The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[letissier14]

It's still there. It's just way, way down the page now. Colin123 posted the text on page 23 of this thread.

Ah right - it was the pinned post previously

[NG3]

His plan to silence his critics by more lies and threats has obviously backfired on him. He should be careful as his behaviour is bordering on harassment to others.

If he continues, record it, file it, ignore it

He's digging his own grave, no one else's

[letissier14]

His plan to silence his critics by more lies and threats has obviously backfired on him. He should be careful as his behaviour is bordering on harassment to others.

If he continues, record it, file it, ignore it

He's digging his own grave, no one else's

All the evidence of harassment and threats have been filed with my local police

The police told me carry on keeping all evidence and to just ignore him. If anyone turns up at my house, I'm then to phone the police.

[NG3]

That will be Inspector Berryman who seems to be Tom's go to Policeman.

He's part of the community team, he deals with things like liaising with neighbourhood watch schemes, sending officers in to schools, and humouring strange old men who phone in with silly complaints.

The fact that Berryman doesn't even appear to have assigned an officer to the case is indicative of how they view the complaints.

[Skeleton]

That will be Inspector Berryman who seems to be Tom's go to Policeman.

He's part of the community team, he deals with things like liaising with neighbourhood watch schemes, sending officers in to schools, and humouring strange old men who phone in with silly complaints.

The fact that Berryman doesn't even appear to have assigned an officer to the case is indicative of how they view the complaints.

Ok mate that makes sense, I pity the poor man, I am sure he has better things to do than listen to Tom, but as others have said I think Tom may be doing the listening if he does not calm it down a bit.

[letissier14]

Linda Taylor
29 mins
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984:
126 Actions against bailiffs acting under warrants.
(1)No action shall be commenced against any bailiff for anything done in obedience to a warrant issued by the registrar, unless—
(a)a demand for inspection of the warrant and for a copy of it is made or left at the office of the bailiff by the party intending to bring the action, or his [F1legal representative]or agent; and
(b)the bailiff refuses or neglects to comply with the demand within six days after it is made.
(2)The demand must be in writing and signed by the person making it.
(3)If an action is commenced against a bailiff in a case where such a demand has been made and not complied with, judgment shall be given for the bailiff if the warrant is produced or proved at the trial, notwithstanding any defect of jurisdiction or other irregularity in the warrant; but the registrar who issued the warrant may be joined as a defendant in the action, and if the registrar is so joined and judgment is given against him, the cost to be recovered by the plaintiff against the registrar shall include such costs as the plaintiff is liable to pay to the bailiff.
(4)In this section (except in paragraph (a) of subsection (1)) “bailiff” includes any person acting by the order and in aid of a bailiff.

Jon Dow So essentially, where these bailiffs keep threatening that "prohibiting the actions of a bailiff in their job is an offense and you can be arrestred", what they forget to add is "But only if our paperwork stands up against scrutiny."
26 mins · Like · 3

Matt Indigo that mean the police involved in Tom's eviction can all be tried before a judge also. Now that would be amusing to see the 150 Stasi Troops marching in and out all of the court.
21 mins · Like · 1

Michael Shaw Or if any paper work exists!
17 mins · Like

Lee Mutlee Smith It's been over THIRTY days since the correct paperwork was requested. Still no sign of it. So I guess that means that all of the participants in this theft by fraud are all now liable!

[longdog]

Lee Mutlee Smith It's been over THIRTY days since the correct paperwork was requested. Still no sign of it. So I guess that means that all of the participants in this theft by fraud are all now liable!

Except of course they have had the correct paperwork they just don't like it so, like a nagging three year old who wants a bar of chocolate, they keep asking for the same thing hoping they'll get something they do like.

I think this is the appropriate smilie...

[NG3]

Lee Mutlee Smith It's been over THIRTY days since the correct paperwork was requested. Still no sign of it.

Yes, Tom does seem reluctant to produce his copies...

Comments like that show that the majority of Crawford's remaining support have no real knowledge, nor interest in the facts and that it's all just an excuse for them to gas on Facebook.

To them it's no different from the 1,001 other "Share if..." posts that dribble down their walls.

[AndyPandy]

Linda Taylor
29 mins
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984:
126 Actions against bailiffs acting under warrants.
(1)No action shall be commenced against any bailiff for anything done in obedience to a warrant issued by the registrar, unless—
(a)a demand for inspection of the warrant and for a copy of it is made or left at the office of the bailiff by the party intending to bring the action, or his [F1legal representative]or agent; and
(b)the bailiff refuses or neglects to comply with the demand within six days after it is made.
(2)The demand must be in writing and signed by the person making it.
(3)If an action is commenced against a bailiff in a case where such a demand has been made and not complied with, judgment shall be given for the bailiff if the warrant is produced or proved at the trial, notwithstanding any defect of jurisdiction or other irregularity in the warrant; but the registrar who issued the warrant may be joined as a defendant in the action, and if the registrar is so joined and judgment is given against him, the cost to be recovered by the plaintiff against the registrar shall include such costs as the plaintiff is liable to pay to the bailiff.
(4)In this section (except in paragraph (a) of subsection (1)) “bailiff” includes any person acting by the order and in aid of a bailiff.

Jon Dow So essentially, where these bailiffs keep threatening that "prohibiting the actions of a bailiff in their job is an offense and you can be arrestred", what they forget to add is "But only if our paperwork stands up against scrutiny."
26 mins · Like · 3

Matt Indigo that mean the police involved in Tom's eviction can all be tried before a judge also. Now that would be amusing to see the 150 Stasi Troops marching in and out all of the court.
21 mins · Like · 1

Michael Shaw Or if any paper work exists!
17 mins · Like

Lee Mutlee Smith It's been over THIRTY days since the correct paperwork was requested. Still no sign of it. So I guess that means that all of the participants in this theft by fraud are all now liable!

So has a demand for a copy of the Warrant been made under Section 1(A) to the office of the bailiffs? Of course not, because if the did they would simply hand over a copy of the warrant, that would mean they'd had it at least 3 times, they're actually now becoming a danger to trees.

[NG3]

So has a demand for a copy of the Warrant been made under Section 1(A) to the office of the bailiffs? Of course not, because if the did they would simply hand over a copy of the warrant, that would mean they'd had it at least 3 times, they're actually becoming a danger to trees.

Or is Tom secretly trying to corner the market in legally related stationary?

[hardcopy]

He also said the police have my number and will be coming to speak to me.

He also mentioned that as well as having my number he knew where I lived too.

Man is a deluded old fool who needs locking up

You wanna be careful if he knows where you live, he might move in !

[NG3]

I have an interesting video coming out soon with what we have been up to, unfortunately these things take time, filling in forms, writing documents, discussions waiting on replies from court etc etc so please bare with us, as always wishing you all well thanks for all your kind support hope to see you all soon
Tom

Does the failure of this video to appear suggest that Tom has not had the results he expected from his last couple of trips to bother the high courts?

We know he's been there, so what happened to the video?

Maybe it got lost under a pile of warrants in a drawer somewhere?

[Skeleton]

I have an interesting video coming out soon with what we have been up to, unfortunately these things take time, filling in forms, writing documents, discussions waiting on replies from court etc etc so please bare with us, as always wishing you all well thanks for all your kind support hope to see you all soon
Tom

Does the failure of this video to appear suggest that Tom has not had the results he expected from his last couple of trips to bother the high courts?

We know he's been there, so what happened to the video?

Maybe it got lost under a pile of warrants in a drawer somewhere?

Tom's last result was probably a one night stand when he was 21.

[AndyPandy]

Maybe it got lost under a pile of warrants in a drawer somewhere?

IT'S IN THE LOFT, there were 6 people up there a few weeks ago, for a least 36 hours, I mean how long does it take to find one bit of paper

[PeanutGallery]

I think this is the appropriate smilie...

Almost, I think the horse needs to have a horn though.

[Silly Ebert]

Linda Taylor
29 mins
THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984:
126 Actions against bailiffs acting under warrants.
(1)No action shall be commenced against any bailiff for anything done in obedience to a warrant issued by the registrar, unless—
(a)a demand for inspection of the warrant and for a copy of it is made or left at the office of the bailiff by the party intending to bring the action, or his [F1legal representative]or agent; and
(b)the bailiff refuses or neglects to comply with the demand within six days after it is made.
(2)The demand must be in writing and signed by the person making it.
(3)If an action is commenced against a bailiff in a case where such a demand has been made and not complied with, judgment shall be given for the bailiff if the warrant is produced or proved at the trial, notwithstanding any defect of jurisdiction or other irregularity in the warrant; but the registrar who issued the warrant may be joined as a defendant in the action, and if the registrar is so joined and judgment is given against him, the cost to be recovered by the plaintiff against the registrar shall include such costs as the plaintiff is liable to pay to the bailiff.
(4)In this section (except in paragraph (a) of subsection (1)) “bailiff” includes any person acting by the order and in aid of a bailiff.

Jon Dow So essentially, where these bailiffs keep threatening that "prohibiting the actions of a bailiff in their job is an offense and you can be arrestred", what they forget to add is "But only if our paperwork stands up against scrutiny."
26 mins · Like · 3

Matt Indigo that mean the police involved in Tom's eviction can all be tried before a judge also. Now that would be amusing to see the 150 Stasi Troops marching in and out all of the court.
21 mins · Like · 1

Michael Shaw Or if any paper work exists!
17 mins · Like

Lee Mutlee Smith It's been over THIRTY days since the correct paperwork was requested. Still no sign of it. So I guess that means that all of the participants in this theft by fraud are all now liable!

However they didn't take this route they choose to go to the High Court and get a letter asking the County Court to produce the warrant's they could have asked for anyway under section 126.

They have had these copies since about the 27th July but it seems they think the court have more paperwork they they are withholding ??????

[noblepa]

Lee Mutlee Smith It's been over THIRTY days since the correct paperwork was requested. Still no sign of it. So I guess that means that all of the participants in this theft by fraud are all now liable!

Except of course they have had the correct paperwork they just don't like it so, like a nagging three year old who wants a bar of chocolate, they keep asking for the same thing hoping they'll get something they do like.

I think this is the appropriate smilie...

I think its more likely that they DON'T want the bailiff's to show a valid warrant. They want the bailiffs to admit the "truth", that they don't HAVE a valid warrant or court order and therefore Tom should get his house back.

[guilty]

Jon Dow So essentially, where these bailiffs keep threatening that "prohibiting the actions of a bailiff in their job is an offense and you can be arrestred", what they forget to add is "But only if our paperwork stands up against scrutiny."
26 mins · Like · 3

Matt Indigo that mean the police involved in Tom's eviction can all be tried before a judge also. Now that would be amusing to see the 150 Stasi Troops marching in and out all of the court.
21 mins · Like · 1

No, you silly Goofers, that is not what it says! Try reading it again.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Jon Dow So essentially, where these bailiffs keep threatening that "prohibiting the actions of a bailiff in their job is an offense and you can be arrestred", what they forget to add is "But only if our paperwork stands up against scrutiny."
26 mins · Like · 3

Matt Indigo that mean the police involved in Tom's eviction can all be tried before a judge also. Now that would be amusing to see the 150 Stasi Troops marching in and out all of the court.
21 mins · Like · 1

No, you silly Goofers, that is not what it says! Try reading it again.

They could read it FIFTEEN TIMES!!!!1!!!! and I wager they would still not understand what it says.

[SoLongCeylon]

Whenever I see the phrase "FIFTEEN TIMES !!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!" I get a horrible high pitched voice in my head saying

Fifffteeeeeeeeeeeen Tyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyymes Yuck