JBW the Fraudsters

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

#71 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 02 Jun 2016 20:35

JUST A QUICK UPDATE!!

I was awarded the judgment by default... TFL (JBW) failed to provide a defense on time.

Today received copy of TFL's request for an appeal and to have the judgment set-aside, and skeleton defense.

Their solicitors reasons for failing to file a defense on time are "He was off sick and somebody else didnt file the defense".

Their skeleton defense contains false statements.

Is this standard solicitor behaviour to buy more time?.... and what are their chances of getting the appeal, considering the reason of "I was sick" are not what i'd call 'special circumstances'.

Thanks!!

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4089
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#72 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Amy » 02 Jun 2016 21:03

Default judgment is just what it says on the tin - a judgment by default.

You do not really want this because as you have found out more time will most likely be awarded.

What you should be after is a proper and right judgment rather than one by default.

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

#73 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 02 Jun 2016 21:36

Yes judgment by default is not as solid as properly being awarded judgment by a judge.

But, what are their chances of them now having their defense heard seeing as they were 10 days late because "they were sick" ??

Reasons for late defense should be 'exceptional' and completely out of your control. "I was sick", doesnt really fly with me... if I had said this 10 days late, i'd expect my request thrown out... a professional solicitor should know better and therefore be given even less slack.

Do you have any details of the case where JBW had their GPS evidence thrown out of court?

Thanks again!

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#74 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 03 Jun 2016 16:11

Its their MO to quietly apply for a set aside. JBW has done this before. Undefended claim. Ignored all correspondence. Default judgement awarded then they apply to set it aside.

Ask the court to relist a new hearing and ask for your costs.

They should have notified the court if the representing solicitor is off sick. The correct procedure is do a form N434 to notify the court of a change of solicitor.

I suspect they know they can't defend it. They ignored all the court papers and spring a surprise set aside hoping you wouldn't notice. You can now use a solicitor because it's not your fault the defendant ignored your correspondence and is now wanting a set aside. They can only do that if the address is wrong.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#75 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 03 Jun 2016 19:15

Thank you for the reply.

This is TFL's legal team I am now dealing with and he did in fact acknowledge the claim when it was served on TFL.

Still, "I was sick" really doesnt seem like a good enough reason to miss an important deadline by over 2 weeks.

TFL's solicitor also included a skeleton defence in his application to have the case 'set-aside', this defence is riddled with inaccuracies and false statements. I plan to appeal to the court not to allow this late defence due to these false statements which I will prove with documentation... hopefully get this stopped before it makes its way back into the courts.

Thanks again!

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

#76 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Jul 2016 13:07

QUICK UPDATE!!

I have a date for the hearing (Aug 8th)... I was just hoping you could give me any more info on the case where JBW had their GPS evidence thrown out, as I think this would help my case a lot.

Thanks
Alan

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#77 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Jul 2016 13:27

I recall it was small claims track and the GPS evidence was dismissed because it does not prove an attendance was made.

Without seeing the claim and their skeleton defence, it's hard to make comment on the outcome of your claim or how to strengthen it.

It's pre-2014 and JBW is wriggling over ATL fees and they have to prove the attendance and who they paid the sum to in connection with that visit.

The rules at the time, only provides for 28% of the sum recovered. You can ask the court to have a detailed assessment and examine the disbursements paid by JBW in connection with enforcement action done.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#78 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Jul 2016 13:45

Thanks for the reply.

I have plenty of documentation of me practically begging for evidence and being flat out refused apart from the GPS records, which as we both know does not prove a visit.. also have them admitting they have no evidence for the 3rd visit... and as I have said before, my disabled mother is always home and no bailiff visited.

At this point, I am trying to get more info on the GPS being thrown out, as this would help my case a lot and would show that they knew this was not classed as good evidence when they sent it to me.

I dont suppose you have further details or know how I could obtain further details??... or is this something the court/judge would be able to look into once I have informed the court of this happening in 2014?

Thanks
Alan

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#79 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Jul 2016 14:47

If they refused to show the GPS evidence, then the court is unlikely to allow in their defence.

Get your disabled mum to attend court and say to the judge. That will cook their goose.

The GPS pen case was before 2014. JBW has lost other cases since, then. The most recent was their refusal to disclose bodycam footage and that resulted in it being inadmissible and struck out their whole defence.

That is why I don't waste time making repeated requests for bodycam footage. I use their non-compliance as grounds to strike out their defence and my client is awarded his solicitor's 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

#80 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Jul 2016 15:27

They have shown GPS for 2 of the "visits", yet there was no call at the door or notice through the door. The 3rd visit they have no evidence, not even GPS. They have provided no other evidence apart from the 2 GPS records for 2 separate "visits".

My mother is will be making a statement.

Body-cam evidence... thanks!! I'd completely missed that one. I will be sure to bring that up and the fact it has not been presented as clear evidence despite me requesting some clear evidence numerous times.

Many thanks
Alan

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#81 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Jul 2016 16:53

Get your mum to _ATTEND_. That carries much more weight than just a statement. She gets her travel costs paid and Court Service is disabled friendly.

The court will treat her with a lot more respect if she is in person.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#82 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 18 Jul 2016 17:21

ok, ill speak to her about coming along.

I dont see anything about body-cams on their website... But, I do see that they have something to record all conversations during visits... If i can get this this will support my case, as part of my argument is them threatening to take my van (a work vehicle), which they cannot do, therefore causing the payment to be made under duress.

Their defence for this is 'there was nothing else available to the bailiff to cover the debt'.

This is rubbish as I had let the bailiff in due to the horrendous weather... therefore he was inside and in perfect position to seize plenty of goods which would have covered the debt. Not to mention, there was/is items on the outside of the property available which would have covered the debt.

If I can get these recordings it will back up my claim that

1- the bailiff was inside the property, therefore did have other options instead of HAVING to seize a work vehicle, as they claim.

2- Will provide the evidence that the bailiff made continuous threats to seize my van, and that he'd be back to seize it if i didnt pay the outstanding £130 within 10 days. These are false statements which caused the payment to be made under duress.

3- will provide evidence the bailiff did not fully attend the address for the first 3 "visits".

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#83 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 18 Jul 2016 17:36

alanA1 wrote:ok, ill speak to her about coming along.
Impress on her it is vital to yuor claim that he attends. She will be fine with the judge. She can tell her the truth.

alanA1 wrote: I dont see anything about body-cams on their website... But, I do see that they have something to record all conversations during visits... If i can get this this will support my case,
If they refuse to make over the bodycam footage, you can instruct your solicitor to do a Part 31 disclosure to make over all the camera footage unredacted.

That way, if JBW refuses to make it over then they automatically lose the case. You need to get JBW to fess up to recording all their visits, so take a screen-grab of their website NOW and add to your file notes.



alanA1 wrote: as part of my argument is them threatening to take my van (a work vehicle), which they cannot do, therefore causing the payment to be made under duress.

Their defence for this is 'there was nothing else available to the bailiff to cover the debt'.

This is rubbish as I had let the bailiff in due to the horrendous weather... therefore he was inside and in perfect position to seize plenty of goods which would have covered the debt. Not to mention, there was/is items on the outside of the property available which would have covered the debt.

If I can get these recordings it will back up my claim that

1- the bailiff was inside the property, therefore did have other options instead of HAVING to seize a work vehicle, as they claim.
The bailiff will claim that only £1350 of aggregate goods qualified the to take the van.

Enforcement fails if the bailiff takes the van without leaving an aggregate of £1350 of exempt goods with the debtor.

Regulation 4 (1) (a) of the TCGRs 2013 states;

  • items or equipment (for example, tools, books, telephones, computer equipment and vehicles) which are necessary for use personally by the debtor in the debtor’s employment, business, trade, profession, study or education, except that in any case the aggregate value of the items or equipment to which this exemption is applied shall not exceed £1,350;
[/i]



alanA1 wrote: 2- Will provide the evidence that the bailiff made continuous threats to seize my van, and that he'd be back to seize it if i didnt pay the outstanding £130 within 10 days. These are false statements which caused the payment to be made under duress.
Be specific with the threats that were made when you are before the judge.



alanA1 wrote: 3- will provide evidence the bailiff did not fully attend the address for the first 3 "visits".
Your mum can do that. She only needs to say she is at home or housebound, has good hearing and nobody called at the property on the times the bailiff company claimed to have called.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#84 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 03 Aug 2016 22:19

Case evidence served on TFL Monday morning, ready for the hearing next Monday (8th).

Today received copy of TFL's application to try get the whole thing 'struck-out', as I am "taking the wrong defendant to court", and TFL cannot be responsible for the actions of third parties...

The copy of the 'Taking of goods national standards' I included in my evidence says otherwise.

They also state in their skeleton, I have failed to provide evidence of any wrong doing.... the copies of me begging for some evidence and their letter admitting they have none should hopefully convince the judge, fingers crossed.

I have also sent written request to JBW for body-cam footage for all 4 visits, also for the recording which their site states is part of every visit (included this in my case evidence too)... No reply from JBW yet.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#85 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 07 Aug 2016 14:30

Always ask the court to have the bailiff produce the bodycam footage. If they fail, then you can ask for their defence to be struck out.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#86 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 07 Aug 2016 16:06

I have included in my evidence, delivered to the court last Monday, copies of ALL letters and correspondence between myself, JBW, The CIVEA and TFL.

This includes transcripts of phone calls etc.

It also includes a copy of the letter (and proof of delivery), of me asking JBW for the body-cam footage for all the "Visits". Surely if the Judge can see this letter, and see me asking for body-cam evidence... and he can see that JBW have completely ignored me and this request... and all other requests for evidence for that matter.

That should count for something, and is almost just as good as asking the judge to ask them? Though I will still mention it to the judge.

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

#87 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 08 Aug 2016 19:00

Well today ddint go too well.

Thrown out by the judge due to bringing the wrong defendant (TFL) to court, rather than the Bailiffs (JBW).

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#88 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 08 Aug 2016 19:59

Then bring it against JBW

What was the reason TFL was not the liable party? Were they not the creditor?

There is usually a vicarious liability if they knew a vehicle was being taken. If they didn't know then, only then, theres no liability.

You have 21 days to appeal, want to have a solicitor look it over? Contact me if interested.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#89 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 08 Aug 2016 20:57

TFL are the 'local authority', all my paperwork I presented states creditors and local authorities ARE responsible for the actions of its Bailiffs, so does the evidence i've found today since the hearing.

Judge said something along the lines of "TFL have broken no legislation as there is no legislation that says companies are liable for the actions of third party contractors and Bailiffs".... Don't quote me, but it was something like that.

Not being a solicitor I obviously struggled to point out which Legislation says they ARE responsible, or which Legislation had been broken.
All I had was the Fraud act 2006, and 'The Taking Of Goods National Standards', which states Creditors & Local Authorities Are responsible for Bailiffs actions. The Judge said 'Good practice guides are not legally binding'.

The Judge seemed not to have read my supporting evidence and seemed to be asking the defence lawyer to assist her with a few points.

I am currently looking for the Legislation which states Local Authorities are responsible for third party contractors and/or Bailiffs, but it is like trying to fins a needle in a haystack... i'm not even sure which legislation to search under??

I am also looking up how to appeal this decision.

I have passed my case onto a Civil Fraud Solicitor this afternoon... But I was be eternally grateful is you would also be willing to have a look at my case for me. I have a neat file of evidence that shouldn't take you too long to flick through if you wouldn't mind.

If you send me an address, I could pop a copy of my case in the post for you tomorrow.... if you'd rather Email your address - alanmartin2000@googlemail.com

Many Thanks

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#90 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Aug 2016 08:23

Write a first person summary of events leading up to the hearing. Include evudence then email it to me Jason at dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk.

I'll propose it to legal.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6569
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#91 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Aug 2016 09:06

I reckon some sort of 'contracting out' legislation would apply.

Or perhaps using vicarious liability under the law of tort - JBW were in effect employees of TfL.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

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

#92 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 09 Aug 2016 09:18

All evidence is hard copy paperwork and I do not have no scanner... I'd have to mail it if poss

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6569
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#93 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Aug 2016 09:21

There was a case - Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 - that set a precedent on vicarious liability. Although the case itself was about sexual abuse, it cemented the position on liability, in that any work taking place closely connected with the employment meant the employer can be held liable.
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
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6569
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#94 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Pote Snitkin » 09 Aug 2016 09:30

On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

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

#95 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 09 Aug 2016 09:36

Thanks for the input Pote... Will defo look into it tonight

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#96 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Aug 2016 10:53

If you want to mail it by post then you will need to give your instructions and engage the law firm.

Do you want to engage a solicitor?
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#97 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 09 Aug 2016 11:02

Is there an upfront fee or would this be NWNF basis?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#98 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Aug 2016 11:09

Its small claims track, I doubt its NWNF.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#99 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 09 Aug 2016 12:14

Id need an idea of the cost beforehand if poss

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

#100 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 09 Aug 2016 12:15

The above articles look like they'll be a big help - thanks!

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

#101 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 09 Aug 2016 14:55

Jason,
Would your team be interested in taking the claim to JBW on a NWNF basis?

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#102 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Aug 2016 15:27

It's not possible in the small claims track.

I don't actually administer legal proceedings. I just forward them to solicitors if I can't solve the problem myself.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#103 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 09 Aug 2016 15:34

A fresh claim against JBWS could be made anyway your solicitors wanted as it would be a brand new claim/case

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13265
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#104 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by Schedule 12 » 09 Aug 2016 15:41

You seem rather keen to have your case referred to legal.

Just do a small claim against JBW and let them defend it.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

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

#105 Re: JBW the Fraudsters

Post by alanA1 » 09 Aug 2016 15:43

I'm just keen to have some kind of legal representation instead of making mistakes and having it thrown out again

Post Reply