"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[Hyrion]

"I have supplied a doctors letter stating that I can't possibly get a job but of course ignored as per usual."

A couple things we've learned as we observe OPCAs.

1) They like to misrepresent reality
2) They have a willingness to consider real Judges fake and their fake judges sitting in Denny's real

So... the obvious question I have to ask is: was the apparent doctors letter from a real doctor? It'd certainly be ignored if it wasn't.

Unfortunately for poor Dave... with everything else that has occurred - there's enough water under the bridge that I simply don't take his word at face value without real evidence as proof and hearing from the other side of the equation as well.

[TheCoz]

Former EA. The reason we attended a property is because the Court is advised that the address is the debtors. Sometimes, the parents live there. We cannot establish which items are not the debtors in that property so we have to assume that they all are until shown proof otherwise. The problem being for the debtor/parents, its very very difficult to prove ownership of a tv/dining table/sofa etc.

Surely if there is a reasonable doubt that property belongs to the debtor it cannot be taken or at least not be taken without the risk of court action for the return of the goods which would be at the creditor's expense not the debtors.

In the example of a person living with their parents in the parent's house the assumption would be that the everyday goods in the property such as TVs (and I'm pretty sure tables and sofas cannot be removed which makes me seriously doubt the claim to be a former EA) would be that they belonged to the householder not the debtor.

Current rules can be found on the taking control of goods act 2014.

The assumption is everything in the property is the debtors until proven otherwise. Rules with sofa is you can take it as long as there is at least 1 seat per person left. So I could of left a family of 3 with 3 wooden chairs and take their living room set.

Happy to provide a picture of my licence and registration to an admin to prove I have been an EA

[rosy]

All benefits are paid directly into bank accounts, so every claimant has a bank account even if it's a basic Post Office account that can only be used for receiving benefits and withdrawing cash.

I rather doubt a GP would ever write a letter to the DWP saying a claimant "can't possibly get a job". It's a GP role to supply DWP with details of the claimant's illnesses/disability and how it restricts them performing acts of daily living, but it's not their role to be decision makers. That's done at the DWP, when they compare the claimant's abilities with the descriptors to determine whether the claimant qualifies for the benefit (or premium) for which they are applying.

Obviously as a wheelchair user, I'm very familiar with the DWP rules and the descriptors that they use for the two different benefits Dave might be able to claim. I don't know how his illness affects him, but if he does want either or both benefits he will have to cooperate with the DWP - fill in their awful forms and attend their frankly not-fit-for purpose F2F assessments. There are charities which will help him navigate his way through if he asks them.

[aesmith]

I'm sure he's completely unemployable, not from physical disability but as a result of his attitude.

[longdog]

The assumption is everything in the property is the debtors until proven otherwise.

That's not what the MoJ National Standards say...

67. Enforcement agents should not take control or remove goods clearly belonging solely to a third party not responsible for the debt. Where a claim is made, the third party should be given clear instructions on the process required to recover their goods.

https://www.hceoa.org.uk/images/content ... ndards.pdf

In most cases of an adult child living with parents property in communal areas can safely be assumed to belong to the householder particularly if the householder states that as a fact. I think you're stretching it to claim that you can legally seize everything in a property solely because that's the address the creditor has on record and just hope everything will conveniently work out in the end.

"Until proven otherwise"? Proven to who? The EA? What standard of proof are we talking about here? Beyond reasonable doubt? Balance of probability? It depends on what side of the bed the EA got out that morning?

[Dr. Caligari]

Sounds like you have a time portal for an operationg system, bit like buying an old radio, turning it on and getting Amos 'n Andy.

That was a plot point in Harlan Ellison's novelette "Jeffty Is Five."

[TheCoz]

The assumption is everything in the property is the debtors until proven otherwise.

That's not what the MoJ National Standards say...

67. Enforcement agents should not take control or remove goods clearly belonging solely to a third party not responsible for the debt. Where a claim is made, the third party should be given clear instructions on the process required to recover their goods.

https://www.hceoa.org.uk/images/content ... ndards.pdf

In most cases of an adult child living with parents property in communal areas can safely be assumed to belong to the householder particularly if the householder states that as a fact. I think you're stretching it to claim that you can legally seize everything in a property solely because that's the address the creditor has on record and just hope everything will conveniently work out in the end.

"Until proven otherwise"? Proven to who? The EA? What standard of proof are we talking about here? Beyond reasonable doubt? Balance of probability? It depends on what side of the bed the EA got out that morning?

Clearly belonging too. As in, has presented proof of ownership. How do you know that the adult child didnt buy everything in that house for their parents?

And yes, proof presented to the EA. Invoices, receipts, bank transactions.

[longdog]

Clearly belonging too. As in, has presented proof of ownership. How do you know that the adult child didnt buy everything in that house for their parents?

And yes, proof presented to the EA. Invoices, receipts, bank transactions.

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of people don't have receipts for the vast majority of things that they own. You appear to be saying that a bailiff can take any property, regardless of who it belongs to, in any multi-occupancy house as long as the creditor has that address on file. Quite frankly I don't believe any bailiff, other perhaps than one with a vastly inflated sense of his own importance, would be that stupid as the legal costs for an action for the return of the property would fall on the creditor or the bailiff.

This is what the CAB have to say...

Can bailiffs take goods belonging to other people?

Bailiffs are only allowed to take control of goods which belong to the person named on the notice of enforcement. This will be the person who owes the debt.

So, things belonging to your husband or wife, partner, children or lodgers can't be taken. The only exception is if the items are jointly owned by you and another person, in which case the bailiff can take them.


Goods belonging to someone else are taken

A bailiff shouldn't take goods if they can't be sure that those goods don't belong to someone else. However, it the bailiff does take goods belonging to someone else, known as a third party, you or that person can complain to the bailiff's firm and ask for the goods to be returned. When you complain, the following process must be followed:

you or the third party write to the bailiff within seven days of the goods being taken to claim the goods back
the bailiff must contact your creditor to get their opinion within three days of receiving your letter
the creditor then has seven days to decide whether your goods were correctly taken
if the creditor agrees the goods were taken wrongfully, they will instruct the bailiff to give them back
if the creditor says the goods were correctly taken, they will reject the claim.

If the complaint is unsuccessful, the owner can apply to the court for an order to get their belongings back. The owner should seek legal advice before starting court action. They have to pay a fee, as well as a deposit covering the value of the goods and the costs of keeping them in control.

When a third party applies to the court claiming ownership of the items, the bailiff will be notified of the application. Once the bailiff has received this notification, they can't sell or dispose of the goods until the court tells them they can. For example, the court may give the bailiff permission to continue with the sale of the goods if the third party fails to pay the deposit required.

There will be a hearing, after which the court may order the bailiff to give the belongings back to the rightful owner and may also award damages if the owner experienced an actual financial loss as a result of their goods being taken


Goods belonging to someone else are sold

If goods belongings to someone else are sold while they are taking court action to get them back, the bailiff must hand over the proceeds of the sale to the court.

If a bailiff sells goods belonging to someone else, they can only be held liable for this mistake if either of the following apply:

at the time the goods were sold, the bailiff knew they belonged to someone else
the bailiff had been notified that a third party had applied to court to get the items back before the goods were sold.


https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt- ... -bailiffs/

This is what they have to say about the standard of proof...

What things can the bailiff take?

The bailiff can't just take what they want from your property. They can only take the belongings of the person who owes the money, and they can't take items that are exempt.


Proving who owns things

If there are items in your home that don't belong to you, you should:

write a list of all the items that don't belong to you
make it clear to the bailiffs who the things belong to if they aren't yours
show them proof of ownership, for example, a bill or a credit card receipt or family letters
warn the bailiffs that they will be liable for costs if any goods are wrongly taken.

The inventory could be drawn up as a statutory declaration. A statutory declaration is a statement in writing, signed by you and witnessed by a magistrate, commissioner for oaths or a court officer. You should get advice from an adviser or solicitor before completing the statutory declaration. It must be set out in a specific way and must state that the person makes the declaration conscientiously, believing it to be true.

You could also ask the owner of the goods to swear a statement to say that the goods belong to them.

If you have a dispute with the bailiffs about ownership or you think they've taken goods they shouldn't, you can complain. The owner of the goods can also complain and ask the bailiffs for their belongings back. If necessary the owner can apply to the court to get their belongings back.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt- ... -bailiffs/

So basically a sworn statement is sufficient and a court will accept it as proof.

[Siegfried Shrink]

My experience of house clearances and the auction rooms where the goods end up is that seizing the average debtor's goods and chattels is simply not finacially worth while. It is quite common to see a house clearance where it boils down to being paid to take the stuff away.
That sofa would cost more to take to the auction than it would fetch, the general population of people who get up to the enforcement action stage do not have valuable antiques or jewellery, their electronic gadgets have a remarkably small retail value at forced sale, and often it is only the family car that is worth seizing. Even the family car is safe enough if it is worthless enough. No point racking up costs for towing storage and sale if you only break even or make a loss.
Obviously this is not a bluff that all debtors wish to call.
I imagine that 'balance of probabilities' would be the proof standard if goods were removed and the owners got it into court. My assumption would be that household stuff was the parents except in the debtor's room, or items of obvious youth interest like games consoles, bicycles and high end laptops.

[Hercule Parrot]

Dismal has a bank account too - who knew? - there he is, in bed with the banksters, propping up their reign of treasonous overdrafts and cheap loans, nationwide ATM networks and easy money transfers. Especially the latter so's Dismal can bring down the system on the back of others who'll fund him.

In the videos I've seen him in he seems quite able-bodied and articulate, loves dressing up in old army fatigues and he can certainly write. I have staff working for me who have considerably greater disabilities than those he is presenting who would be horrified if they thought the world of work was closed to them and that reliance on state handouts was their only means of income.

Such a strange concept of "honour", these people.

David Robinson is healthy enough to jaunt about the country fomenting insurrection, but couldn't possibly support himself by honest work. He thinks it is outrageous to expect him to co-operate with the public welfare system, and they should just give him what he feels entitled to. And if they won't, he's quite prepared to go begging to the Lorful Rebyllion mob.

On the other hand, Robinson is embarrassingly besotted with convicted drug dealer David Rowbotham. Because Rowbotham is refusing to give up the profits of his crimes, Robinson lauds him as a noble martyr and leader. And his chosen lieutenants on the LR facebook group are dredged from the criminal, anti-social fringes of the membership.

I think Robinson perceives "honour" as the Mafia might - an "honourable" man is one who ruthlessly steals and exploits to his own advantage, and shows loyalty to other thieves in their common predation upon the honest community.

[The Seventh String]

My experience of house clearances and the auction rooms where the goods end up is that seizing the average debtor's goods and chattels is simply not finacially worth while.

My experience as a person advising debtors in difficulties, albeit from mostly the 90s, is that back then at least it generally wasn’t. At least, not as far as getting the original debt repaid.

All the bailiffs often recovered was enough to go towards covering their own costs, which could be quite substantial and continually escalating at every stage. Bailiff’s auctions were at best poorly advertised, and the same bidders would be seen at them again and again. If you knew where and when the auction was you could pick up some stuff incredibly cheaply, especially TVs and electrical goods that would be sold for maybe 10% or 20% of the new value.

And afterwards the bailiffs sent the debt back to the original creditor, who would have done far better to cut a deal with the debtor. Which, by the late 90s, most “routine” creditors had come to recognise and would regard an individual debtor, especially who had fallen on unexpected hard times (death in family, redundancy, long-term illness or disability etc.), the same way they would handle a business in financial difficulties and accept what could be offered after essential household expenditure rather than striving to extract blood from a boulder.

[morrand]

Current rules can be found on the taking control of goods act 2014.

No such act. I think you meant Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which covers the procedures for taking control of goods. Paragraph 60 specifically discusses the procedure when a third party is claiming that the seized goods are hers and not the debtor's.

[BoomerSooner17]

Ok, I'm not knowledgeable about feudalism, but: if you pledge an oath to a lord, aren't they supposed to take care of you, or something?

I ask because Dismal Dave doesn't see his Oaf of Lawrful Rebellyun as a way to get his much-needed benefits. In fact he sees no path other than the unlawful government he routinely demands the overthrow of. Bit of a disconnect, that. Not just the hypocrisy, but it's also a tacit admission that his "oath" isn't worth diddly squat.

If I remember my high school World History correctly, getting "protection" (i.e., a hut to live in and largely inadequate food) from a lord usually requires that you give the lord something first, like the majority of your subsistence-level food crops. The problem that Dave would have with this sort of relationship is that it would require actual work (and lots of it).

[He Who Knows]

BoomerSooner17 wrote: If I remember my high school World History correctly, getting "protection" (i.e., a hut to live in and largely inadequate food) from a lord usually requires that you give the lord something first, like the majority of your subsistence-level food crops. The problem that Dave would have with this sort of relationship is that it would require actual work (and lots of it).

Yeah and not only would Dismal Dave have to pay "sharecropping" to the Lord of the Manor but he'd have to give a one tenth "Tithe" to the Church too.

Death and taxes.. no getting around 'em even during those halcyon Magna Carta days.

[SteveUK]

Rebel Primrose seems to have had one too many sherbets .its nearly as gibberish as Margo’s

Thank for invite anyone helpe to learn take. Actions I welome I'm here to learn too

[exiledscouser]

I didn't realise until today that there is a McPLD branch north of Hadrian's Wall. To dip into bits of the Magnum Carter, defunct or otherwise is a bit ....ummm ....'constitutionally threadbare' for Scots men and women but I guess the anti-establishment slant of the whole project has its attractions.

Whatever, Connor Wilkinson who also posts on the English version of PLD had had little joy further north thus far;

I think the problem is here in Scotland it's a bit difficult to mention Magna Carta without someone laughing at you. I've had plenty the experience with that, which is why I put the info togeather myself to learn (we all learn one way)

Anyway, I have it on very good authority that King John had his fingers crossed and scribbled "V. C." in one corner whilst signing the damn thing (which he almost certainly was) but let's not let that get in the way of things.

Despite all the efforts to get things going the Flower of Scotland don't seem too enamoured with the idea.

Connor laments;

Why is it that no one bothers with thier own fate? Sometimes I feel like just giving up because the message seems to be getting nowhere. Am I doing something wrong with the way I am approaching sharing this info? I would recreate new publications a thousand times over if I knew it was actually going to be observed and acted on.
Are the people listening?

Brian Varney wants a moot, here he is on the 24th September putting the word out;

29/30 September 1/2 October, I want to meet with fellow Rebels around the central belt here in Scotland. I think the problem we have is that we are tied to our keyboards and that we need to speak face to face, also become real "brothers/sisters in arms".

A big meet did indeed transpire and a grand gathering of McRebel clans took place 30th September;

Thanks to Connor Jason Wilkinson and Graeme Marland for the get together today in Edinburgh. Although there was only three of us who managed to turn up, I personally deemed this as a success.

Great. Curly, Larry and Moe. One for the list of definitions too;

Success - a maximum of three at a Footle/SovCit meeting.

Efforts to garner similar support at a Glasgow meet were less 'successful', here's Brian Varney again;

Yes, I've had that experience of setting up a meet and only myself being there. It is soul destroying to say the least. If this one has a disappointing turnout, then I will have to question my own commitment.

Connor makes his excuses;

I did turn up to the Glasgow meet. Unfortunately I couldnt get in contact with Robert White when I realised the door was locked.

Oh dear.

[notorial dissent]

Oh, that is just so funny in so many unfortunate ways. The truly clueless.

[rosy]

The clueless leading the brainless. A winning combination, I'm sure we all agree.

[The Seventh String]

I rather doubt a GP would ever write a letter to the DWP saying a claimant "can't possibly get a job". It's a GP role to supply DWP with details of the claimant's illnesses/disability and how it restricts them performing acts of daily living, but it's not their role to be decision makers. That's done at the DWP, when they compare the claimant's abilities with the descriptors to determine whether the claimant qualifies for the benefit (or premium) for which they are applying.

Everything that goes before a decision maker/tribunal is evidence.

As it happens, a supporting letter from the GP (or consultant, psychiatric nurse etc.) can be a crucial piece of evidence to put before both the decision maker and an appeal tribunal. Especially if the brief WCA process has failed to correctly identify problems illness or disability cause - or even deny the correctness of the medical diagnosis and prognosis reached by the GP and consultants. Something not uncommon, unfortunately.

If it is the GP’s opinion that their patient could not possibly work or should be regarded as unemployable then them stating so and why they reach that conclusion can be a very useful piece of evidence indeed. Especially where the regulations concerning mental health or a work environment presenting a risk to the patient or others are concerned, or in different circumstances the very variable nature of learning difficulties.

[The Observer]

I did turn up to the Glasgow meet. Unfortunately I couldnt get in contact with Robert White when I realised the door was locked.

Lawful rebellion is that simple to defeat? Just lock the door and throw away the key and the FOTLs will give up and go home? And think of all the money wasted on courts, police, jails, etc., when the simple solution was just staring us in the face all this time.