jimmywx11

[Skeleton]

To be fair if he goes to Jail he'll be trading in the name for a number and another plus is he won't have any bills to pay for his electric, gas, water, food.

"Won't somebody think of the dog?"

Remember the dog is driving without insuarance etc so he may well be sharing the same cell.

Poor dog.

[PeanutGallery]

even IF anything were to happen i've got a nice healthy war chest saved up, and can easily buy my way out of trouble.

I suspect he has saved some of his benefit and thinks he can settle his debt with about 50%-75% of the amount due. He's going to be very upset when the council and bailiffs want another £700 or so on top. Also, I suspect the law is accepting of the following argument: Jimmy lives at address X according to CT records. Jimmy lives at address X according to CT Benefit records. CT Benefit goes to Jimmy's account. Therefore if we send a bankruptcy petition to address X it is legally served. If Jimmy doesn't turn up to defend the bankruptcy petition it will be accepted. As of that time and date Jimmy is bankrupt. Oh and Jimmy, the easy way to tell is that your bank cards stop working the day after.

According to the rules of service a document is considered legally served if it has been sent to the last known address of the defendant. Of course sending to the last known address opens up the argument to have a judgement set aside, if the defendant genuinely did not receive the notice because they had moved out, but in order to show this the Defendant would have to inform the court of where they are currently living and prove it is not the residence to which the documents were served.

I would imagine that Jimmy would be daft enough to do the following should he receive and court paperwork, open it and have a look, then write addressee not recognised return to sender and all sorts of other gibberish about fraud, then send it back to any return address. I would further imagine that Jimmy will try to make a statutory declaration about the bankruptcy to try and get the judgement set aside, not realising that once he does this he will be admitting to knowing their is a bankruptcy petition against him. He won't however have an argument against bankruptcy and even if the original judgement is set aside, it will be a very short term victory as the next action of the court will be to declare him bankrupt.

The only way out for Jimmy right now is simply to make the council a reasonable offer to clear the debt and to carry that out. Otherwise Jimmy may find himself having to live in the dogs car.

[PeanutGallery]

To be fair if he goes to Jail he'll be trading in the name for a number and another plus is he won't have any bills to pay for his electric, gas, water, food.

"Won't somebody think of the dog?"

Remember the dog is driving without insuarance etc so he may well be sharing the same cell.

Poor dog.

I doubt Jimmy shares the same cell with the dog, the wee canine is likely the brains of the outfit (at any rate it's the more successful one, given that it actually owns a car).

[Skeleton]

even IF anything were to happen i've got a nice healthy war chest saved up, and can easily buy my way out of trouble.

I suspect he has saved some of his benefit and thinks he can settle his debt with about 50%-75% of the amount due. He's going to be very upset when the council and bailiffs want another £700 or so on top. Also, I suspect the law is accepting of the following argument: Jimmy lives at address X according to CT records. Jimmy lives at address X according to CT Benefit records. CT Benefit goes to Jimmy's account. Therefore if we send a bankruptcy petition to address X it is legally served. If Jimmy doesn't turn up to defend the bankruptcy petition it will be accepted. As of that time and date Jimmy is bankrupt. Oh and Jimmy, the easy way to tell is that your bank cards stop working the day after.

According to the rules of service a document is considered legally served if it has been sent to the last known address of the defendant. Of course sending to the last known address opens up the argument to have a judgement set aside, if the defendant genuinely did not receive the notice because they had moved out, but in order to show this the Defendant would have to inform the court of where they are currently living and prove it is not the residence to which the documents were served.

I would imagine that Jimmy would be daft enough to do the following should he receive and court paperwork, open it and have a look, then write addressee not recognised return to sender and all sorts of other gibberish about fraud, then send it back to any return address. I would further imagine that Jimmy will try to make a statutory declaration about the bankruptcy to try and get the judgement set aside, not realising that once he does this he will be admitting to knowing their is a bankruptcy petition against him. He won't however have an argument against bankruptcy and even if the original judgement is set aside, it will be a very short term victory as the next action of the court will be to declare him bankrupt.

The only way out for Jimmy right now is simply to make the council a reasonable offer to clear the debt and to carry that out. Otherwise Jimmy may find himself having to live in the dogs car.

Good points as ever but it depends on the Council. The one I worked for wanted the full amount once a liability order had been issued, and the Court costs on top and Jimmy is way past liability orders. I think the only way he is going to pull his way back from the cliff edge this time is to pay the full amount and costs or prove he can't pay it all, but has a plan to and sets up a Direct Debit etc. The Council could of course refuse said plan and simply make him bankcrupt, he really is playing with fire.

We will never find out though, Jimmy no doubt will continue "not" to pay his CT because the Council "gave up" trying to get it off him.

[Skeleton]

"Won't somebody think of the dog?"

Remember the dog is driving without insuarance etc so he may well be sharing the same cell.

Poor dog.

I doubt Jimmy shares the same cell with the dog, the wee canine is likely the brains of the outfit (at any rate it's the more successful one, given that it actually owns a car).

Well it had the brains to bite him, i also hope it had the brains to go for a tetnus shot after

[wanglepin]

Didn't jimmy claim that he had paid his council tax with a WeRe cheque? He has said that all of his WeRe cheques have cleared. If he did pay with a WeRe cheque why are the council threatening bankruptcy?

He did Rumpel, but he also said:

"of all the cheques sent out, NONE of them have NOT cleared.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 10#p420215
Does he have any toes left on either foot?

[wanglepin]

Jimmy might go all the way to court and refuse to pay his fine or debts. Eventually he will be sent to prison and then decide to pay his fine making it appear he “took one for the team” when in reality he bottled it and come up with the money.

[AndyPandy]

Jimmy might go all the way to court and refuse to pay his fine or debts. Eventually he will be sent to prison and then decide to pay his fine making it appear he “took one for the team” when in reality he bottled it and come up with the money.

What gets me is that he sees fit to advises others to 'return not known at this address' whilst all the time having a 'war chest' for when it all goes drastically wrong. Others may not be as fortunate and have, by taking his advise, negated any possibility of coming to an amicable arrangement with Creditors.

[mufc1959]

CT Benefit goes to Jimmy's account.

That's not quite right, with respect. CT Benefit was abolished in 2013. It's now CT Reduction, an exemption or rebate from paying all or part of the CT. It's not an amount paid to the claimant so they can then use it to pay the full amount of the CT.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benef ... d-to-know/

So Jimmy won't have been able to save up his CT benefit as it's not something that would ever have been paid to him. No doubt he's claiming all sorts of other benefits to which he's probably not entitled though.

Did I read somewhere in his CT thread where some numpty was sending back his CT demands marked ANRRTS, even though they were correctly addressed to him ... at his council house?!! The stupidity of these people is mind-boggling.

[longdog]

He will have really landed himself in it if he is claiming CTB and not paying said Tax.

No... Not really... If you are entitled to CT benefit it is paid to your CT account at the beginning of the financial year leaving you to pay whatever is left. In my case CTB is about 75% and I have to pay the remaining 25%. Whether of not you actually pay whatever you have to pay has nothing to do with the benefit entitlement.

Of course anybody who refuses to pay tax and then accepts benefits is an utter hypocrite but that's another issue.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Thanks mufc1959, I haven't received CTB for a few years, didn't know how it had changed.

I doubt Jimmy shares the same cell with the dog, the wee canine is likely the brains of the outfit (at any rate it's the more successful one, given that it actually owns a car).

My Illuminati contacts say the dog has grassed up Jimmy and done a plea deal such that it keeps the car and doesn't serve any time inside.

[PeanutGallery]

My Illuminati contacts say the dog has grassed up Jimmy and done a plea deal such that it keeps the car and doesn't serve any time inside.

So it's going to be out for Walkies.

[Skeleton]

He will have really landed himself in it if he is claiming CTB and not paying said Tax.

No... Not really... If you are entitled to CT benefit it is paid to your CT account at the beginning of the financial year leaving you to pay whatever is left. In my case CTB is about 75% and I have to pay the remaining 25%. Whether of not you actually pay whatever you have to pay has nothing to do with the benefit entitlement.

Of course anybody who refuses to pay tax and then accepts benefits is an utter hypocrite but that's another issue.

Things have changed and thank you for correcting me, in 2005 it was perfectly plausible for you to claim CTB and not pay your CT.

[Skeleton]

CT Benefit goes to Jimmy's account.

That's not quite right, with respect. CT Benefit was abolished in 2013. It's now CT Reduction, an exemption or rebate from paying all or part of the CT. It's not an amount paid to the claimant so they can then use it to pay the full amount of the CT.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benef ... d-to-know/

So Jimmy won't have been able to save up his CT benefit as it's not something that would ever have been paid to him. No doubt he's claiming all sorts of other benefits to which he's probably not entitled though.

Did I read somewhere in his CT thread where some numpty was sending back his CT demands marked ANRRTS, even though they were correctly addressed to him ... at his council house?!! The stupidity of these people is mind-boggling.

That was Jimmy, he even produced a video showing it.

[rumpelstilzchen]

jimmy:of the One Cell family wrote:

of all the cheques sent out, NONE of them have NOT cleared

If none have them have not cleared that means all of them have cleared, including the one for CT.
So there are two possibilities. The council are attempting to get paid twice or jimmy is lying.

[longdog]

jimmy:of the One Cell family wrote:

of all the cheques sent out, NONE of them have NOT cleared

If none have them have not cleared that means all of them have cleared, including the one for CT.
So there are two possibilities. The council are attempting to get paid twice or jimmy is lying.

I'm surprised at you Rumple... Your fine legal mind should really know better than to interpret "of all the cheques sent out, NONE of them have NOT cleared" as "If none have them have not cleared that means all of them have cleared, including the one for CT".

You are failing to take into account those that have not not cleared because the council never presented them for clearing because they are worthless pieces of crap drawn on a non-existent bank. If the council didn't couldn't present them then they couldn't have not cleared

[NYGman]

jimmy:of the One Cell family wrote:

of all the cheques sent out, NONE of them have NOT cleared

If none have them have not cleared that means all of them have cleared, including the one for CT.
So there are two possibilities. The council are attempting to get paid twice or jimmy is lying.

I think he phrased it that way on purpose, saying NONE of them have NOT cleared, isn't the same as saying all of them have cleared. Nuanced, yes, but I guess this statement could be correct, although it doesn't mean anything has actually cleared. Although in reality, no matter how long he waits, NONE of them will ever clear. At least that is the way I read it, Double negative and all. Or maybe I am giving Jimmy one cell too much credit here.

[notorial dissent]

I think that if I was the dog I'd sue for a divorce based on irreconcilable differences, his owner is a proven and self destructive idiot, and demand separate maintenance.

[NYGman]

I think that if I was the dog I'd sue for a divorce based on irreconcilable differences, his owner is a proven and self destructive idiot, and demand separate maintenance.

WE know who will get to keep the car

[notorial dissent]

I think that if I was the dog I'd sue for a divorce based on irreconcilable differences, his owner is a proven and self destructive idiot, and demand separate maintenance.

WE know who will get to keep the car

Dog is probably the better more responsible driver/operator, too, also.