Sovrun Paraleguls

[Siegfried Shrink]

If I remember my occultism correctly, this is a sure sign that Satan is guiding his hand....

Fair enough, according to some other woo satan is guiding everything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IR3DQkq82Q


Is a double act from S and Miss G, not to be missed by keen Woosters. (apologies to P.G.)
It seems Miss G has been giving the local courts some stick, even though they were all dissolved in 2011 for some reason?

His latest thing seems to be that United Kingdom Corporation Limited has been dissolved. companies house proves it.
Nearest thing I could find was
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00318002

But he does not seem to realise or see fit to mention that as long as you avoid some terms like Bank, you can name a company just about anything which means he could himself register United Kingdom Something as a company.
And he does that waving a paper in front of the camera to prove whatever it is.

[John Uskglass]

As noted upthread, its this one.

https://companycheck.co.uk/company/0585 ... house-data

Note that the 'expert' covers up the names of the directors perhaps realising that Fatollah Alavi and Mr Amir Nazem-Pour (an Iranian) are unlikely members of the British Ruling Elite.

[aesmith]

I just hope we get to hear the outcomes from all these. It sounds like Ms Gardiner is a busy lady, apparently already subject to insolvency proceedings, seems to have an existing unspecified dispute with her mortgage, this possession claim, and now apparently a Council Tax issue of some sort.

[NYGman]

I just hope we get to hear the outcomes from all these. It sounds like Ms Gardiner is a busy lady, apparently already subject to insolvency proceedings, seems to have an existing unspecified dispute with her mortgage, this possession claim, and now apparently a Council Tax issue of some sort.

And how she does it all, with the abject fear and terror she has to endure with her neighbors not only refusing to leave the home they don't own, but they have the nerve to start construction the day after she served them with an eviction notice, savages. How dare they mock by completely ignoring the totally legal and valid eviction notice they posted on the door.

[Siegfried Shrink]

It is ironic that this 'eviction' is one where the anti-eviction platoon could have turned up and been entirely right. I would have loved to see the Response mob and Legalmatters on opposite sides of the fence exchanging nonsense and waving their sacred phones in the air as they record it all.

[grixit]

UPDATE....

Fame at last!!!!

meanwhile........................................poor Bones

I was actually tempted to edit it so that Bones was put in place of longdog.

[Hercule Parrot]

I just hope we get to hear the outcomes from all these. It sounds like Ms Gardiner is a busy lady, apparently already subject to insolvency proceedings, seems to have an existing unspecified dispute with her mortgage, this possession claim, and now apparently a Council Tax issue of some sort.

Indeed. She strikes me to be a somewhat stupid and spiteful character, infatuated with the ExpertInFuckAll because his magic words will supposedly allow her to bully those around her.

Hopefully the neighbours are represented by very expert and expensive lawyers. Ms Gardiner can then have the pleasure of paying their costs, after they've discredited her perjurous fraud. I hope the ExpertInFuckAll stays to assist similar hubristic failures in all her disputes. If they work hard and appeal everything, this might yet be a Full Crawford.

[Burnaby49]

I just hope we get to hear the outcomes from all these. It sounds like Ms Gardiner is a busy lady, apparently already subject to insolvency proceedings, seems to have an existing unspecified dispute with her mortgage, this possession claim, and now apparently a Council Tax issue of some sort.

Indeed. She strikes me to be a somewhat stupid and spiteful character, infatuated with the ExpertInFuckAll because his magic words will supposedly allow her to bully those around her.

Hopefully the neighbours are represented by very expert and expensive lawyers. Ms Gardiner can then have the pleasure of paying their costs, after they've discredited her perjurous fraud. I hope the ExpertInFuckAll stays to assist similar hubristic failures in all her disputes. If they work hard and appeal everything, this might yet be a Full Crawford.

Here in Canada, and I assume the UK, it is somewhat irrelevant what a party pays in legal fees when costs are determined in their favour. The courts work on a standard scale which does not reflect the actual billings of counsel. However in egregious cases, and this certainly seems to be one, the courts can, and do, award special costs above scale.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I think the UK practice in civil cases is costs are actual costs, but the person paying them can have the costs bill taxed, which means an applocation to a Taxing Master who decides, basically, if the costs are reasonable and can adjust the amount awarded.
I may be well out of date on this.

[Hercule Parrot]

I can't decide if he's a genuine idiot, or actually believes there is a conspiracy of biblical proportions!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 3248283194

That's an embarrassing video. Does the ExpertInFuckAll realise that he's given his elderly, confused client a load of twaddle from US FMOTL websites? She's stumbling her way through the IRS's supposed authority over Bodmin County Court, then a mangled misrepresentation of Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943).

All of this then somehow leaps to a) council tax isn't legitimate, and b) Bodmin County Court isn't a real court. Remember she is applying to that same Court, tomorrow, for her house-stealing fraud!

Fascinating to see her potty-mouthed vindictive character emerging as she threatened the courthouse manager, who sussed her as a FMOTL idiot straight away. I imagine Mr Bennett is watching this spiteful scofflaw nonsense at home, with a glass of wine and a wry smile. He knows that tomorrow afternoon her fraudulent application will be dismissed with costs, after all.

[Hercule Parrot]

I think the UK practice in civil cases is costs are actual costs, but the person paying them can have the costs bill taxed, which means an applocation to a Taxing Master who decides, basically, if the costs are reasonable and can adjust the amount awarded.
I may be well out of date on this.

You are approximately correct, SS. But we're not a million miles from Canada either. We do not have a fixed rate, but only reasonable costs can be recovered. I believe there are guidelines for what level of lawyer(s) are justified in what circumstances, how many lawyer-hours would be reasonable, and within what range of hourly fee etc.

So if the neighbours have spent £22,000, but the guidelines indicate £3-5,000, they're not likely to get much over £5,000 unless their lawyers can justify extra work - for example if the ExpertInFuckAll has been sending them a barrage of stupid "notices" then the cost of reading and replying could be substantial.

Maybe one of our UK litigator members can link us to an authorative summary!

[mufc1959]

I think the UK practice in civil cases is costs are actual costs, but the person paying them can have the costs bill taxed, which means an applocation to a Taxing Master who decides, basically, if the costs are reasonable and can adjust the amount awarded.
I may be well out of date on this.

You are approximately correct, SS. But we're not a million miles from Canada either. We do not have a fixed rate, but only reasonable costs can be recovered. I believe there are guidelines for what level of lawyer(s) are justified in what circumstances, how many lawyer-hours would be reasonable, and within what range of hourly fee etc.

So if the neighbours have spent £22,000, but the guidelines indicate £3-5,000, they're not likely to get much over £5,000 unless their lawyers can justify extra work - for example if the ExpertInFuckAll has been sending them a barrage of stupid "notices" then the cost of reading and replying could be substantial.

Maybe one of our UK litigator members can link us to an authorative summary!

Sorry to include the full quote, but I'm on the iPad and can never work out how to delete properly on it.

I doubt the neighbours' legal costs will exceed a couple of thousand for this, if it's all cleared up at the first hearing. The court's already got wind that it's bogus by ordering the scammer to provide copies of the title entries. I think they'll just need a competent local solicitor to explain things to the judge and show proof of ownership and it'll be case dismissed, costs to the defendants.

I think the judge has discretion, if the case warrants it, to order costs on an indemnity basis, i.e., you get back what you've paid out. And if ever a case warranted it, it's this one, being utterly without merit, vexatious and malicious.

[Burnaby49]

Let's not get too high and mighty about it all before the results are in. If it works I've got my eye on a couple of adjacent properties here in Burnaby. I have an 84 year old widow right next door who won't know what hit her when I show her that I remortgaged my house and her address 'accidentally' ended up on the document legally making her house my property. I'll leave the other neighbour be. He has some biker friends.

[The Observer]

I have an 84 year old widow right next door who won't know what hit her when I show her that I remortgaged my house and her address 'accidentally' ended up on the document legally making her house my property.

The last thing I remember hearing about that neighbor is that you paid her a visit and returned home with a bunch of busted ribs. I would suggest you think twice about trying to cheat her out of hearth and home.

I'll leave the other neighbour be. He has some biker friend

Now you're thinking. A few biker friends might be able to take on the poor widow for you.

[notorial dissent]

I don't know how it works in teh UK, but here when we buy a property we have to get what is called title insurance to guarantee that the title is actually good, and if it turns out down the road it isn't then they are on the hook to either defend it or get your money back, and I suspect something like this would fall under that, since they are in essence saying your title is no good.

FWIW I'm hoping for a really nasty and extremely expensive outcome to her little attempt at fraud come the 'morrow.

Burnaby, I would be careful, some of the 84 year old widows I've known would eat you up and spit you out and not even work up a sweat doing it, they didn't get to that age by being soft or easy marks.

[notorial dissent]

I have an 84 year old widow right next door who won't know what hit her when I show her that I remortgaged my house and her address 'accidentally' ended up on the document legally making her house my property.

The last thing I remember hearing about that neighbor is that you paid her a visit and returned home with a bunch of busted ribs. I would suggest you think twice about trying to cheat her out of hearth and home.

I'll leave the other neighbour be. He has some biker friend

Now you're thinking. A few biker friends might be able to take on the poor widow for you.

As I've said, some of those sweet innocent looking old things can prove quite the contrary, and I'd probably gives odds on the widow against the bikers, it's amazing how well a good rolling pin or a #12 can even the odds when properly applied to the problem.

[Burnaby49]

The last thing I remember hearing about that neighbor is that you paid her a visit and returned home with a bunch of busted ribs. I would suggest you think twice about trying to cheat her out of hearth and home.

Sigh . . . .

Let me correct you yet again. I didn't 'return' home with a bunch of busted ribs, I crawled home with a bunch of busted ribs. But that was over three years ago when she was a feisty 81.

Now you're thinking. A few biker friends might be able to take on the poor widow for you.

I'd just as soon not point out to a neighbour with acquaintances like that how he can take over my home with a typo. He has backup.

[Hercule Parrot]

So if the neighbours have spent £22,000, but the guidelines indicate £3-5,000, they're not likely to get much over £5,000 unless their lawyers can justify extra work - for example if the ExpertInFuckAll has been sending them a barrage of stupid "notices" then the cost of reading and replying could be substantial.

I doubt the neighbours' legal costs will exceed a couple of thousand for this, if it's all cleared up at the first hearing. The court's already got wind that it's bogus by ordering the scammer to provide copies of the title entries. I think they'll just need a competent local solicitor to explain things to the judge and show proof of ownership and it'll be case dismissed, costs to the defendants.

I think the judge has discretion, if the case warrants it, to order costs on an indemnity basis, i.e., you get back what you've paid out. And if ever a case warranted it, it's this one, being utterly without merit, vexatious and malicious.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

[aesmith]

Elsewhere they've revived the ill fated "Parking Notice" as piloted on the old Get Out of Debt. Basically the idea is you stick a notice on your car saying that anyone who attaches a ticket becomes liable to pay you £5000. See here for the current incarnation on Sovereign Paralegals ..

https://m.facebook.com/groups/193082005 ... ction_list

So how did it work when tried before? Egged on by others, GOODF member Bleher gave it a go ... Anybody suggest how to enforce the 5k removal fee?

Hi, I have the "Legal Notice" displayed on my car but nonetheless found a penalty charge notice on my windscreen for allegedly parking in a residential area outside my own home and which is not signposted as such. The attendant refused to remove the notice, so I challenged it with Vinci Park Services who upheld it, then with Milton Keynes Council on whose behalf the issued the penalty charge, who also upheld it (naturally, they want the money), then with the Adjudicator who allowed my appeal. In the correspondence Vinci acknowledged my legal notice but argued that it could not be used to prevent attaching a "lawful notice" to the car. After the adjudicator's decision I wrote to them that the defence of lawful notice no longer stood and asked them whether they intended to contest the charge on any other grounds or to otherwise make payment by a given date. I also made it clear that the removal fee covered all charges and costs related to having had to contest the notice in addition to its actual removal (after all, it's taken 6 months to get the PCN revoked, and time is money!). The company missed the deadline and I guess are now liable for the debt, but how can I enforce it? My confidence in the courts is not particularly high, so any useful suggestions/experience would be most appreciated. If successful, a share will, of course, go to your organisations fighting fund.

Hi,
I lodged a claim for the removal fee stated on the "Legal notice" after a PCN was affixed to my car in an area not subject to parking restrictions and the solicitors of the parking firm (Vinci) have countered with a strike-out application and application for costs on an indemnity basis giving the following reasons:
- there is no legal basis for the payment of the removal fee in law and tort
- the claim is an attempt to interfere with the statutory powers of parking attendants
- it has no chances of success
A hearing date for the strike-out application has been set for October. I do not have a legal background and will therefore find it difficult to argue on points of law in order to be allowed for the actual case to be heard and to avoid excessive costs being awarded against me. Therefore, I need any help I can get from those who are familiar with the subtleties of the law in what may turn into a first test case for the enforceability of the removal fee via displaying the "Legal Notice".

The case was heard in Milton Keynes. I was ordered to pay £3089 in defence costs because they got a strike-out application in before a hearing had been set, which means the case had not been allocated to the small claims track yet. Summary judgment was entered in favour of the defendant on the basis that the demand had no merit under contract law or tort and the claim had no reasonable chances of success. A notice alone threatening a penalty cannot bind another party under law and the Civil Regulations on Traffic Enforcement 2007 apparently do not provide for compensation or civil liability in cases where a PCN has been issued and subsequently overturned as invalid.

[TheCoz]

Elsewhere they've revived the ill fated "Parking Notice" as piloted on the old Get Out of Debt. Basically the idea is you stick a notice on your car saying that anyone who attaches a ticket becomes liable to pay you £5000. See here for the current incarnation on Sovereign Paralegals ..

https://m.facebook.com/groups/193082005 ... ction_list

So how did it work when tried before? Egged on by others, GOODF member Bleher gave it a go ... Anybody suggest how to enforce the 5k removal fee?

Hi, I have the "Legal Notice" displayed on my car but nonetheless found a penalty charge notice on my windscreen for allegedly parking in a residential area outside my own home and which is not signposted as such. The attendant refused to remove the notice, so I challenged it with Vinci Park Services who upheld it, then with Milton Keynes Council on whose behalf the issued the penalty charge, who also upheld it (naturally, they want the money), then with the Adjudicator who allowed my appeal. In the correspondence Vinci acknowledged my legal notice but argued that it could not be used to prevent attaching a "lawful notice" to the car. After the adjudicator's decision I wrote to them that the defence of lawful notice no longer stood and asked them whether they intended to contest the charge on any other grounds or to otherwise make payment by a given date. I also made it clear that the removal fee covered all charges and costs related to having had to contest the notice in addition to its actual removal (after all, it's taken 6 months to get the PCN revoked, and time is money!). The company missed the deadline and I guess are now liable for the debt, but how can I enforce it? My confidence in the courts is not particularly high, so any useful suggestions/experience would be most appreciated. If successful, a share will, of course, go to your organisations fighting fund.

Hi,
I lodged a claim for the removal fee stated on the "Legal notice" after a PCN was affixed to my car in an area not subject to parking restrictions and the solicitors of the parking firm (Vinci) have countered with a strike-out application and application for costs on an indemnity basis giving the following reasons:
- there is no legal basis for the payment of the removal fee in law and tort
- the claim is an attempt to interfere with the statutory powers of parking attendants
- it has no chances of success
A hearing date for the strike-out application has been set for October. I do not have a legal background and will therefore find it difficult to argue on points of law in order to be allowed for the actual case to be heard and to avoid excessive costs being awarded against me. Therefore, I need any help I can get from those who are familiar with the subtleties of the law in what may turn into a first test case for the enforceability of the removal fee via displaying the "Legal Notice".

The case was heard in Milton Keynes. I was ordered to pay £3089 in defence costs because they got a strike-out application in before a hearing had been set, which means the case had not been allocated to the small claims track yet. Summary judgment was entered in favour of the defendant on the basis that the demand had no merit under contract law or tort and the claim had no reasonable chances of success. A notice alone threatening a penalty cannot bind another party under law and the Civil Regulations on Traffic Enforcement 2007 apparently do not provide for compensation or civil liability in cases where a PCN has been issued and subsequently overturned as invalid.

Somehow won an appeal, so he turned a £0 situation into a CCJ against him for £3k+. Obviously a win!!!!1!!11

Time to hide yo' car before the bailiffs turn up.