Chrisy Morris - Parking Tickets and Bailiffs.

[Firthy2002]

to be fair it appears he does know what powers bailiffs have and don't have, and plays on that, but that alone will not stop an eviction, and that's probably where his cries of vulnerable person at every opportunity came from. Obviously a roaring success that idea as it was probably the one excuse he failed to mention in amongst his other meaningless gobbledekook at this eviction.

Clearly he still lacks knowledge as in this case he obviously doesn't know that the HCEO has more powers than a mere bailiff and that a writ is an instruction to the HCEO rather than a court document.

[#six]

This gives some background to the issues Mrs Patel had

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/ ... ame=122149

It would appear that she had some work carried out without serving a "Party Structure Notice" so her neighbour had no oportunity to agree to or deiagree with the work. This then led to the court case and them finding against her.

[Skeleton]

to be fair it appears he does know what powers bailiffs have and don't have, and plays on that, but that alone will not stop an eviction, and that's probably where his cries of vulnerable person at every opportunity came from. Obviously a roaring success that idea as it was probably the one excuse he failed to mention in amongst his other meaningless gobbledekook at this eviction.

Clearly he still lacks knowledge as in this case he obviously doesn't know that the HCEO has more powers than a mere bailiff and that a writ is an instruction to the HCEO rather than a court document.

I think he does know which is why he went back to the good old freetard sure fire winner loser when facing certain defeat, of demanding to see a warrant with a wet signature and a seal on it, he had nothing else to give but gives him a get out clause after.

[notorial dissent]

Unless my understanding of this is way off and things are vastly different in the UK, the chain of action on this would be a court hearing weher the evidence was presented and passed on by a judge who then issued a finding and orders, for possession among others, that being the one giving authority for the repossession, and then a writ was issued to enforce the repossession, and all the bailiff is doing is carrying out the actual court order, and that the actual orders have already been given and served on the former owner(s). So the writ is just an instruction coming directly from the court that issued the original orders to carry out the already existing and verified order. So the bearer would have NO reason to doubt their authenticity or authority. Technically by interfering with that writ bearer they are interfering with a lawful court order and should be subject to contempt charges and fines.

[Firthy2002]

Unless my understanding of this is way off and things are vastly different in the UK, the chain of action on this would be a court hearing weher the evidence was presented and passed on by a judge who then issued a finding and orders, for possession among others, that being the one giving authority for the repossession, and then a writ was issued to enforce the repossession, and all the bailiff is doing is carrying out the actual court order, and that the actual orders have already been given and served on the former owner(s). So the writ is just an instruction coming directly from the court that issued the original orders to carry out the already existing and verified order. So the bearer would have NO reason to doubt their authenticity or authority. Technically by interfering with that writ bearer they are interfering with a lawful court order and should be subject to contempt charges and fines.

In this particular case it would appear that Mrs Patel ignored a CCJ (very bad idea) and as such it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the High Court and a writ of control made to seize assets to cover the amount owed (IIRC the costs for this process get tacked onto the amount owed and are payable by the judgement debtor).
The writ is an instruction from the High Court to take control of the assets under it's authority, it is addressed to the High Court Enforcement Officer and contains the particulars for them to carry out the writ as directed. Unlike a bailiff with a warrant, a debtor will get a Notice of Enforcement at least 7 days before the HCEO is due to visit, so there is no need for them to see the writ, since it is not for the debtor.

A High Court Enforcement Officer is a lot like a sheriff*, indeed they were formerly known as sheriffs for a time. Whilst they have no powers of arrest above those of a regular citizen, they can instruct police constables to assist in executing the writ. It is also an offence to obstruct the HCEO in executing the writ or remove items placed under their control, which carry a fine and/or custodial sentence.
They also have powers to force entry, although these are limited for residential properties (presumably due to castle doctrine).

A HCEO will have far greater legal knowledge than a freeman and probably your average man on the street too, since you need a fairly high level of law qualifications just to be able to apply to train as one, and like the bar, there is a final exam to pass before you can be invested as one.

*as in Old West, not Scots law (they are different)

[JamesVincent]

Some of these stories make me think John Cheese is writing the scripts. Compared to some of them The Holy Grail seems like serious Biblical documentary.

[Hercule Parrot]

That is my house that was taken from me by force. They took my £200,000 house......

I am refusing to pay the £70,000 from the trial....."

No problem, Mrs P.
We'll auction your house for £180,000, deduct the £70,000 and another £10,000 or so in legal & possession costs. You can have the remaining £100,000, so you still have half of your equity.

Now, before you go away to look for a nice little flat, are you sure you don't want to throw away the rest? Mr Crawford is here to tell you how to squander every last penny, tempting isn't it??

[ArthurWankspittle]

In this particular case it would appear that Mrs Patel ignored a CCJ (very bad idea) and as such it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the High Court and a writ of control made to seize assets to cover the amount owed (IIRC the costs for this process get tacked onto the amount owed and are payable by the judgement debtor).

Doesn't this almost automatically become a High Court issue due to the amount of money involved?
I have the feeling that this has gone out of control at some point and one or both parties have forced it to the nth degree. When a final decision is made in these situations one or both parties gets hammered on all the costs that have then occurred, which is what has happened here.
The party wall legislation involved here is pretty complex and an expert and specialist lawyer isn't going to be cheap. Equally, if you haven't given notice and are believed to have caused damage to adjoining property, you are going to get your ass kicked.

[PeanutGallery]

There may also have been tensions between the neighbours due to the building works taking place.

Notably she is wrong about the warrant. It is not for £111.75, it is to take possession of the house and the cost of enforcing this was £111.75. She actually owes a much larger amount, but the HCEO hasn't been instructed to collect that and the property, the value of the property will cover the amount the court awarded. She may not want to pay it, but ultimately she's going to do just that, you can't effectively evade a large debt when you have enough assets to make good on it.

[mufc1959]

As I understand it, the neighbour won a judgment for £70K, which, when unpaid, was secured by a charging order on the property. As the debt was still unpaid, the court granted an order for sale of the property, which is how the warrant of eviction arose - to enable the property to be sold by order of the court.

[Bones]

Is Chrissy Morris that idiot that keeps posting youtube video's and appears to be a poor mans version of 'don't get done get dom' ?

He pulls the same stupid facial expressions as Dom Littlewood and looks to be more than a banana short of a fruit salad....



The above is Dom Littlewood and not as you may think Chrissy Morris or aka the long lost, sent out for adoption as even peggy didn't want him, little mitchell brother

[Firthy2002]

In this particular case it would appear that Mrs Patel ignored a CCJ (very bad idea) and as such it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the High Court and a writ of control made to seize assets to cover the amount owed (IIRC the costs for this process get tacked onto the amount owed and are payable by the judgement debtor).

Doesn't this almost automatically become a High Court issue due to the amount of money involved?

No, these actions always start at the County Court. There is a minimum amount of £600 for a CCJ to be transferred to the High Court.

[ArthurWankspittle]

In this particular case it would appear that Mrs Patel ignored a CCJ (very bad idea) and as such it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the High Court and a writ of control made to seize assets to cover the amount owed (IIRC the costs for this process get tacked onto the amount owed and are payable by the judgement debtor).

Doesn't this almost automatically become a High Court issue due to the amount of money involved?

No, these actions always start at the County Court. There is a minimum amount of £600 for a CCJ to be transferred to the High Court.

I see what you are saying. I think that because of the amount a claimant would be stupid not to move it High Court; It's probably that I was thinking of. There's something about being able to claim interest too, isn't there?

[Firthy2002]

I see what you are saying. I think that because of the amount a claimant would be stupid not to move it High Court; It's probably that I was thinking of. There's something about being able to claim interest too, isn't there?

Yes HCEOs usually charge interest on the amount to be recovered, which gets added to the amount to be recovered from the debtor. Whilst High Court enforcement still isn't a guaranteed success, it has a far higher success rate than County Court bailiffs do. The creditor would be out of pocket only in failed enforcements.

[daltontrumbno]

This case reminded me of one of those restoration shows from a few years ago, so I looked it up and it was the same woman Rekha Patel, throughout the show she displayed utter contempt for the advice about listed building regs and it was pretty obvious she was just going to ignore all advice and just call in the cowboys back then I thought this is not going to end well and five years later she loses the house.

[SteveUK]

But don't worry. Colin is on the case, but doesn't want to make a scene in case the dark forces cotton on.

Naturally he lost his own case , but seems to think that's a good credential.

Rekah Patel. -- Please get in touch with me privately by emailing me on colin-peters2@sky.com I have intimate knowledge regarding this type of dispute and am hopeful that I might be able to help you find a remedy in law. ---- The reason why I don't want to expand my knowledge to you publicly at this time is because I I do not want to forewarn your opponents and the 'system'.----- In losing everything that I once had in this world, due to our evil 'system' of law, I unwillingly learnt much about the 'system' and believe that I might be able to help you defeat it. Although I lost unjustly against it, my loss might be your gain. Check out my 'credentials' at http://colinpetersbd40jh.tripod.com/truth

[Firthy2002]

Now he's trolling hapless water company employees. He's still very wrong, especially where HCEOs are concerned (as I pointed out earlier in the thread). I am surprised she tolerated his bullshit for that amount of time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M0BxMFeRfA

[Pox]

Now he's trolling hapless water company employees. He's still very wrong, especially where HCEOs are concerned (as I pointed out earlier in the thread). I am surprised she tolerated his bullshit for that amount of time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M0BxMFeRfA

Looks like he is some sort of financial advisor now, giving advice to the poor recipient of the call on her pension.

He summarises the dialogue with -

'They can't force entry but there are some other things they can do'.

I would suggest that they don't need to enter a property to turn off the stop cock under the sink, but can just disconnect the supply from the road outside.

Depending on how they do this it can easily be reversed with a simple iron two pronged rod, or long arms!

I'm not sure, but I think that there is some legislation somewhere that prevents a water and foul sewerage supplier from disconnecting services, even when the recipient doesn't pay the bill.
Can someone advise?

In England and maybe other parts of the UK, there is no choice as to who your provider can be, unlike gas and electricity, so no competition - you have no option but to accept the terms that they offer. In my area, water is provided by United Utilities and I can't complain about the level of their service - so far.

[Firthy2002]

I'm not sure, but I think that there is some legislation somewhere that prevents a water and foul sewerage supplier from disconnecting services, even when the recipient doesn't pay the bill.
Can someone advise?

Yes, by law a residential customer can't be disconnected from the supply for non-payment of a bill.

[littleFred]

Yes, by law a residential customer can't be disconnected from the supply for non-payment of a bill.

When you assert something about the law, please provide a link to it.

Thanks.