Discussion thread no. 78

[Henti]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

I also detest liars Milo. Unfortunately, I have to deal with them on a daily basis. I've even had people changing their advice on the validity of the National Standards in order to try to score petty points.

I have to be truthful here-Your advice has appeared vague and inconsistent all the way through. In your quoted post, you appear to be telling the OP not to worry and to not let the bailiff in and that in 3 to 6 months, he will give in. You have failed to advise that a 2nd bailiff may then be engaged, which you have been very big on recently. You also expressed interest in whether a car was outside, which suggests you were checking it was ok to go with sitting it out.

You seem to lie without a thought, first thing which is laughable is you saying you are being truthful, never happen. Second absurd thing is accusing someone else of varying opinions, look at injunctions and how you have changed ever since you started to get paid for pushing them on an unsuspecting public. Then we have all the other about turns , made I am sure with the instructions of your employers.

[Indebt]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

You seem to lie without a thought, first thing which is laughable is you saying you are being truthful, never happen. Second absurd thing is accusing someone else of varying opinions, look at injunctions and how you have changed ever since you started to get paid for pushing them on an unsuspecting public. Then we have all the other about turns , made I am sure with the instructions of your employers.

I have no need to lie Peter. Unlike you, my motivation is to help people, not promote my own ego.

Injunctions are the one thing that a bailiff company fears the most as it produces a quick 2.5 to 3k in costs in a very short turnaround period. This case is a classic example of how an injunction could work. Rundles have not given 7 clear days notice. They have been asked to do so and have refused. I could get an injunction tomorrow. Rundles would then be left with the option of contesting it which would result in further fees or to accept the inevitable and cough up the 3k. That is my buzz now. I still help people online but it is tame compared to what goes on offline. I'm working on an injunction tonight which will go into court tomorrow.

Your lack of understanding of injunctions betrays you. We don't simply ignore cpr 85. We write first, pursuant to cpr 85 then we go to court. We ask for an injunction BUT IN THE ALTERNATIVE ask for a cpr hearing. The only difference is that cpr 85 requires a large downpayment (the one tonight will be £800 if the cpr 85 is insisted on)

I'm afraid that your conduit of information is not feeding you with all relevant facts. I know it makes more exciting reading to claim cpr 85 is being ignored in favour of an injunction, but it isn't. Someone has been telling you porkies Peter.

I don't push anything onto anyone Peter. I am paid to do a job to the best of my ability and that is what I do. I have many satisfied clients thanking me for what I've done for them-it's called job satisfaction.

[Amethyst]

Re: Discussion thread no. 78

Okay, that failed. Thread closed.

Do not carry it on on other people's threads. I'll just remove any even slightly personally insulting posts.