jimmywx11

[notorial dissent]

I would assume that if someone made that request that the supplier would just shut them off at the mains and then be done with it and the new supplier would be the only one who could legally turn it back on.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I would assume that if someone made that request that the supplier would just shut them off at the mains and then be done with it and the new supplier would be the only one who could legally turn it back on.

Not sure it would get that far. As someone mentioned earlier all meters, I think, have a unique reference number (MPAN? for electric). If you change a meter I would think one, it has to be by an authorised and qualified person and two, there has to be an unique meter number on the meter going in. Utility companies have stocks of pre-checked, pre-labelled meters to replace broken ones, so no issue with doing it properly. Doing it the Jimmy Wyld Idiot way and the existing supplier will just prosecute you for damaging the meter/ interfering with the supply / unauthorised working / etc.

[AndyPandy]

I would assume that if someone made that request that the supplier would just shut them off at the mains and then be done with it and the new supplier would be the only one who could legally turn it back on.

Not sure it would get that far. As someone mentioned earlier all meters, I think, have a unique reference number (MPAN? for electric). If you change a meter I would think one, it has to be by an authorised and qualified person and two, there has to be an unique meter number on the meter going in. Utility companies have stocks of pre-checked, pre-labelled meters to replace broken ones, so no issue with doing it properly. Doing it the Jimmy Wyld Idiot way and the existing supplier will just prosecute you for damaging the meter/ interfering with the supply / unauthorised working / etc.

There's a central database for registered mpan numbers, if the meter/mpan isn't on the database the supplier won't connect to it or will disconnect an unregistered meter and like you say prosecute you for theft of electricity and interference with a meter.

[Bones]

Getting back to business - Jimmy is still full of shit and in denial about being bankrupt

[NYGman]

Getting back to business - Jimmy is still full of shit and in denial about being bankrupt

Any updates on his stupidity?? I need something new to laugh at...

[AndyPandy]

Getting back to business - Jimmy is still full of shit and in denial about being bankrupt

Any updates on his stupidity?? I need something new to laugh at...

Just don't mention the 'B' word !!

[Firthy2002]

Getting back to business - Jimmy is still full of shit and in denial about being bankrupt

Any updates on his stupidity?? I need something new to laugh at...

Here's a lovely anti-Semitic video regarding the Biggins CBB thing. I've flagged it so there's a chance it may disappear shortly.

[exiledscouser]

Getting back to business - Jimmy is still full of shit and in denial about being bankrupt

Linky please Bones. His youtoob channel is a merry-go-round of anti semitic bilge, drug manufacture and cancer cure quackery.

But no mention there of not being bankrupt even though he is.

Has the recent invasion blown over? Its been like the Blazing Saddles scene when the cowboys break into the dance studio.

Strange people having, it seemed to me, stranger conversations - with themselves. I was never sure which sock puppet was which or whether the whole episode was someone's idea of a giant piss take. Apologies for the ot comment but I didn't want to fan the flames by adding to the more recent obsessional bickering he-said she-said ranty posts. Enough already!

I hope we can get back to exposing scam artists and failed gurus.

[AndyPandy]

Am I reading this right - 3 years from bankruptcy the dwelling (home) of the bankrupt is no longer his?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/198 ... ction/283A

[ArthurWankspittle]

Am I reading this right - 3 years from bankruptcy the dwelling (home) of the bankrupt is no longer his?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/198 ... ction/283A

I think you are mis reading it. I read it as if no one does anything about him owning a house while bankrupt then it goes back to him after three years. I would think it is to prevent trustees sitting on property waiting for it to go up in value. Further, it is just a reasonable timeline to "get on with it" as far as selling the place. Jimmy's house will be someone else's within a year, short of Jimmy winning the lottery or getting a massive inheritance. Check the exceptions in this paragraph:

(3)Subsection (2) shall not apply if during the period mentioned in that subsection—

(a)the trustee realises the interest mentioned in subsection (1),

(b)the trustee applies for an order for sale in respect of the dwelling-house,

(c)the trustee applies for an order for possession of the dwelling-house,

(d)the trustee applies for an order under section 313 in Chapter IV in respect of that interest, or

(e)the trustee and the bankrupt agree that the bankrupt shall incur a specified liability to his estate (with or without the addition of interest from the date of the agreement) in consideration of which the interest mentioned in subsection (1) shall cease to form part of the estate.

[AndyPandy]

Am I reading this right - 3 years from bankruptcy the dwelling (home) of the bankrupt is no longer his?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/198 ... ction/283A

I think you are mis reading it. I read it as if no one does anything about him owning a house while bankrupt then it goes back to him after three years. I would think it is to prevent trustees sitting on property waiting for it to go up in value. Further, it is just a reasonable timeline to "get on with it" as far as selling the place. Jimmy's house will be someone else's within a year, short of Jimmy winning the lottery or getting a massive inheritance. Check the exceptions in this paragraph:

(3)Subsection (2) shall not apply if during the period mentioned in that subsection—

(a)the trustee realises the interest mentioned in subsection (1),

(b)the trustee applies for an order for sale in respect of the dwelling-house,

(c)the trustee applies for an order for possession of the dwelling-house,

(d)the trustee applies for an order under section 313 in Chapter IV in respect of that interest, or

(e)the trustee and the bankrupt agree that the bankrupt shall incur a specified liability to his estate (with or without the addition of interest from the date of the agreement) in consideration of which the interest mentioned in subsection (1) shall cease to form part of the estate.

Right, so basically, if they're going for possession of a house they have to do it within 3 years ?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Right, so basically, if they're going for possession of a house they have to do it within 3 years ?

That's my reading of it. I think it is all part of getting it sorted out in a reasonable timescale without either side being allowed to mess about. Jimmy's situation is relatively straightforward. He has a house and very few other assets and owes, what, £20k? Plus fees? Answer is sell the house and give him the change. It would prevent the situation of a bankruptcy dragging on for years where the bankruptee has multiple assets and may be able to keep their house but pay up from other assets. Look a bit funny if someone says four years down the line: sorry we are £500 short we are going to have to repossess your £500k mansion.

[Skeleton]

On a side note, Jimmy recently posted a video about making Cannabis coffee, I can't link to it but it looks like he is back in Castle Wyled going by the kitchen. I could be wrong.

[NYGman]

On a side note, Jimmy recently posted a video about making Cannabis coffee, I can't link to it but it looks like he is back in Castle Wyled going by the kitchen. I could be wrong.

or it could possibly be an old video he just got around to posting. Dose he say anything that would make you believe it is new? For example, did he make reference to any recent events?

[Skeleton]

On a side note, Jimmy recently posted a video about making Cannabis coffee, I can't link to it but it looks like he is back in Castle Wyled going by the kitchen. I could be wrong.

or it could possibly be an old video he just got around to posting. Dose he say anything that would make you believe it is new? For example, did he make reference to any recent events?

Nope mate he did not, and it would be just like Jimmy to post an old video from his old kitchen. In fact you may well be correct, he does another one about vegan burgers and the products he uses are from Sainsburys (posh supermarket to those that do not know) I highly doubt he can afford to shop their these days.

[Ronnie J]

Ah bless

Jimmy was so pleased with his new kitchen as well.

Bankruptcy is the worst possible scenario that could have unfolded. Homeowners are particularly vulnerable to Council bankruptcy proceedings. A relatively small debt such as Jimmy's can run into tens of thousands of pounds by the time that the process is complete.

In 2013, a verdict in an inquest delivered that the suicide of a council tax debtor was due largely to him being bankrupted by his local council for council tax. The initial debt was £1,350 but by the end of the process, it had risen to £70,000.

I'm sure Jimmy will think this is well worth it though. He has been able to produce numerous videos on the subject, including one of him threatening and abusing an old man. Top bloke is our one cell.

[PeanutGallery]

In 2013, a verdict in an inquest delivered that the suicide of a council tax debtor was due largely to him being bankrupted by his local council for council tax. The initial debt was £1,350 but by the end of the process, it had risen to £70,000.

In my view that is where enforcement can be disproportionately unfair on the debtor who may not have been given a choice in the fees incurred and to lose £70,000 on a significantly smaller debt would be devastating. Ideally there should be a capped fee system in place, although again without seeing the specific details of this case it cannot be said as to what the costs incurred would have been.

[longdog]

In my view that is where enforcement can be disproportionately unfair on the debtor who may not have been given a choice in the fees incurred and to lose £70,000 on a significantly smaller debt would be devastating. Ideally there should be a capped fee system in place, although again without seeing the specific details of this case it cannot be said as to what the costs incurred would have been.

That's true but it's hard to have sympathy for anybody who, through their own fuckwittery, turns the costs from bad to utterly ruinous... As in this case.

[mufc1959]

"Are all athletes on drugs and there's a conspiracy to keep it quiet?" questions One-Cell, the man with a cannabis farm in his spare room.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 7MqwzXp5cF

[ArthurWankspittle]

"Are all athletes on drugs and there's a conspiracy to keep it quiet?" questions One-Cell, the man with a cannabis farm in his spare room.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 7MqwzXp5cF

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2016/07/24/e ... ing-drugs/