As I have said a few times, the warrant will not be the same as the one that Guy Taylor requested to see in his court appearance last month. In Guy Taylor's case, the warrant had been enforced by a High Court Enforcement Agent and accordingly, there had been a court seal.Silly Ebert wrote:I can confirm that this warrant will not have a wet ink signature as they do not require one, only search warrants for HMRC and Police .
The stamp will say" The county Court".
It will also not show the amount, apart from maybe the £110.00 warrant fee.
Amanda Pikey is claiming that the county court can't come without notice, somewhat true but the notice given in Dec 2014 for the Jan 2015 eviction was given on a N54A this was new law bought in at the end of last year.
This eviction notice states that the bailiff can come back at anytime if obstructed the first time.The copy of the warrant is the first time the crawfords have had a copy, the first time tom is referring to was the eviction notice.
.
In the case of Tom Crawford, the creditor wished for the eviction to be carried out by a County Court bailiff and therefore, the warrant is a County Court one.
The warrant is not Tom Crawford's possession. A Warrant is addressed to the Bailiff (or High Court Enforcement Agent) and is his authority allowing him to carry out the eviction.
I am quite certain that the warrant would have been disclosed on the day of the eviction, but as we know.....Tom Crawford was not present at the time and the warrant would therefore have been shown to his wife. On his return,TC is shown very clearly in videos REFUSING to look at official documentation.
Tom and Sue Crawford, his daughter, his son and their decreasing number of supporters know that the warrant exists and was shown but they are doing what all typical FMoTL activists do and that is to be as disruptive as possible and to inflict as much unnecessary expense on any government agency (court system, police etc) as possible.
