letter on Saturday for guaranteed 9 am delivery on Monday if you want.

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#150 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 20:41

My claim for the phantom visits is mothers statement that she was here, no notice through the door, no copies of said notice when ive requested a copy (which they state in a phone transcript was posted on the first 2 occassions), the bailiff taking pictures of the neighbours cars during visit 2... and then I also have JBW admitting in writing they have no evidence for visit 3, there was not even a post visit letter through the mail like for the first 2 visits.

its going to be a tight squeeze to produce something convincing even for Saturday if I do go ahead.

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#151 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 21:22

You can't possibly expect a court to find in your favour if your mum says 1 thing and the bailiff says another. That is 50/50 and as I said, the burden is on you to prove that he didn't call, which is almost impossible unless you have CCTV.

The bailiff is not required to leave notices, nor is he required or likely to keep copies.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#152 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Nov 2016 10:01

If I were advocating, I would assert that the absence of any records of the visit is, by itself, evidence of not having made them. Having made such important visits that give rise to a fee, then they should have at least kept a proper record.

It is also indicative of the attitude of the enforcement company that it does not maintain proper records.

Also, the attendance fees charged are cumulative, based on the "sum demanded". JBW has not shown any evidence of any sum demanded let alone attending the address with a person being at home - a fact JBW had no means of knowing. Otherwise, they would have recorded having spoken to the mother at the address at each visit.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#153 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Nov 2016 11:24

You could've/can still advocate this one, I am still in 2 minds whether to continue.

If they're providing ONLY GPS for the first 2 visits then I will suggest that I be allowed to use the lack of GPS to prove no visit for visit 3.

If the judge doesn't agree I still can go down the excessive levy route, or seizing a work vehicle, or being deliberately misleading which I have a transcript of another member of staff being misleading, if the bailiff denies this during his visit. Also the unfair charges...

Their defence so far has been it was on me to prove it was a work vehicle (a white van with sign writing), and they've also stated that the seizure is not excessive as that was the only item of value available.. Lies, I'd allowed him in the property with plenty of items available. Even if I hadn't, there are 2 expensive bikes chanined up outside, the fact the bailiff did not mention these or try to seize them at all again tells me he did not attend the propert during the first 3 visits... I can and will produce pics of the bikes.

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#154 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 18 Nov 2016 11:34

Excessive levy is a non starter. Besides. Did he actually levy on anything? From what I understand from reading the thread, he attended and you paid him £500, meaning that he didn't have to levy anyway.

If the van was sign written then it may fall into the exempt category. However. You stated that you had just started a new job so what business and who's was the van needed for? Who owned the van?

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#155 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Nov 2016 11:56

I paid after the van was seized (though not taken as I paid £500), but I have their letters stating "mr fishwick seized your vehicle".

I am a self employed courtier, my company, my van (I have receipt), my signs... Sign clearly states 'courier'

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#156 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 18 Nov 2016 12:07

I'm going back a few years here so am not 100% on this but I think that if the van was yours as a sole trader as opposed to being owned by a limited company, there is an argument that it can be seized by virtue of the fact that you would have used it privately as well. Except of course, if you can prove that you owned another vehicle for private use.

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#157 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Nov 2016 12:13

I did have use of other vehicles at the time, would probably be difficult to prove now though

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#158 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 18 Nov 2016 12:19

You would be able to prove it by showing cash transactions of sale or purchase, adverts of the car, insurance policies etc. I could tell you that I had a threesome with 2 of the Pussycat Dolls last night but I bet you wouldn't believe me without showing you evidence would you? In court, you have to be able to prove things. If you can't, you have no case.

In reality, it makes no difference to your claim in any case as the seizure caused you no loss or damage. You paid the £500 and were not at any time deprived of the use of the vehicle.

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#159 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Nov 2016 12:29

I was named driver on the girlfriends (no ex) vehicle... Plus the bike I have mentioned.

His fraudulent fees and false & misleading statements that a truck was on route caused me to pay the £500, this money was earmarked to pay for repairs to the van as it was off the road (the only reason I was even at home that morning), him taking that money caused the van to be off the road for a many weeks... That is all part of my argument and I have the garage repair bill and date already given in as evidence.

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#160 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 18 Nov 2016 12:35

The judge will very likely consider that your (way) overdue debt would take priority over repairs to your van. By your own admission, you ignored their letters for 6 weeks.

You don't really think he is going to say "that nasty bailiff shouldn't have tried to seize your van-You should have been able to pay the debt next Christmas"

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#161 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Nov 2016 12:45

I have a transcript of my call to JBW as evidence of me trying to pay the debt... JBW wouldn't take it.

I have also provided in evidence banks account statements of my financial situation at the time showing I was basically on the breadline and not in a position to pay in full.

The repair money was borrowed from family.

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#162 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 18 Nov 2016 14:59

What do you call a transcript? A written record or a taped record? I Wouldn't mind betting that JBW have taped transcripts of every call you made

You Failed on many occasions to respond to JBWs letters. You Made no attempt to question their so called phantom visits at the time and only bought them up when you were finally caught by the bailiff.

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#163 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Nov 2016 15:22

Written transcript, I have requested the audio - they have denied me on grounds of data protection.

Only ever had the one phone conversation and I questioned the visits during this call...

I also offered them £150 (of a £300 debt at the time), out of the £200 I had to my name... As I said bank statement included in evidence

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#164 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Nov 2016 15:24

I have also requested the recording of each visit which the JBW website states is available for every visit... They don't have them

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#165 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Nov 2016 22:23

anyone able to help with which exact legislation it is (or was in 2013) which makes work tools/vehicles exempt from seizure?

I have JBW letters stating they cannot take items needed for work... but I am trying to find the exact legislation

thanks

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#166 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 18 Nov 2016 23:44

There is no legislation. Pre April 2014, enforcement relied mainly on case law precedents.

You might need to be reminded that JBW did not TAKE your van. Simply seizing it is not fraud if the bailiff genuinely thought that he was entitled to do so.

Let it go Alan. Nobody likes having bailiffs visit them but you are not going to get anywhere with this and you could end up with having to pay more out.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6459
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#167 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Pote Snitkin » 19 Nov 2016 00:30

This may be of use. It's JBW's own guidance for their bailiffs from 2009.
Bailiff Pocketbook Content.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#168 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 19 Nov 2016 11:03

alanA1 wrote:anyone able to help with which exact legislation it is (or was in 2013) which makes work tools/vehicles exempt from seizure?

I have JBW letters stating they cannot take items needed for work... but I am trying to find the exact legislation

thanks
Section 89 of the County Courts Act 1984



Personally speaking, This is not salient to your claim. The bailiff did not deprive you of the use of the van therefore no monetary loss paid. Your grounds are placed on persuading the court the bailiff did not make attendance, giving rise to a charge when your mother was at home
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Tuco
Posts: 1838
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#169 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 19 Nov 2016 11:03

Pote Snitkin wrote:This may be of use. It's JBW's own guidance for their bailiffs from 2009.

Bailiff Pocketbook Content.pdf
Interesting comments about HP in there. I wonder if JBW still endorse them?

I quoted this handbook in proceedings a few years back and got the template response: "It is not legally binding"

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#170 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 25 Apr 2017 20:56

** Quick Update!!

Was in court about 3 weeks ago.

Didn't win anywhere near what I was claiming, but I did win a small portion of my claim.

As I technically won, JBW were then required to pay my court fees, which were £450 alone.

I had the feeling the Judge hadn't bothered reading my case in full (I'd provided a large folder of letters and evidence). The defending solicitor said the same thing, that the Judge hadn't read up on the case. We had to leave the court-room for an hour, whilst the Judge "made her decision", this was something the JBW solicitor said was a new experience for her. During this hour, she seemed certain I'd done enough to win, she also said "whatever I got awarded, she'd arrange payment the very next day". And to her credit, she did just that.

In my opinion the Judge seemed poor, and with a better Judge, I'm sure I'd have been more successful.

This Judge didn't even award me...

- £10 'Subject Access Request' fee, despite my proof I'd paid it, and it being obvious I had to pay it to be able to make an informed complaint.

- No £20 for all my postage costs complaining to JBW, CIVEA, TFL and the Court, despite providing receipts.

- No award for my hours and hours spent making complaints and reading up on previous cases or familiarising myself with the law surrounding bailiffs, not even 1 hour of time awarded to me.

- Nothing for loss of the use of my vehicle for 8 weeks, despite providing evidence.

- Nothing for stress/inconvenience caused.

- I did not claim for the loss of earning I'd suffered, as this was difficult to prove on paper... And with this Judge I'm sure I wouldn't have won that claim.

I did contemplate making a complaint about the Judge, but think I've done enough complaining over the last 3+ years, I am just glad this is now behind me and I had a small result.

Just want to thank everybody on this page who offered some much appreciated advice!!

- until next time!! 😊

alanA1
Posts: 88
Joined: 08 Jun 2015 19:59

#171 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 25 Apr 2017 20:58

** oh, and no reimbursement for my lost earnings that day in court, or my travel expenses that day to get to court.

Thanks again for the help!!

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13066
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#172 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 25 Apr 2017 21:02

The items you listed are all special damages except for the loss of use for the car which regularly makes £50 a day at the moment, so what did you get? and what was the original claim?

You can't make a complaint about the judge on those grounds, but if you have proven a loss but the judge did not give it, then you can appeal on a count of factual error. The judge is not entitled to go behind evidence supporting a claim - unless the defendant gives evidence to the contrary, which appears not to have been done.

Many claims are appealed successfully on the grounds the judge was not impartial and showed he was under a belief that the was under a perceived moral duty to assist the defendant (because they are a bailiff) at the expense of the claimant even then the claim is proven.

You only have 21 days. You might be out of time.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Post Reply