It would be a sad day for all of us if the The Hillman Imp ever miraculously begun to understand just what a fool he makes of himself. Imagine an internet without chimpisms? I think that it is now abundantly clear to even the staunchest of Cagger that the The Hillman Imp will argue for arguments sake, regardless of the effect it has on a debtor.
Anyway, on a brighter note, here is an edited version of todays entertainment:
I think that we are all aware of the legislation regarding forced entry
In fact, until somebody else mentioned Regulation 28 yesterday, you were quite content to spew irrelevant drivel about paragraph 21. You are anything but aware but as is always the case, you are learning as you go along by way of other peoples posts.
I do not agree with your last statement, regarding the subsection of section 28,
Given your complete inability to read what is written, your statement hardly comes as a shock.
That is about all that needs to be said on here.
That was by far the most sensible thing that you have come out with for over a week. Regrettably, as is normal for you, you were unable to resist the temptation to return, embarrassing yourself further in the process.
OK . There is no misinformation on here, at least not written by my hand, this is your opinion.
We can list it on here for you if you like - Be forewarned though - it will be a long list
You are wrong. The origin of the statement was in reference to a comment that the bailiff was misrepresenting his powers in stating he could apply for a warrant to force entry on a civil debt, he is not because he can apply.
No - As is the case in every single instance,
it is you who is wrong. Nobody suggested that the bailiff misrepresented his powers. It was simply stated that a bailiff could only return with a locksmith if he had previously gained entry and secured a CGA. You and the newsagent then took it upon yourselves to give the incorrect legal advice that bailiffs could apply to the court for permission to force entry. It is a classic example of why people should seek legal advice from a solicitor and not their newsagent.
There is sufficient leeway under section 28 of the regulations for the judge to issue a warrant if he thinks it is in the interest of justice to do so
There is no leeway whatsoever. What is in the interests of justice? Everyone has been judged to owe the debt, how can there be greater interest in justice in specific cases? Do you ever actually think ahead before writing this nonsense?
...however, to say you can sue a bailiff for misrepresenting his power when saying he can apply for a warrant is not correct...
Nobody said that you can. This is just something that you have somehow convinced yourself is relevant to the argument, despite nobody ever making such a claim. It is one of you biggest downfalls when you try to read other peoples posts - You have a tendency to imagine things.
There is no misrepresentation.
Correct - But then again, nobody suggested that there was, only you have mentioned "misrepresentation", for some bizarre reason that I doubt even you can explain.
I should add that forced entry to specified premises is regularly permitted under warrant
Please provide evidence of this. Should you fail to do so, we will request that the site admin team remove the ridiculous, silly claim as unsubstantiated.
Hopefully, he'll be back tomorrow with more whoppers.