HCEO Discussion

[Henti]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Oh and the exclusion to costs does not apply in these cases, contrary to what you have been told,the barristers employed by the enforcement Industry all get paid out of the other side's costs.

How long have you been doing this ?

[Milo]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Legal Proceedings:

What people need to understand is that these visits can cause great post traumatic stress to the victim, sleepless nights, waking up at night, outbursts of anger and frustration and being reduced to tears.

Debtors that I am involved with are not "misled". They are given legal advice and are told of what risks, if any, they may be taking.

Nobody is persuaded to issue proceedings, as has been claimed elsewhere, if anything it is the other way around, where they have to be persuaded that litigation is not a good idea. Lengthy conferences take place before decisions are made as to how to proceed.

This internet myth of poor, ignorant debtors being pushed blindly into proceedings is nonsense.

I am truly stunned. Have your really forgotten the case of 'Stacey' so quickly? Only a month or so ago, you published details of her case over the internet. You even went so far as to publish her home address and the name of her husband and his profession. The embarrassment that you personally caused to this lady was simply horrendous.

'Stacey' was almost certainly persuaded to issue proceedings.

Your 'business partner' (for want of a more appropriate description) misled 'Stacey' into believing that by issuing proceedings that 'she would blow the lid' on the enforcement company and HMCTS.

She was given to believe that if she undertook legal proceedings that this would be on a 'no win, no fee' basis. She was shocked to then be told by the solicitor that she needed to pay £150 plus vat for a letter to be drafted and that all further work would be charged at £350 per hour plus vat!!

Most surprisingly, (in particular, in light of the fees that she charges) the solicitor chosen by your 'business partner' was not even familiar with the enforcement regulations regarding magistrate court fines (see below).

Just to remind you, the following is what happened to 'Stacey':

Stacey had an unpaid court fine. She got into payment arrears and a bailiff visited her property. She was introduced to your Partner. She paid him a fee for a telephone consultation. He gave her a false identity and led her to believe that he too was a 'solicitor'. He advised Stacey to pay the fine to the court (minus bailiff fees). She believed him when he said that this payment would mean that the warrant 'ceased'. She used every penny of her child tax credits.

She was told by your business partner to use her mobile phone to covertly film herself handing over the fine payment to the court. In her case (as in all such cases) the court advised her by post that her payment had been passed to the enforcement agency so that they could deduct their compliance fee (of £75) and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation.

She again contacted your partner. She was told that as she had paid the 'sum adjudged' the court were wrong (which was of course incorrect).

She was in the house with her two young children when bailiffs attended. It was 6am in the morning. They had a locksmith with them and started drilling her locks. She was absolutely terrified.

She bolted the front door and took her children out the back door and fled the property. She went straight to her mothers house. She managed to contact your business partner by phone from her mothers. The 'advice' that he gave her was truly despicable.

He informed her to call the police and report that a BURGLARY WAS IN PROGRESS !!!

After this awful experience, she then had a 'three way' conversation with your business partner and his solicitor. The solicitor telephoned the court to request a copy of the 'forced entry' warrant. It would seem that the solicitor was totally unaware that there is no requirement for such a warrant.

If was after this call that the solicitor asked 'Stacey' to pay her £150 to draft a letter. She was then informed that all additional work would be charged at £350 per hour !!!

After realising that she had been given wrong advice by your business partner, this lady asked for a refund.

She also advised him that she wanted to make a complain. On hearing this, your partner informed her that he considered such a suggestion to be a 'blackmail threat' and informed her that he was going to report HER to the Police and obtain a Crime Reference Number.

PS: I should also add that your business partner also drafted a Statutory Declaration for Stacey. It is fair to say that this document was poorly drafted and incredibly sloppy. It even referred to legislation that had been revoked long ago.

[Indebt]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Milo, you really need to stop jumping to conclusions.

I have no business partner. I have no connection to the person you are referring to, other than the posts that I make on the internet. I am certainly not in partnership with him, nor am I involved in his business in any way, shape or form. How could I be when I disagree with so much of what he says?

I did not publish Stacy's case "all over the internet". Nor did I publish any of her private details. I am not the one who can do all the research, I'm not even on Facebook, as I'm sure you already know.

That is two factually incorrect statements that you have made for a start.

Regarding solicitors fees, again, you are talking nonsense. I am fully aware of what is charged. Do you really think the unemployed person in the HP case is paying £350 per hour? That so;icitor does more good work for debtors than you and my so called business partner put together. I can tell you now, that the solicitor does not want debtors money and has fought hard to ensure that debtors pay the least amount possible, if at all anything. To suggest that person is out to rip debtors off is so off the mark, it is sickening. Then again, nothing surprises me with you.

Quite what the above has to do with the original discussion is anyone's guess and I'm not going to provide you a platform to spew your usual made up propaganda.

If you want to discuss specific subjects then I'm happy to do so. However, I am not prepared to assist yu in dragging every discussion into a witch hunt for the man that you are quite clearly unhealthily obsessed with.

[Milo]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Milo, you really need to stop jumping to conclusions.

I did not publish Stacy's case "all over the internet". Nor did I publish any of her private details. I am not the one who can do all the research, I'm not even on Facebook, as I'm sure you already know.


Regarding solicitors fees, again, you are talking nonsense.

I am fully aware of what is charged.

Do you really think the unemployed person in the HP case is paying £350 per hour? That solicitor does more good work for debtors than you and my so called business partner put together. I can tell you now, that the solicitor does not want debtors money and has fought hard to ensure that debtors pay the least amount possible, if at all anything. To suggest that person is out to rip debtors off is so off the mark, it is sickening. Then again, nothing surprises me with you.

If you want to discuss specific subjects then I'm happy to do so. However, I am not prepared to assist yu in dragging every discussion into a witch hunt for the man that you are quite clearly unhealthily obsessed with.

You really do need to calm down and try to control your temper.

It would also be wise (in particular if you assist debtors) that you do not make up stories.

Please do not try to infer that I am suggesting that your business partner's solicitor is 'out to rip off' debtors. I was referring specifically to the case of 'Stacey' and the fees that the solicitor requested from her. (£150 plus VAT to draft a letter and £350 per hour plus VAT for all future work).

PS: This thread has moved from its original location. It has certainly gone off topic but the reason why I have posted about 'Stacey' is to highlight the way in which you are attempting to mislead the public when making the following comments:

Nobody is persuaded to issue proceedings, as has been claimed elsewhere, if anything it is the other way around, where they have to be persuaded that litigation is not a good idea. Lengthy conferences take place before decisions are made as to how to proceed.

This internet myth of poor, ignorant debtors being pushed blindly into proceedings is nonsense.

[Indebt]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Milo-If you really think such a sad, insignificant person such as yourself could make show any emotion, let alone lose my temper, then you are even more deluded than I had previously thought.

Come on then, I could do with a good laugh.

On what basis has your crazy, mixed up mind come to the conclusion that I have a business partner?

You also stated the HP man was "persuaded to issue proceedings" How did you know that?

[Henti]

Re: HCEO Discussion

There seems to be a profusion of failed cases which cost your clients large sums of money, however i have yet to see one documented record of a successful action.

Can you say why this is ?

[Henti]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Hi

Milo-If you really think such a sad, insignificant person such as yourself could make show any emotion, let alone lose my temper, then you are even more deluded than I had previously thought.

Come on then, I could do with a good laugh.

On what basis has your crazy, mixed up mind come to the conclusion that I have a business partner?

You also stated the HP man was "persuaded to issue proceedings" How did you know that?

Mark, you are being silly, do you really think anyone is taken In by this," I am aware of rival forums" guff. You are spending too much time with you partner, how can anyone take you seriously.

[EXC]

Re: HCEO Discussion

Thread closed.