Random Freemanesque Babblings II: Back to the Futile

[AnOwlCalledSage]

At least this lady actually raised her case in court, and apparently won if only as a default judgement. Serves the PM right for ignoring correspondence as I imagine the case could have easily been seen off.

Default judgements can be easily overturned when they are without merit. And it would look like our heroine is about to be a little poorer than the £25 filing fee

"The judgment in default has been set aside by the court. The claim has been struck out, deemed 'totally without merit' and the government awarded its costs," a spokesman for Johnson's office said.

[noblepa]

At least this lady actually raised her case in court, and apparently won if only as a default judgement. Serves the PM right for ignoring correspondence as I imagine the case could have easily been seen off.

I'd read somewhere she had gone through the Northampton (online) court, so the paperwork would be in with the thousands of other pieces of mail addressed to 10 Downing Street, which I suspect for security reasons don't actually go to 10 Downing Street.

Here in the colonies, mail to the White House, or Congress, goes to a special facility in (I think) Virginia, where it is x-rayed and checked for other nasty stuff. I think this started maybe twenty years ago, when someone was mailing anthrax spores to elected officials.

Only after passing this examination is the mail forwarded to the addressee. I imagine that there is some facility within (or very close to) the WH, where the mail is read by a bunch of interns and only a few small percentage gets passed up the food chain. I suspect that a vanishingly small portion actually makes it to the Oval Office.

Anything that fails, probably gets turned over to the FBI or Secret Service, for investigation and possible prosecution.

I would imagine that the UK has similar procedures for mail addressed to 10 Downing St. or to Parliament.

[mufc1959]

Another Yorkshire hair establishment (what is it with hairdressers and barbers? And Yorkshire?) whose owners Do Not Consent. This one is called Q Gentlemen's Barbers. Is the 'Q' a reference to Q-Anon?

https://yorkmix.com/we-will-remain-open ... t-to-shut/

The comments are worth a read ...

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Is the 'Q' a reference to Q-Anon?

I suspect the answer is yes. They added "Q" to "Gentlemen's Barbers York" last September.

Now, I don't know if York is a city that has hairdresser registration requirements (local authorities can mandate but not all do), but if they do they can shut them down regardless of not paying the fines.

(Side note: Hairdressing, like tattooing, is a cash rich business. It's why it is a go to for those who like to sail close to the wind on taxation).

[John Uskglass]

Which reminds me. Sinead Quinn update.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/loc ... g-20591853

[notorial dissent]

I blame the hair dresser phenom on fumes, enough permanent and other processing fumes and you'll believe anything, if you weren't already so inclined, which I 'm not say saying they weren't to begin with, but still kind of like certain dentists and nitrous.

[SpearGrass]

I would imagine that the UK has similar procedures for mail addressed to 10 Downing St. or to Parliament.

The most likely scenario with this default judgement is that it never got anywhere near 10 Downing Street. A popular pursuit among vexatious litigants is to issue process but not serve it on the defendant. Obviously they get a default judgement, because the defendant, being unaware of the proceedings, doesn't respond. When the respondent finds out, they apply for the judgement to be struck out. It's either, if there is some apparent merit, listed for a hearing, or struck out as without merit. I would bet quite a few REs that the summons never got anywhere near 10 Downing Street, or anywhere else indeed.

[Dr. Caligari]

A popular pursuit among vexatious litigants is to issue process but not serve it on the defendant. Obviously they get a default judgement, because the defendant, being unaware of the proceedings, doesn't respond.

American courts won't declare a defendant in default, unless there is a "return of service" on file (a sworn statement that the process was served on the defendant, listing the date and method of service). Is that not required in the UK?

[Burnaby49]

A popular pursuit among vexatious litigants is to issue process but not serve it on the defendant. Obviously they get a default judgement, because the defendant, being unaware of the proceedings, doesn't respond.

American courts won't declare a defendant in default, unless there is a "return of service" on file (a sworn statement that the process was served on the defendant, listing the date and method of service). Is that not required in the UK?

Same here in Canada. There must be proof of service before a hearing is held.

[aesmith]

Same in Scotland, if you're a private individual the Court sends the summons by signed for post (included in the fee), if that fails they serve by Sheriff Officer which costs extra.

[SpearGrass]

Yes, proof of service is required - the litigant has to declare that they have served it by certifying to that effect. Sounds as if the US is same, except an empty oath replaces an empty certificate.

Maybe there is a some technological advance in the US so that if someone swears falsely that they have served they explode, are hit by laser beams, their nose grows longer or something, however in the UK, you can certify that you've served, and it might not be true. It's a simple system but it works, as the deception can only ever last until the judgement is served on the defendant or otherwise brought to their attention.

As with someone linked with Neelu Berry by 3 degrees of separation - Raymond Leonard Fulcher, advised by Brian Pead/William Freeman, himself McKenzie Friended by Sabine McNeill. He gained a default judgement for £0.75m against Fenland Council by dint of serving the claim on the court and certifying service without the inconvenience of actually letting Fenland Council know. That lasted until he claimed the £££ ...

[mufc1959]

I have no problem - indeed I delight - in seeing the likes of Crabbie, Ceylon, Badaloo, Neelu, etc. fall foul of the authorities as a result of their desire to have a free ride at the expense of everyone else. But I do have a measure of sympathy for the mentally ill and vulnerable who fall for the 'no consent, no contact, and there's nothing they can do' bullshit.

[mufc1959]

And, of course, the first reply is:
"Try this"
"It doesn't work"
"That's because you must have done it wrong"

[AnOwlCalledSage]

But I do have a measure of sympathy for the mentally ill and vulnerable who fall for the 'no consent, no contact, and there's nothing they can do' bullshit.

Whilst in the broad sense autism is a "mental illness", last time I looked, it didn't absolve you of paying your bills. Autism is a spectrum. You can be "officially" diagnosed and still be a high functioning human being. For the UK audience, Chris Packham has autism. I don't think he's used it as an excuse to not pay his council tax.

There are many safeguards in the court system to prevent genuinely vulnerable people being caught up in in debt for not paying court orders. Not wanting to is not one of them.

[mufc1959]

I agree re the autism, but the poster also said they have various other mental health conditions too.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The only thing I can think about this situation is that if the debtor has mental issues, the debt collection agency have to take this into account when dealing with the person. Given that they have already resorted/arranged to take the money out of benefit, I don't see why the bailiffs keep calling. It's all effectively done and dusted. About the only thing they can do is argue about the bailiff charges but I'm not sure who you take that up with, let along whether it would be worthwhile.

[hucknallred]

For the UK audience, Chris Packham has autism. I don't think he's used it as an excuse to not pay his council tax.

Let's have a mention for The Governess on The Chase too.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I agree re the autism, but the poster also said they have various other mental health conditions too.

Of which, and we are given no specifics.

Even a County Court has to take such matters into consideration. That she may or may not have mental health conditions and was still given a benefit deduction order means that either at the time of the case it wasn't offered up in mitigation, or she is talking bollocks in an attempt to elicit sympathy.

[mufc1959]

If she did as was "advised" and ignored everything, there would have been no opportunity for the court to take her circumstances into account. The mentally frail are vulnerable, both to making poor financial decisions and to being swayed by terrible advice. I hope she's able to get some sensible advice and support, because we all know how it's likely to end if she doesn't.

[Notsogreen]

Our favourite Christian bookshop in Gedling is now "reaching out"to the Community



Wonder if this is some sort of genuine outreach or simply a defense mitigation tactic.

Or, more likely, a come and listen to us tell you how to get out of paying council tax because reasons....