JBW the Fraudsters

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14827
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#106 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by jasonDWB » 09 Aug 2016 15:59

You can find it on the Internet. If you would like me to make a referral, the only route is a consultation. It's on the DWB home page.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

#107 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 15 Nov 2016 21:49

So I filed a case against JBW, however I have recently received a letter from the Courts stating that I need to set out full and adequate 'particulars of claim' by Monday or the claim will be struck out.

Could someone please give me a quick example or explanation on how the particulars of claim should look or be set out ??

Many Thanks

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14827
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#108 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by jasonDWB » 15 Nov 2016 22:15

In no more than 350 words, tell me what you are claiming and why & i'll knock it up.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

#109 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Nov 2016 12:37

Claiming fraud for charging for visits not done X 3

Excessive levying

Seizing a work vehicle

Forcing a payment to be made under duress after making false statements

Being deliberately misleading

Abuse of powers

Most of the above are a violation of their own national standards as well as trading standards... And of course phantom visits is breaking the law under the fraud act.

Thank in advance

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14827
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#110 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by jasonDWB » 16 Nov 2016 13:55

I need a lot more info than that, plus you will need to support it by evidence, especially if JBW defend your claim.

Can you give me the date time and place this happened.

alanA1 wrote:Claiming fraud for charging for visits not done X 3

Excessive levying
This only applies when goods of greater value are taken when goods of lesser value were available. An example of excessive levy going through is when a bailiff takes two cars for a small debt, likewise two motorbikes.

Can you give me some background why the levy is excessive? and I can do that as one of your heads of claim.

alanA1 wrote: Seizing a work vehicle
This applies if it was the only item used in your work and you were not provided with an allowance of up to £1350 in exempt work goods after the vehicle was taken.

Can you tell me how the vehicle was used in your work?

alanA1 wrote: Forcing a payment to be made under duress after making false statements
Can you give me a list of the false statements, and said by whom (name).

alanA1 wrote: Being deliberately misleading
Can you say what was said any by whom was misleading.



alanA1 wrote: Abuse of powers

Can you why how the accused abused their powers?


alanA1 wrote: Most of the above are a violation of their own national standards as well as trading standards... And of course phantom visits is breaking the law under the fraud act.
I don't have a problem saying the visits were not made, the court will decide on the balance of probability whether visits were made. If you or someone was at home when the alleged visits were made, then that person must be prepared to make a statement and attend court at the final hearing to say to the judge they were at home at the time JBW claims to have attended.

We don't need to bring the Fraud Act into the legal argument, that is for a criminal proceeding if you decide to bring one later.

These are the 2014 national standards, can you tell me which provisions JBW has breached. The court won't do this for you. You are expected to identify for the court, where the bailiff has not followed law or guidelines.

http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/fr ... agents.pdf

Can you give a list of the provision numbers.

If you can do that, then you are well on your way.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

#111 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Nov 2016 17:49

in no more then 350 words....hmmm ill try

On the 28/8/13, 13/9/13 and 30/9/13 Bailiff Craig Fishwick of JBW charged for visits he did not make. My disabled mother was home for all 3 visits, plus no notice of visit was pushed through the door, she has made a statement already filed as evidence. When I've asked JBW for evidence they have provided nothing but GPS for the first 2 visits, which I don't see proves a call at the property occurred and my research tells me this type of evidence has already been refused in court. JBW have also openly admitted in writing in a letter dated 7/7/15 they have no evidence for the 3rd visit, also given in evidence.

On 20/9/13, I called JBW to make a part payment and arrange a plan to pay the rest. I spoke to 'Jennie' of JBW, she hastily rejected my offer and threatened me with the removal of my vehicle (a work vehicle and my main work tool as a Courier), if I did not pay in full. National Standards state Bailiffs should take steps to ensure what action they are saying will be done can in fact be taken. Even after i'd asked for advice on what my options were and that I could not pay in full Jennie continued with these threats, I believe her threats to be an abuse of power... I have a transcript of the conversation, this has been given in evidence.

On 16/10/13, Bailiff Craig Fishwick finally shows up and straight away informs me a tow-truck is "on its way" to take my van (a clearly signed work vehicle) if I did not pay £627 immediately (a fee mainly bumped up with his fees for phantom visits - fraud). A truck was clearly not on route as we'd barely spoken at that point and for the duration of the visit he did not once use his phone to call or cancel the truck. This statement alone is false and misleading. I asked how Craig Fishwick could condone taking a £3,000 vehicle to settle a £600 debt, he answered that with "why havn't you called to pay the debt?". I have provided the £3,250 receipt for the vehicle in evidence to prove the excessive levying... With the Bailiff adamant a truck was on route and that he could and would be taking my vehicle, which I now realize he could not do, I made a payment under duress of £500 with the remaining paid in 9 days, or as he put it "We'll be back to take your van".

When I later challenged JBW why they seized a work vehicle, their reply was that the onus is on me to prove its a work vehicle. My research tells me otherwise and its the Bailiff who must ensure what he is doing and saying is within industry guidelines, plus as said the vehicle is a white van with sign writing, I have provided a pic of the van in evidence.

When I later challenged JBW about the excessive levying, their reply was that the vehicle was the only item of value, therefore with nothing else available it is not classed as excessive. This is nonsense and further tells me the Bailiff did not attend the property during any of the first 3 disputed visits as there are plenty of items at the rear of the property (all open and accessible), that would've settled the debt, namely 2 expensive Bikes chained up. He could've seized them at any of the visits with a note to pay or lose the Bikes - he did not because he did not attend the property... backed up by my mothers statement and the fact no notice was pushed through and they have even failed to provide copies of these notices they say were pushed through the door.

Not to mention, i'd allowed Bailiff Fishwick into the property on the day due to the horrendous weather, therefore he'd gained entry and he was in perfect position to leave the van alone and seize smaller items closer to the debt such as TV's, games consoles, laptops, smart-phones, jewellery, instead of a work tool valued at 5 times the debt.

JBW website states all visits are backed up by recorded evidence, I have asked for my recorded evidence for all 4 visits as this would confirm my story 100%, JBW have said they do not have recordings for these visits.

In my case evidence I have provided copies of National standards, the CIVEA code of conduct, JBW code of practice, Copy of the fraud Act 2006, Copy of unfair trading 2008, the tribunal courts & enforcement act 2007.

I feel I may have to also highlight some former case history to help my case.

Thanks again.... sorry but no chance of being under 350 words.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14827
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#112 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by jasonDWB » 16 Nov 2016 18:05

No worries, when I get a moment, I'll tidy it for you. V.bizzy at the moment.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

#113 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Nov 2016 18:10

No problem... I'll make a start myself and amend it to suit once i've received your reply.

Am I on the right lines in thinking 'Particulars Of Claim' just needs to highlights the rules/laws which have been broken and not a full statement of events?? (which is what i've done)

thanks

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

#114 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Nov 2016 20:04

PS - I have highlighted many points in 'The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008', JBW have defended this by stating that this law doesnt apply to them as it applies to consumers... is that correct or as a trader JBW must abide by these regulations also?

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14827
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#115 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by jasonDWB » 16 Nov 2016 21:44

Fraid not.

The law is Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

#116 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 16 Nov 2016 21:57

I've highlighted that regulation too.

so am I correct in thinking 'Particulars' should be a brief description of events and a note of the laws/rules that have been broken.

On many of my points i've highlighted the National standards, the CIVEA code of conduct and the JBW codes of practice which have been violated.... will these violations of national standards stand up in court or is it only legislation?

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14827
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#117 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by jasonDWB » 17 Nov 2016 00:01

Particulars set out how much you are claiming and you must say why.

The legislation comes later in a skeleton argument which sets out each point of law or guidelines that was breached giving rise to your claim.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

#118 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 08:00

Hope the pic has loaded, if so then you can see I have already listed how much I am claiming and why... Yet the court have passed it back saying my particulars are inadequate
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

#119 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 08:07

This is the letter I am trying to satisfy and am running out of time
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6014
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#120 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Nov 2016 09:45

You need to specify which parts of the acts have been breached and which action by JBW caused that breach.

You need to fully breakdown what you are claiming, ie how you get to a figure of £1444 for your time.

If there's insufficient room on the form continue on a separate sheet.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#121 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 10:28

Not read all of this but on a brief glance through, am I right in thinking all visits occurred in 2013, hence Schedule 12 is not applicable?

These were the days when charges for visits could be made twice, followed by the old "van" fee/Head C (assuming it was for council tax?)

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

#122 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 11:29

Yes this was 2013 for a TFL London congestion charge of £10.

I assume schedule 12 2007 was applicable in 2013.

I have broken down my heads of claim clearly & separately in the file I have already given in as evidence.

I think what the letter wants me to do and what I am currently trying to do... Is point out the exact rules & regulations that be been broken. I have already handed in a full statement, but I think this needs amending to point out the exact breaches that have occurred. I am now on the middle of making another statement highlighting the regs that have been breached as well as the national standards and the JBW and CIVEA codes of conduct... I've also included case history where I can.

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#123 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 11:39

alanA1 wrote:Yes this was 2013 for a TFL London congestion charge of £10.

I assume schedule 12 2007 was applicable in 2013.

I have broken down my heads of claim clearly & separately in the file I have already given in as evidence.

I think what the letter wants me to do and what I am currently trying to do... Is point out the exact rules & regulations that be been broken. I have already handed in a full statement, but I think this needs amending to point out the exact breaches that have occurred. I am now on the middle of making another statement highlighting the regs that have been breached as well as the national standards and the JBW and CIVEA codes of conduct... I've also included case history where I can.
No-Schedule 12 is not applicable. That is why you have received the letter. You don't appear to have disclosed any reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

What in Gods name were you doing if you don't even know what you are claiming or what legislation was in force at the time?

All this is over a £10 charge?

I strongly recommend that you get professional legal advice asap

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

#124 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 11:54

Charging for phantom visits violates the fraud act 2006 I know that much... And I have them in writing admitting they have no evidence to prove visits not even GPS - that is why good sir. Thank for the constructive input.

I also tried to pay the debt and they would not let me, that's why it's escalated to this from £10- I have a transcript of that conversation too.

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#125 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 12:07

Mate. I don't want to piss in your chips here but no case in history, to my knowledge has ever found that a bailiff has committed fraud. It is a myth that you see written time and time again on GOODF and other fmotl websites.

Of course the Consumer Protection Regs don't extend to civil enforcement. I would expect my grandson to understand that.

As for "phantom visits". This is another myth that you see bandied around the internet. Have you ever actually thought to look to see if anyone has been successful in claiming that one took place?

The bailiff companies and their internet agents are going to have a field day with this nonsense.

As for your claim of £1,440, I wouldn't pay you £1.44 for what you've done thus far. It is worthless.

For your own good, you really need to get competent legal advice. You could well be exposing yourself to being ordered to pay JBW's legal costs thus far in this matter-Oh don't tell me, you'e been told that you can't have costs awarded against you in small claims.

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

#126 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 12:35

Don't want to piss on my chips? - yeh too late.

Bailiff Craig fishwick is this you?... Or how is it you know about my case and any work/time I have previously done on this?

Are you a solicitor yourself? Seriously question, just interested how you know a lot of regulations?

Of course I've done some digging.. But this case is more than just a phantom visit x 3, it also includes bailiff being deliberately misleading, excessive levying, seizing a work vehicle.

Yes I've heard costs can't be awarded in small claims, this not true then?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6014
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#127 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Nov 2016 12:53

I haven't really followed this thread as Jason had it in hand. Did you ever find out whether your car was exempt from the CC?
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6014
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#128 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Nov 2016 12:57

alanA1 wrote: Yes I've heard costs can't be awarded in small claims, this not true then?
It's not usual, but it can happen.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#129 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 12:59

alanA1 wrote:Don't want to piss on my chips? - yeh too late.

Bailiff Craig fishwick is this you?... Or how is it you know about my case and any work/time I have previously done on this?

Are you a solicitor yourself? Seriously question, just interested how you know a lot of regulations?

Of course I've done some digging.. But this case is more than just a phantom visit x 3, it also includes bailiff being deliberately misleading, excessive levying, seizing a work vehicle.

Yes I've heard costs can't be awarded in small claims, this not true then?
Costs are not usually awarded provided that your claim is reasonable.

Yours is the most unreasonable claim that I've ever seen. It pushes the word "ridiculous" way past breaking point

Do you think you can just say "sorry JBW-I was wrong to issue proceedings but you will have to foot your lawyers bill yourselves as i don't want to pay it"

No, I am not a solicitor. That is why I cannot help you and why I recommended you seek advice from one.

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

#130 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 13:08

Pote - the vehicle did not qualify for the discount due to the vehicles age.

Tuco - thanks for the input, I'll see what the judge says

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14827
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#131 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by jasonDWB » 17 Nov 2016 15:17

This is not an ideal claim, but a similar one to yours was successful towards the end of the old-skool days, but it was only on appeal because the district judge discounted a witness who was housebound when a bailiff claimed to have made a list of chargeable visits.

For your claim to have any chance of success, you must have
  • 1. Your mum makes an affidavit stating that she is disabled and at home all three times the bailiff claims to have attended giving rise to a charge.

    2. Your mum MUST ALSO attend in person
That is the only way you can get GPS data struck out as evidence because that only shows the device was inside a vehicle as it passed the address. It is not sufficient evidence of an attendance with appropriate transport to levy a vehicle.

If you decide to run with your claim, then this is my best shot based on your comments and evidence you have given.

Claimant: Alan A1

Defendant: JBW Group.

Claim number AC00000000


The claimant received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from Transport for London (TFL) and it was passed to JBW Group (JBW) for enforcement. The contravention and its date were unknown to the claimant at the time, but learned an authority to levy distrain was issued on or about 07 August 2013.


On 16 October 2013, a bailiff, Mr. Craig Fishwick (Fishwick) attended from the JBW Group (JBW) seeking to recover £187. Straight away informs me a tow-truck is "on its way" to take my van, a sign written work vehicle, if I did not make over the sum £627. I made over a sum of £500 with the balance to be made over in 9 days, or "We'll be back to take your van".

I learned that Fishwick had not complied with the regulations governing enforcement fees for the enforcement of traffic debts that were applicable in 2013, being The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) (Amended 2003) Regulations 1993, because he charged me the sum of £627 made up of the following.

I made a payment under duress of £500 with the remaining paid in 9 days, or as he put it, "We'll be back to take your van".

Fishwick charged the following;

Debt - £187.00 - 7/8/13
Letter Fee - £13.44 (£11.20+VAT £2.24) - 8/8/13
ATL Fee - £68.40 ( £57.00+VAT £11.40) - 28/8/13
ATL Fee - £72.00 (£60.00+VAT £12.00) - 13/9/13
ATL Fee - £76.80 (£64.00+VAT £12.80) - 30/9/13
ATR Fee - £210.00 (£175.00+VAT £35.00) - 16/10/13
Debit card Fee - £1.20 (£1.00+VAT £0.20) - 16/10/13
Debit card Fee - £1.20 (£1.00+VAT £0.20) - 24/10/13

Fishwick claims to have been making multiple visits prior to this and my disabled mother was home for all these visits. Additionally, no notice of visit was put through the door, she has made a statement already filed as evidence and if she is able to, will attend court as a witness.

Fishwick also charged debit card fees and these are prohibited because regulation 4 & 5 of the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 states, “A trader must not charge consumers, in respect of the use of a given means of payment, fees that exceed the cost borne by the trader for the use of that means” and debit card transactions do not carry a fee to the merchant unless the merchant has a history of bad credit.

There are no letter delivered to me giving rise to a charge, and for such an important letter JBW was unable to show evidence the letter had been given or any postal record of it being delivered in the ordinary course of post. This enabled Fishwick to attend by surprise and create an ambush to compel me into conceding to his demand.

The claimant claims the sum of £371.59, interest at the statutory rate from the date the sum was made over until it is returned to the claimant plus costs allowed by the court.

Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#132 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 16:17

Jason I am very concerned about this case. I think that describing it as "not ideal" is a gross understatement. "An accident waiting to happen" would be a better description. look at the particulars of claim on the attachment.

The OP got a £10 charge fairly and squarely. He "thought" that he didn't have to pay it. Unfortunately, he thought wrong and the debt escalated to nearly £200. Even when his arguments had finished, he still didn't pay it. It was then sent to JBW who wrote to him. Still he didn't pay it.

We then have 3 visits where it is the OP's word against JBW about whether a visit took place. JBW claim to have tracker evidence that the bailiff was at the property on at least 2 occasions. How can a court possibly find in the balance of probability that the visit did not take place? If it were that simple, everybody could do the same, every time a door remained unopened.

There is a possibility that the van fee is slightly too high but without checking back, i couldn't say for certain. Certainly I've seen higher van fees charged than £210.

There is something somewhere in one of the Acts that gives authorities discretionary powers to charge for services. It may be immoral but it may also be lawful. We are talking a paltry £2.40 in any case.

The OP is not a consumer and JBW are not traders. The Consumer Protection Regs are worthless in this or any other instance involving bailiffs.

Finally, JBW were under no obligation to leave any letters when they visited.

Sometimes you have to upset people in order to help them. Its no use telling them that they have been victims and mollycuddling them-Especially when they are risking costs orders against them as in this case. You have to tell them in no uncertain terms how it is.

We hear it all the time "fraud", "demanding money with menaces", "theft", "I'm going to the press". It's all a load of crap and it never happens.

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

#133 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 16:45

Tuco - can I assume you are/were a bailiff?

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#134 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 17:00

alanA1 wrote:Tuco - can I assume you are/were a bailiff?
Assume what you like mate-You've got nothing right thus far though. Can you let me know what 6 numbers you use on the lottery please? I'll have to make sure that I never use them.

Allowing a £10 debt escalate to over £600 was a real masterstroke wasn't it? I take my hat off to you.

PS-If you really want to stop total humiliation here, make sure you use the correct National Standards that were relevant at the time, not the 2014 version that you are quoting from. You might also want to question why it was necessary for a van to be supposedly called for, before knowing if goods were available for seizure or whether the debtor (that is you ;) ) was in a position to settle?

That way, you may gain a slight bit of credibility back.

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1806
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#135 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Michelle » 17 Nov 2016 17:25

alanA1 wrote: Yes I've heard costs can't be awarded in small claims, this not true then?
Costs are not routinely awarded against the losing party in small claims, however, they CAN be awarded if the court regards the behaviour of one of the parties as unreasonable.
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

#136 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 17:37

I should've expected an answer like that from you, you've been condescending since you came on, It was a simple harmless question as I'm interested in how you know a lot of the regs if you're not a solicitor.

You seem to be firmly in the side of the bailiff in this argument, that and your knowle leads me to think you are or were a bailiff at some point?

I've already explained the debt is mainly made up of bailiffs charges for fraudulent charges (false visits), and that I tried to pay this long before £600 and JBW would not allow me to.

Perhaps instead of sitting behind your computer saying "Oh my god what the hell are you doing... Bla bla bla", you can actually give some constructive advice and give the correct standards that were in force at that time and where someone might find them?... Unless of course you are a bailiff.

Tuco
Posts: 1827
Joined: 29 May 2016 13:06

#137 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Tuco » 17 Nov 2016 17:51

alanA1 wrote:I should've expected an answer like that from you, you've been condescending since you came on, It was a simple harmless question as I'm interested in how you know a lot of the regs if you're not a solicitor.

You seem to be firmly in the side of the bailiff in this argument, that and your knowle leads me to think you are or were a bailiff at some point?

I've already explained the debt is mainly made up of bailiffs charges for fraudulent charges (false visits), and that I tried to pay this long before £600 and JBW would not allow me to.

Perhaps instead of sitting behind your computer saying "Oh my god what the hell are you doing... Bla bla bla", you can actually give some constructive advice and give the correct standards that were in force at that time and where someone might find them?... Unless of course you are a bailiff.
Alan. You have not got 1 thing right in this disaster of a case yet. Why do you think I am on this forum? To help bailiffs? How can I help you other than to try to stop you having a costs order made against you? You haven't a cat in hells chance of winning this claim. Do you prefer me to pretend that you have a great chance?

I am only saying what the other side will say if and when you get to court. Would you prefer me not to tell you? Brush it under the carpet and hope the bailiffs don't know about it?

These people are professionals, they do this for a living. When they go to court, they bring with them solicitors who specialize in bailiff law and are highly experienced. They don't bring some divorce lawyer from the local high street with them.

Have you any idea what you are up against? look at the crisis point you are at. You have a claim that needs to go straight into the paper shredder and you have less than 4 days o come up with something that resembles a legal argument, otherwise your claim is going to be slung out and JBW are going to be asking the court that you be ordered to pay their legal costs.

I gave you all the constructive advice that I can and that is to get some competent advice from a qualified lawyer. You are partly in this mess because you have relied on the internet to construct your claim. The harsh reality is that it is going to be 99% unlikely that a court will find that phantom visits took place and that is if you are able to construct something before the 21st that resembles a claim.

I have the old National Standards on my other computer. I will see if i can link them for you later on but please don't underestimate the seriousness of having a claim struck out.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6014
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#138 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Nov 2016 17:54

alanA1 wrote:I should've expected an answer like that from you, you've been condescending since you came on, It was a simple harmless question as I'm interested in how you know a lot of the regs if you're not a solicitor.

You seem to be firmly in the side of the bailiff in this argument, that and your knowle leads me to think you are or were a bailiff at some point?
Alan let us assure you that Tuco is most definitely not a bailiff nor ever has been - none of us on here are. He is not a solicitor but works alongside one and knows the regs as he deals with them week in week out. If anything your typical bailiff is completely ignorant of the regulations.

He does say it as he sees it - all he's trying to do is show you that if you go to court with those arguments you'd be laughed out. You need to use the legislation and regulations that were in place at the time. The current legislation and regulations only came into place in 2014 so they'll have no relevance to your case.

You've been posting here for nearly 18 months but we seem no further forward, so perhaps we need to go back to the start, remove all the irrelevance and see how your case can be defended.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

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

#139 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 17 Nov 2016 18:07

I've been arguing with JBW & CIVEA for a while then have recently decided on court action.. Hence the 18 months or so.

I've been searching for the previous standards as I was aware 2014 is after the event, although I've struggled.

Are national standards legally binding if I can find them and quote them in my argument?

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?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6014
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#140 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Pote Snitkin » 17 Nov 2016 18:53

The national standards would have been, I believe, the 2002 ones - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... ents02.htm

Here's a pdf copy
National Standards for Enforcement Agents.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest