Robert 'Crab Bait' White consents to losing his houses

[longdog]

The alleged locksmith is in breach of GDPR rules by revealing private data to persons not named on the paperwork, I need a name to make a claim in the small claims court.

He's got himself in a bit of a bind there. By his logic whoever he's requesting this of cannot give him the details since they'd be revealing private data to him. So would presumably lead to the locksmith requesting someone else to reveal the detail of the person revealing his details etc. Or maybe it doesn't work like that.

I can't see that he has any legal right under data laws to demand to know the identity of the locksmith as quite frankly it's none of his business. The locksmith is unlikely to be a data controller or in any way bound to share anything with Bobbity or anybody else. Even his right to know the names of the bailiffs is dodgy if for no other reason than he has a habit of (ineffectively) harassing people who cross him and that would trigger a "will impede the administration of justice" exception.

It all smacks of their beloved "notice to agent is notice to principle [sic] blah, blah, blah" bollocks. They may be entitled to know the name of a company that's handling their 'affairs' but that doesn't mean they have the right to know the names of their employees. If anything a company who knows about his harassing proclivities would probably be obliged not to tell him for the health and safety of their staff.

[notorial dissent]

And then we come back around to who the source of this information is, don't we?

[Wakeman52]

His new locks look to be the type recommended for UPVC doors by insurers and so might help reduce contents insurance premiums. Seems a little academic in his circumstances.

[Gregg]

Can he put them on a storage locker?

[ArthurWankspittle]

His new locks look to be the type recommended for UPVC doors by insurers and so might help reduce contents insurance premiums. Seems a little academic in his circumstances.

It does look a little like changing the shirt you'll wear to face the firing squad.
As others have pointed out, that lock is no use against:
The big red key
Being picked in a few minutes
Various saw types removing parts of lock, door or frame
Various lever tool types removing things as above
Alternative access routes through weaker points in the set up
Edit: Just checked out something, I made need the smilie when I see the eviction video.

[Mike_p]

I'm amused to see that he's quoted the Criminal Law Act 1977 (Section 6) to infer that no violence can be used to enter a property. By quoting the act, he's made it obvious that he's aware of the act. Perhaps he should have a careful read of Section 10.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/45/section/10

[Chaos]

His new locks look to be the type recommended for UPVC doors by insurers and so might help reduce contents insurance premiums. Seems a little academic in his circumstances.

It does look a little like changing the shirt you'll wear to face the firing squad.
As others have pointed out, that lock is no use against:
The big red key
Being picked in a few minutes
Various saw types removing parts of lock, door or frame
Various lever tool types removing things as above
Alternative access routes through weaker points in the set up
Edit: Just checked out something, I made need the smilie when I see the eviction video.

with tutorial!:

https://youtu.be/8mh3Sniw5rQ

[longdog]

In actual picking time I make that around 40 seconds. Allowing for having to try each different magnetic pin 'key' say a whole minute.

I like the videos by The Lock Picking Lawyer. They're strangely relaxing but even if you don't share my view just look at the average length of a video. It shows just how secure even good quality locks are... Or aren't.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9K6r ... 6FQ/videos

[Hercule Parrot]

I'm amused to see that he's quoted the Criminal Law Act 1977 (Section 6) to infer that no violence can be used to enter a property.

They all love quoting this Act, but they never seem to remember the key words....

Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person who, without lawful authority, uses or threatens violence for the purpose of securing entry into any premises for himself or for any other person is guilty of an offence...

[longdog]

I'm amused to see that he's quoted the Criminal Law Act 1977 (Section 6) to infer that no violence can be used to enter a property.

They all love quoting this Act, but they never seem to remember the key words....

Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person who, without lawful authority, uses or threatens violence for the purpose of securing entry into any premises for himself or for any other person is guilty of an offence...

I'm not sure that threatening violence without lawful authority is ever legal but the use of the minimal necessary level of violence to achieve a lawful aim is a different matter entirely. If a cop twats you with a steel baton just for telling him to sod off that's not lawful authority but if you're using violence yourself to resist arrest it (might at least) be lawful.

Saying a bailiff can use violence to evict a violent tenant from a house if they have a court order is really just stating common law. They're there for a legal purpose, an eviction, and they are entitled to use necessary reasonable force to achieve it.

[Tevildo]

I'm not sure that threatening violence without lawful authority is ever legal

Strictly speaking, it's not illegal (or, at least, it's not an assault - it might amount to harassment or a public order offence) unless the victim is put in fear that the threat will be carried out. See R v Ireland [1998] AC 147, Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3.

[longdog]

In Bankrupt Bob's case of course it's all entirely academic as the bailiffs and, presumably the wallopers in attendance, will have lawful authority to physically remove him from the building with whatever degree of force is reasonable. If he kicks off and ends up getting tazed by plod and has his still twitching carcass removed in cuffs and leg restraints it will be lawful... And highly entertaining if one of his disciples films it all for us.

[ArthurWankspittle]

.... presumably the wallopers in attendance....

You're hoping for PC Dimbleby and his one the spot fines aren't you?
(Spitting Image for those who don't know PC Dimbleby)

[longdog]

.... presumably the wallopers in attendance....

You're hoping for PC Dimbleby and his one the spot fines aren't you?
(Spitting Image for those who don't know PC Dimbleby)

Nope... Constable Savage.

100 Re for the first to spot the reference.

[D-C]

.... presumably the wallopers in attendance....

You're hoping for PC Dimbleby and his one the spot fines aren't you?
(Spitting Image for those who don't know PC Dimbleby)

Nope... Constable Savage.

100 Re for the first to spot the reference.

https://youtu.be/BO8EpfyCG2Y

Not the nine o’clock news

[grixit]

What about Neelu's Universal Constable?

Also, i'm pretty sure he thinks that "lawful authority" to use force against him, means he himself has to give them permission.

[longdog]

Not the nine o’clock news

The promissory note is in the post.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm amused to see that he's quoted the Criminal Law Act 1977 (Section 6) to infer that no violence can be used to enter a property.

They all love quoting this Act, but they never seem to remember the key words....

Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person who, without lawful authority, uses or threatens violence for the purpose of securing entry into any premises for himself or for any other person is guilty of an offence...

Oh, I'm sure that they remember those words, alright. I'm betting that their dodge involves deciding that the bailiffs, and anyone assisting in the eviction, lack legal authority for their actions, because (such authority was not granted in the Magna Carta, such authority does not exist under Common Law, mined quotes from court cases prove that the eviction is illegal, [insert your pet legal fantasy here]).

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I am indebted to Crabby for drawing my attention to the fact that County Court Bailiffs were added to the legislation via the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I didn't know that!

[AndyPandy]

So Crabbie's got a response to his erm… complaint and he's still not happy, seriously some people are just never satisfied !!

Here's the reply from myhttps://www.resolver.co.uk/ issue last week.
Alderman, Joseph joseph.alderman@Justice.gov.ukHide
To robert.white-----@secure.resolver.co.uk
CC bob-----------------.com
Dear Mr White

Thank you for your recent email received via the Resolver portal, which has been logged and treated as a formal complaint. I have attached a copy of my recent email sent to you last Wednesday and following on from this I would to reaffirm that the two Bailiffs that visited your property last week were genuine and are under no obligation to provide with their full names.

You are correct in your comments regarding the HMCS logo, as this a previous incarnation of HMCTS. I have spoken to the Bailiff concerned and the Velcro slip attached to his stab vest has been removed and will no longer be used. I can see how sight of this logo would this would add an element of confusion to the situation, however I have investigated conduct of the Bailiffs during their visit to your property last week and have found that they acted appropriately.

The EX96 form is not a document that our Bailiffs are obliged to show you, as this is an internal document provided to the Court by the Claimant. The locksmith that you have mentioned is not employed by HMCTS and as such I can offer no comment on his conduct.

I believe I have answered all of the queries outlined in your complaint. If you are however unhappy with my findings and wish to escalate this complaint, you can contact my line manager Sam Doyle via email at sam.doyle@justice.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Joe Alderman
Delivery Manager
Dartford & Maidstone County Courts, Kent Bailiffs | HMCTS | Kent
Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts

Here's my reply the case is not closed yet I'm not one to be fobbed off. Thank you for your reply,
I only have Joe Aldermans opinion that the 2 bailiffs are genuine. I do not know Joe Alderman so I have no evidence apart from his writing that this is in fact true. Also I do not believe that county court or any other type of bailiff are not required or obligated to provide their names, if that’s the case I (not a bailiff) could knock on someone’s door and say I’m a bailiff I’m going to take control of your property. Please show me the legislation where it says county court bailiffs are under no obligation to provide their names.
I have a copy of the alleged EX96 form, I could quite easily make up a copy of the exact form myself, so why should they not show it so that we can compare copies, my copy has not been signed by anyone and there are no names on it by the way so why should I believe it’s a true document.
As for the locksmith, if he was not employed by HMCTS or the out of date HMCS he should have a contract for the job he intended doing, if so that also should be revealed and verified.
As stated in the letter I asked to be passed on to the alleged unidentified untraceable bailiffs, I Robert White am the lawful occupier/owner of the property 29 Park Road, Sheerness, Kent, ME12 1UY. And I do not intend to abandon the property at any time.
Going back to the HMCS bailiff label on his jacket, I do understand HMCS was merged with HMCTS on 1st April 2011 according to government legislation. I also know that HMCTS is a registered company with Dun & Bradstreet . Dun & Bradstreet is a corporation that offers information on commercial credit as well as reports on businesses. Most notably, Dun & Bradstreet is recognizable for its Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS numbers); these generate business information reports for more than 100 million companies around the globe. Please tell me why HMCTS is a registered company in America when it is supposed to be a public service bringing justice to people in the UK.
Please also pass on my queries to your line manager Sam Doyle via email at sam.doyle@justice.gov.uk.