The Rooftop 6 - The Trial of the Century!

[letissier14]

Tom talking more crap in Leeds this time but with an audience

https://www.facebook.com/chris.dunton.1 ... 968073058/

[Forsyth]

There's a new sale for 3 Fearn Chase listed on the Land Registry site:

3 Fearn Chase, Nottingham, NG4 1DN

Transaction history
A 2015-11-19 £93,500
B 2015-07-31 £55,000

Detailed address
building name or no. 3
street Fearn Chase
locality Carlton
town Nottingham
district Gedling
county Nottinghamshire
postcode NG4 1DN

[NYGman]

There's a new sale for 3 Fearn Chase listed on the Land Registry site:

3 Fearn Chase, Nottingham, NG4 1DN

Transaction history
A 2015-11-19 £93,500
B 2015-07-31 £55,000

Detailed address
building name or no. 3
street Fearn Chase
locality Carlton
town Nottingham
district Gedling
county Nottinghamshire
postcode NG4 1DN

Not a bad profit, I must say... Tom would have had more than enough to cover the mortgage, and enough to buy a new pad, although likely smaller

[Chaos]

There's a new sale for 3 Fearn Chase listed on the Land Registry site:

3 Fearn Chase, Nottingham, NG4 1DN

Transaction history
A 2015-11-19 £93,500
B 2015-07-31 £55,000

Detailed address
building name or no. 3
street Fearn Chase
locality Carlton
town Nottingham
district Gedling
county Nottinghamshire
postcode NG4 1DN

[Pox]

Tom talking more crap in Leeds this time but with an audience

https://www.facebook.com/chris.dunton.1 ... 968073058/

Can't view it - not on Facebook but thanks anyway.

[NYGman]

Tom talking more crap in Leeds this time but with an audience

https://www.facebook.com/chris.dunton.1 ... 968073058/

Can't view it - not on Facebook but thanks anyway.

Looks like they believe that There is a law that prevents a mortgage company evicting you.
The post says:

A short clip from real change Leeds!
There is know[SIC] law that states you can chuck a person or family out of there home!

[Pox]

Looks like they believe that There is a law that prevents a mortgage company evicting you.
The post says:

A short clip from real change Leeds!
There is know[SIC] law that states you can chuck a person or family out of there home!

There probably isn't a 'LAW' that says that , is there? (a question for those that know more than me).

But plenty of other legal justifications for someone to be evicted from their home.

Like, not paying your mortgage/capital sum - etc.?

[NYGman]

There probably isn't a 'LAW' that says that , is there? (a question for those that know more than me).

But plenty of other legal justifications for someone to be evicted from their home.

Like, not paying your mortgage/capital sum - etc.?

By the comments, I have not seen the Video, it looks as if they may be referring to an old pre-1977 law preventing landlords evicting someone in certain circumstances. I will also note, it looks as if this law ended with the introduction of "Assured Tenancies."

So if I were to venture a Guess, they are trying to apply an old law, that applied to landlords and tenants, and apply it to a mortgage holder (who they claim is a tenant under this law) today.

This is all speculation by reading some of the comments/questions in the post, and for clarity IANA(UK)L
EDIT: After some quick and dirty research, and again without viewing the video, my guess would be Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act 1958, but then again, who knows... It looks to prohibited the recovery of possession except by legal proceedings, so that is my best guess, now for someone actually with UK knowledge to have a go

[YiamCross]

There probably isn't a 'LAW' that says that , is there? (a question for those that know more than me).

But plenty of other legal justifications for someone to be evicted from their home.

Like, not paying your mortgage/capital sum - etc.?

By the comments, I have not seen the Video, it looks as if they may be referring to an old pre-1977 law preventing landlords evicting someone in certain circumstances. I will also note, it looks as if this law ended with the introduction of "Assured Tenancies."

So if I were to venture a Guess, they are trying to apply an old law, that applied to landlords and tenants, and apply it to a mortgage holder (who they claim is a tenant under this law) today.

This is all speculation by reading some of the comments/questions in the post, and for clarity IANA(UK)L
EDIT: After some quick and dirty research, and again without viewing the video, my guess would be Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act 1958, but then again, who knows... It looks to prohibited the recovery of possession except by legal proceedings, so that is my best guess, now for someone actually with UK knowledge to have a go

He actually says what act it is, the Law of Property Act 1925 which, IIRC and I'm pretty sure I do, was superseded by the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 although a few properties may still be governed by the old act but not many. Some nonsense about not being able to take a property by force and the owner remaining a sitting tenant, TBH my ears had started to bleed by then. His case got heard by the wrong kind of judge so it doesn't count, I mean what will they make up next?

[YiamCross]

Interesting access to all areas of nonsense via the FB page of the bloke who posted TC's video.

Once you have obtained verification of postage of your Oath (better still, verification of delivery), you are now a bona fide inhabitant of Britain and a member of a very exclusive club of people who not only are the only legitimate inhabitants of our country but are also now ‘immunised’ against the ten thousand or so statutes, Acts and regulations published by successive puppet governments since the unlawful removal of the Royal Prerogative from the Monarch in 1911.

Members of this exclusive club can ignore all statute law so long as they don't break the 4 common laws, usual mumbo of cause no harm etc, no breach of the peace or something and they are obliged to be as disruptive as possible to any government agency.

Oh, just to prove his street cred TC says he arrested 3 inspectors on the day of his eviction. Must have missed that, I only saw him being taken away in handcuffs.

Honestly, how can they find people to swallow this rubbish after it's been discredited publicly time after time after time and never ever not even once vaguely been shown to produce any beneficial result? Not ever. I wonder how much he got paid to deliver his keynote speech at this sell-out event?

[NYGman]

He actually says what act it is, the Law of Property Act 1925 which, IIRC and I'm pretty sure I do, was superseded by the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 although a few properties may still be governed by the old act but not many. Some nonsense about not being able to take a property by force and the owner remaining a sitting tenant, TBH my ears had started to bleed by then. His case got heard by the wrong kind of judge so it doesn't count, I mean what will they make up next?

Again, based upon my quick research, I think the 26 act was replaced by the 55 act, which was added too by the 56 act which I found above, which was itself superseded by the 1977 act, which was updated with the 65 act, slightly reframed in 67 and further modified in 71 and amended in 72, Then there was the Rent act of 75, which was adjusted, but finally brought together in the Rent act of 77 and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, amended by the Housing act of 1980. 3 Various acts in 86 replaced most of that mess, the Housing Associations Act 1985, the Housing Act 1985, and the Housing and Planning Act 1986, but I believe parts of the 77 act were still valid. There were some minor adjustments util 96 and the Housing Act 1996.

I went back to the 56 act, as that was the earliest pre-77 act I thought may still have relevance, I discounted 26 after 55. Oh well, what do I know, I am not a UK Lawyer

[YiamCross]

Again, based upon my quick research, I think the 26 act was replaced by the 55 act, which was added too by the 56 act which I found above, which was itself superseded by the 1977 act, which was updated with the 65 act, slightly reframed in 67 and further modified in 71 and amended in 72, Then there was the Rent act of 75, which was adjusted, but finally brought together in the Rent act of 77 and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, amended by the Housing act of 1980. 3 Various acts in 86 replaced most of that mess, the Housing Associations Act 1985, the Housing Act 1985, and the Housing and Planning Act 1986, but I believe parts of the 77 act were still valid. There were some minor adjustments util 96 and the Housing Act 1996.

I went back to the 56 act, as that was the earliest pre-77 act I thought may still have relevance, I discounted 26 after 55. Oh well, what do I know, I am not a UK Lawyer

Something like that but then these people like to cherry pick bits of old law that might be bent to suit their purposes, which seem these days to be mostly about selling tickets to events, whilst happily ignoring the fact that, even if it ever did mean what they'd like it to mean, it doesn't much matter now because it's been superseded. Much like the idiots who refer back to the Magna Carta choose to ignore the fact that it was never intended to apply to ordinary folk and anyway, it was all repealed and replaced a few months later so it didn't apply to anyone at all for very long. Oh well, what you gonna do? Reason doesn't work so all that's left is pointing and laughing.

[NYGman]

Something like that but then these people like to cherry pick bits of old law that might be bent to suit their purposes, which seem these days to be mostly about selling tickets to events, whilst happily ignoring the fact that, even if it ever did mean what they'd like it to mean, it doesn't much matter now because it's been superseded. Much like the idiots who refer back to the Magna Carta choose to ignore the fact that it was never intended to apply to ordinary folk and anyway, it was all repealed and replaced a few months later so it didn't apply to anyone at all for very long. Oh well, what you gonna do? Reason doesn't work so all that's left is pointing and laughing.

Another reason I discounted the 26 Act, was that the 55/56 were put in place because of widespread abuses by landlords chucking people out without notice and/or reason. The newer acts granted more protections, at least that was what I read, and was passed to give tenants protections that were not in the old act. So, it sounds like they found a real winner with the 26 Act.

[midjit-gems]

From what I can gather wading through the huge pile of steaming excrement they have produced, it seems it's not so much the fact there isn't a law whereby they can't be evicted, it's more there isn't a law that means they can be removed by being man handled, or even sweaty Sue handled.

I'm pretty sure someone will put me right if I'm wrong on this, but don't warrants have the option of having "use necessary force if required" on them? If so surely that would cover them?

Then again this is all I formation the prince of bellend was looking into this time last year with posts on response about not being able to use force and the warrants only being active for 72 hours once the eviction took place hence why so many tried to retake their properties after.

Good news on the house sale. I assume the court bought it back for the crawfrauds to move back in now they've admitted they were wrong and the crawfrauds should be handed back the house as they are the rightful owners ???

[FatGambit]

County Court Enforcement Officers need to apply to the Court to use force* to enter a private residence or remove those that don't want to leave, not sure about High Court EO's, but there is a difference in what they can do.

What they say is kind of true, a County Court Enforcement Officer has no more rights of entry than any other member of the public and technically they should not use the Police to execute the warrant if it's issued by a Civil Court, the Police can only act if there is a breach of the peace (which of course the definition of is open to interpretation).

*Once a CCEO has gained peaceful entry (i.e. been invited in by a responsible adult living at the property), upon return at a later date they can force entry if it is refused.

[Footloose52]

A HCEO can only force entry to domestic property in certain, very specific, circumstances, pretty much the same as a CCEO.

[midjit-gems]

That's true when dealing with debts.

If it's court fines they can be granted permission to enforce entry

When it's a repossession different rules apply

[NYGman]

That's true when dealing with debts.

If it's court fines they can be granted permission to enforce entry

When it's a repossession different rules apply

And that is probably what confuses the Gurus. We have seen them mixing civil and criminal warrant requirements, I am sure they do they same with what a bailiff can and can not do. Classic FMOTL lack of nuanced understanding,.

[midjit-gems]

From the shelter website in bailiffs and evictions

How bailiffs should behave
Bailiffs must act reasonably and must not use unreasonable force. They are not allowed to:

use violence, threaten or harass you or other people in your home
use offensive language
cause damage to your belongings

See unreasonable force, therefore guiding sue out by her elbow wouldn't be considered unreasonable as she was left with no marks etc.

Yes the gurus have been quoting normal bailiff rules and regulations. As they usually do they pick and chose which rules and regs support their current argument

[FatGambit]

Sue's mistake was leaving the safety of the property itself, but I guess that's what happens when you don't understand things, it's also not just the guru's that don't know the difference, very often Police don't either, you don't want to get me started on that particular rabbit hole since my experience isn't related to the topic of warrants but enforcement of other regulations.