UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[PeanutGallery]

I don't think the bill for the taxpayer will be quite that severe. In all likelihood the protesters are only being arrested for a VERY short period, enough time to effect the eviction, after that they can be de-arrested (let go with no further action). I would doubt that any of those 'arrested' where taken to the cells or that very much happened to them (beyond being taken to a holding area and restrained) and would certainly believe that after the eviction was effected they were released without charge.

It would only be if one of them kicked off and committed further offences that the police would take further action.

[Normal Wisdom]

As far as I know the 5 people arrested to allow the locksmith to get access to the house were de-arrested as soon as the house was possessed.

Can anyone confirm my understanding of the situation regarding the Order of Possession, Writ of Possession etc. I'm into a conversation with one of Guy Taylor's supporters and I want to be sure I have it right.

1) The Order of Possession records the decision made by the judge to require possession of the property to be handed to the claimant. It names the judge that made the decision but is not signed by them. It is authorised by application of the court seal.

2) The Writ of Possession authorises the enforcement of the Order of Possession in cases where the defendant does not abide by the Order of Possession (i.e. by vacating the premises). Since this is merely confirming the original judgement it does not emanate from a judge (who is therefore not named) and can be prepared by a court officer and is authorised by application of the court seal.

3) In many cases the documentation that the bailiff / enforcement officer brings on the day of the eviction is the EX96 form. This is simply an internal administrative form that confirms the date and time of the eviction with the claimant so that they can arrange for a locksmith, shuttering contractor etc. to be present. The claimant (or their representative) signs the form and in doing so can authorise the use of "reasonable force" by the bailiffs / enforcement officers (and police if appropriate) to execute the possession order.

[PeanutGallery]

I don't think the claimant signs the form to 'authorise' anything, only the Judge has the authority to authorise the bailiffs actions, certainly only a Judge can authorise one person to use any form of force on another, and he does so via the writ. As for the EX96 I believe the Claimant signs it to state that the writ of possession has been executed and fulfilled, in signing the form they discharge the Bailiff from the courts orders.

This is the reason why when they attend the evictions the Bailiffs paperwork is unsigned and won't be signed until the eviction has been completed.

[Normal Wisdom]

I don't think the claimant signs the form to 'authorise' anything, only the Judge has the authority to authorise the bailiffs actions, certainly only a Judge can authorise one person to use any form of force on another, and he does so via the writ. As for the EX96 I believe the Claimant signs it to state that the writ of possession has been executed and fulfilled, in signing the form they discharge the Bailiff from the courts orders.

This is the reason why when they attend the evictions the Bailiffs paperwork is unsigned and won't be signed until the eviction has been completed.

Thanks for the quick reply Peanut. My recollection of the EX96 was slightly wrong but have a look at the form in the first post of the attached link:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... NZkblronzI

I was thinking about the section headed "Confirmation of Bailiff's Appointment(s)" which is signed by the claimant and includes the statement "I confirm that I, or my agent, will attend the appointment(s) on the date shown. Any agent attending on my behalf will have my authority to authorise the bailiff (and the police if necessary) to use reasonable force, if required, to carry out the eviction"

I'd also appreciate your thoughts about the Writ Of Possession served on Guy Taylor (link below). Is there any significance that the witness is shown as Chris Grayling , Lord High Chancellor or do they all say that?

http://axis-of-truth.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... t-did.html

I think I am wasting my time with the guy on Youtube. He puts forward a theory, I shoot it down, he puts forward another theory. We're currently at the level that a foreclosure fraud in the US and some stuff about Nick Leeson and Barings Bank "proves" that Guy must also be the victim of fraud. I've only gone on with it in case he volunteers some new information about Guy as he seems to know him quite well.

[Flying Daggers]

Re: Notice of Appointment (Form Ex 96).

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... dacted.pdf

The Bailiff Manual

A Procedural Guide for County Court Bailiffs August 2012

Page 75

12.1 Notice of appointment

Use form EX96 to tell the claimant of the date and time of the appointment to repossess the premises or land. The form requests the claimant to tell you if they expect the eviction will be difficult, but you should make a preliminary visit to check the situation for yourself. The EX96 has a tear-off slip for the claimant to confirm the appointment. The form makes it clear that the appointment must be confirmed by completing and returning the tear off slip, to arrive at
the court at least 3 working days before the appointment date otherwise the appointment will be cancelled.

It is the landlord’s responsibility to arrange for a locksmith to attend the eviction to secure the premises against re-entry after the eviction has taken place.


The EX96 is only a notice of appointment, it is not a writ or anything else that the sov's claim it to be and does not need to be signed by the judge

[Flying Daggers]

On the general subject of evictions, this one has a bit of everything. Pretty much the full range of protests by the supporters (mercifully few on this occasion) countered by unusually switched on court officials and police. And as a special bonus an appearance of the "promissory note".

Two other points:
It gives a good example why bailiffs should be careful about letting supporters inspect documentation
If this really was over only £110 then WTF?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U51r-roJqwU&spfreload=10

As can be seen below the document that they were claiming should be signed by a judge, was not a writ or a warrant but was only a Notice of Appointment. There isn't even a space on this document for it to be signed by a judge, in itself this proves that it does not need to be signed by a judge

[littleFred]

I don't think the bill for the taxpayer will be quite that severe.

I wasn't thinking about the costs of detention and possible prosecution, but of preventing this. If a mob of 500 people are determined to illegally prevent a court-ordered eviction, and the police are determined that the mob mustn't be allowed to do this, there will be a clash. That would need a fair few police officers, initially parked a few streets away.

I'm into a conversation with one of Guy Taylor's supporters and I want to be sure I have it right.

Do you enjoy pointless, painful exercise?

A possession order tells the defendant to hand over possession. It is made orally, in court. CPR 40 tells us the written requirement: it "must state the name and judicial title of the person who made it, unless ..." (broadly, unless the defendant agreed with the order, or didn't defend), and a date and seal.

A writ is a general written order telling an enforcement officer what to do. The act required might or might not be legal in the absense of the writ.

A warrant is a particular type of writ: the act required would be illegal in the absence of the warrant (such as removing people from their house). It not only tells the EO what to do, it gives him permission to do it, so he can't be sued for doing it. When executing a warrant, the enforcement officer doesn't need to produce it. He doesn't even need to have it in his possession. He can be told to produce it and if he doesn't (within 7 days IIRC) he can be taken to court, but he then has a valid defence if he then shows the warrant to that court.

A writ or warrant is an order from a court to an EO. It doesn't come from a particular judge. There is no need for a judge to sign it or authorise it or even know about it. In this case, the mortgage company would ask the court for a warrant and (subject to formalities such as checking the possesion order) the court would issue it. See CPR 83.26. (In some cases, such as a warrant to be issued 6 or more years after the court order, judicial permission is required (CPR 83.2).)

I am not aware of any paperwork that an EO is legally obliged to take to an eviction, or produce, or have anyone validate. They might take the warrant along to flash at any police who think the EO is bogus. True, a bogus EO could produce a bogus warrant. If the police genuinely think the EO is bogus, they could arrest that person.

EX96 is a notice from the bailiff to the claimant (not the defendant). If that information is wrong, the defendant has no redress. (The GOODF thread is typical of their stupidity: they think that a notice from the bailiff to claimant needs signing, or that it is of any interest to the defendant.)

As far as I can see, Guy Taylor's "No 66 Writ of Possession" contains everything legally required. Anything else just makes it look prettier.

See also:
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980
Courts Act 2003
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007

I'm not a lawyer. I would welcome correction on any of the above.

[Flying Daggers]

http://axis-of-truth.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... t-did.html

I think I am wasting my time with the guy on Youtube. He puts forward a theory, I shoot it down, he puts forward another theory. We're currently at the level that a foreclosure fraud in the US and some stuff about Nick Leeson and Barings Bank "proves" that Guy must also be the victim of fraud. I've only gone on with it in case he volunteers some new information about Guy as he seems to know him quite well.

What the letter from Sheffield County Court says is

"This case has never been at Sheffield County Court"

The actual writ of possession appears to be stamped by and faxed from Hereford and only says that it is sent from Sheffield County Court

It also says

This writ was issued by the Central Office of the High Court on (date missing) on the application of the claimant Barclays Bank plc who resides at address unknown

[Hercule Parrot]

I don't think the bill for the taxpayer will be quite that severe.

I wasn't thinking about the costs of detention and possible prosecution, but of preventing this. If a mob of 500 people are determined to illegally prevent a court-ordered eviction, and the police are determined that the mob mustn't be allowed to do this, there will be a clash. That would need a fair few police officers, initially parked a few streets away.

I agreed. I think UK Police need a more strategic approach, as they do with other organised protests. It may be sensible to prosecute some of the ringleaders, maybe for public order offences, and to obtain injunctions or restrictions upon their involvement in public 'protests'. Another option would be to take a substantial bailiff team when resistance is expected, and then seek to recover the costs of this from the debtors.

[Hercule Parrot]

For a change it looks like this one is the consumer action group and not GOODF

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... wing)-nbsp

Looks like this one might deserve its own thread

*EDIT

Looks to have moved from the consumer action group to GOODF

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... NNmsMOnw0M

Mr Sinclair had to pay £8,500 in costs, looks like a few others got burned to by 'applecart / applecart1'

Could this applecart be guy or roger ?

That was an epic topic (the CAG one). A fairly expert member "bhall" was trying to tell them that "applecart" was peddling false hope, but the ones who wanted to believe just turned a deaf ear. bhall was abused and mocked, right up until the claim collapsed.

Interestingly, bhall appears to be tolerated on GOOFy as "bornfreelivefree". Sadly "applecart" continues to peddle false hope there. I don't know who he is, perhaps he's a County Court Judge with an evil sense of humour...

[PeanutGallery]

It appears I was mistaken in regard to the paperwork earlier. I honestly thought only a Judge could authorise the use of reasonable force by a bailiff, however I stand very obviously corrected.

In regard to the epic CAG thread, it certainly seemed to me that at the end the poster "IsItMe" seemed unable or unwilling to admit that they had led a friend down a dangerous path and in fact posted a rather contradictory statement, claiming that they hadn't had the decision, but that they were going to appeal it anyway and the costs award wasn't that great. Surely if they hadn't had the decision they wouldn't know if they needed an appeal or not equally their wouldn't have been a costs award.

That thread however is certainly an object lesson in how someone can blind themselves and are willing only to accept advice that they want to hear. Personally when I go for legal advice I want to know the negatives of my situation, I want to hear why what I am proposing or thinking WON'T work or isn't legally sound.

[Normal Wisdom]

Thanks all for the comments about the process and documentation. I think we're all more or less on the same page but it's good to get people's input to refine my understanding.

PeanutGallery offered an excellent and very plausible explanation for the mention of Sheffield County Court on Guy's Writ of Possession even though it was issued by Hereford CC.

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10234&start=80

Anybody got any thoughts or information on the WoP showing Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling as the witness? I am assuming this is a standard feature trashier than anything specific to Guy Taylor.

[Hercule Parrot]

In regard to the epic CAG thread, it certainly seemed to me that at the end the poster "IsItMe" seemed unable or unwilling to admit that they had led a friend down a dangerous path and in fact posted a rather contradictory statement, claiming that they hadn't had the decision, but that they were going to appeal it anyway and the costs award wasn't that great.

IsItMe on GOOFy - 27 Sep 2014 -

This is a word of warning to any one,
As you may know I with others have been going though the tribunal the first tier and then an appeal to the upper tribunal on the matter of "Who" owns my mortgage really.
I went along with Apple's run on things as he or she was then and now as applecart here and I am not going to run him or her down here just to say it's funny how when it goes wrong they run away, offered to meet him or her they would not do so, offered to run with any appeal but they ran away and did not what to know.
As some one else has put on here I have costs of £8500. So it's no small amount.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 52#p319801

[tm169]

2 points about Tom's debacle.

First is that he might have a point about the endowment issues. I came across a very similar case once (different lender) where the borrower knew his endowments were essentially worthless and went into branch back in the 1990s to negotiate some sort of compromise deal where they changed the length of term and changed some of the mortgage to repayment and left some as interest only. I think he undertook to start an ISA or similar to repay the capital. To cut a long story short the bank made a complete hash of it. Lost the forms, took the wrong amounts in direct debits and ended up taking possession proceedings for the capital. Careful unpicking by myself and the FOS led to the lender discontinuing he possession proceedings and going back to the drawing board to sort out their mistakes / mis selling

To give Tom the generous benefit of the doubt it could be that something similar to that happend. The issue is by going down the goodf route is that he has clouded and watered down what might have otherwise been a legitimate or at least part legitimate claim. In any event he might now be out of limitation for a claim regarding the endowments.

Tom and his supporters are still totally missing the point though that an endowment mortgage is just a type of interest only mortgage. The only difference being that the bank agree to the risk of interest only on the basis you take out an approved endowment policy and life insurance. Other interest only mortgages they trust you to sort out the capital yourself with a savings account, pension lump sum, downsizing etc.

Second point regarding the warrants etc is totally misguided. Once the possession order is "made" ie the judge speaks the order in Court everything else is a mere formality.
The warrants and appointment notices etc. are just the procedural steps for actually taking possession.

Anyone who has worked with the County Courts knows they make numerous administrative errors all over the place. It's not uncommon to receive an order with snippets of directions from a totally unconnected case which have be inadvertently copied and pasted in.

The thing is with minor procedural defects (if there are any) is simply de minimis non curat lex.

What can Guy Taylor and friends possibly hope for as an outcome? If this ever gets back to Court the posession order will still be valid and new warrant will be granted and the eviction will crack on. At best it is a delaying tactic but is misguided as costs for the lender will be automatically added to the mortgage on an indemnity basis this removing any hope of Tom getting out of this in tact.

In terms of the eviction they are wasting their time. Ultimately they will evict without notice of any kind (can be done I understand by the balifis asking the circuit judge to dispense with notice). Or they will have a penal notice endorsed on the oringinal possession order and have Tom arrested for contempt and repossess in his absence (rare but has been done by more wily lenders).

[littleFred]

I think tm169 (who knows more law than I do) and I are both saying that the writ or warrant merely reflects a possession order made by a judge. That order is the critical element. It can be appealed, as Mr Grant-Sinclair attempted to do.

Protesters, driven by Guy Taylor and Mr Ebert, insist on correct paperwork. "Correct" by their definition, which bears only a vague resemblance to CPR. If they want to fight evictions based on technicalities in the paperwork, they need to actually read and understand CPR as well as some statutes. They need to understand who can demand to see a warrant (random protesters have no entitlement), and the essential ingredients of a warrant. They need to understand that other stuff on the warrant doesn't make it invalid.

Could I defeat a warrant on the grounds that Queen Elizabeth hasn't defended my faith, which demands that we all worship a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Nope. If a writ issued by Hereford Court, based on a possession order made at Hereford Court, misleadingly also mentions Sheffield, does that make it invalid or even (as claimed) a fraud? Nope.

[tm169]

Protesters, driven by Guy Taylor and Mr Ebert, insist on correct paperwork. "Correct" by their definition, which bears only a vague resemblance to CPR.

Yes it's a strange sort of pedantry which they apply to their own letters too. Eg what colour ink to sign in how many days to wait in between sending letters etc.

If they want to fight evictions based on technicalities in the paperwork, they need to actually read and understand CPR as well as some statutes.

Yes if they looked at the definition of a seal in the cpr for example:
2) The court may place the seal(GL) on the document –
(a) by hand; or
(b) by printing a facsimile of the seal on the document whether electronically or otherwise.

The other issue is that I have no idea what remedy they are actually seeking even if there arguments were valid. At very best all it can be is a delaying tactic and only attacks procedural issues not legal.

Even if in a fantasy world they were able to bring a successful fraud case against the court staff. What would the remedy actually be? Damages in the tort of deceit, maybe some exemplary damages but unless he repays the mortgage the house will still eventually be repossessed.

[littleFred]

I don't think Tom Crawford, Guy Taylor, Mr Ebert and so on have much idea about how the law and courts really work, despite their personal experiences. They have various delusions, and any resemblance to reality is merely coincidence. Their legal strategy is to throw a load of mud in the hope that something will stick. Perhaps the delusions include one that banks will be so embarrassed at being caught at fraud that they drop demands for repayment.

Suspecting that this won't work, their Plan B is rent-a-mob who are easily persuaded that banks, courts, bailiffs, and police are all corrupt and don't follow even their own rules in their evil plans to drive good people from their homes.

[littleFred]

I didn't reply specifically to:

Anybody got any thoughts or information on the WoP showing Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling as the witness? I am assuming this is a standard feature trashier than anything specific to Guy Taylor.

Yes, the "Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain" is the usual witness. By delegated authority, I imagine. See the sample at Westlaw. I notice a superfluous "the" at the end of that paragraph; I suspect a copy-paste error.

On the legality of paperwork: if there is a serious question, only a court could answer it. A policeman on the spot can't give a legal ruling on whether a document is legal. But he can, after an allegation of fraud is made, determine whether he thinks the document is legal, and therefore whether or not he should prevent the eviction. The protesters sound authoritative when they complain something isn't signed. But the court officers calmly and professionally say a signature isn't required.

The policeman wisely (IMHO) trusts court officers more than the baying mob.

[Hyrion]

I honestly thought only a Judge could authorise the use of reasonable force by a bailiff, however I stand very obviously corrected.

Perhaps that's still true: only a Judge/Appropriate official can authorise the use of reasonable force by a bailiff.

I confirm that I, or my agent, will attend the appointment(s) on the date shown. Any agent attending on my behalf will have my authority to authorise the bailiff (and the police if necessary) to use reasonable force, if required, to carry out the eviction

Perhaps it's not the "force against an individual" which is authorised by the plaintiff.

Perhaps the plaintiff is authorising force that may result in damage to the property. If the potted plants or credenza is damaged in the scuffle, the plaintiff is authorizing the bailiff won't be held legally liable for it.

[PeanutGallery]

Regarding the paperwork, all a police officer is going to do is check with the court that issued the paperwork that they did in fact issue that paperwork. They aren't going to question it, because it's above their pay grade. If you want to question a decision made by a court, you need to go to a higher court, that is how it has worked in this country for hundreds of years. The police should not and must not start to question the legality of the decisions reached by the courts as that would turn justice on it's head.