postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

[Gorang]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

Really good/usefull information has turned up in this thread and I for one thank you all for that :clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:: clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::c lap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::cl ap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::cla p2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2not that I expected anything else from you guys and gals)

Here Bill will we put the writing a check on sumit else to the test to see what they say apart from "Are you MAD" with which we will reply "YES how did you guess"

I could write a check onnnnnnnn (no not a turd......yuck......) I duno....... a ape suit, from you to me for a grand then submit it to my bank and see what they say PMSL

Sorry need to shout over the sound of all the clapping

[Bill-K]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

I duno....... a ape suit, from you to me for a grand then submit it to my bank and see what they say PMSL

NO WAY, Hose-pipe !!!
Knowing my luck, they'll clear it without question, then send me a £39 bill for a £0.01 overlimit - written on a piece of mouse-$h1t - just so I can't see the small print.

......signed by some French twerp called Leclerc...!!!

[Mrs James]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

NO WAY, Hose-pipe !!!
Knowing my luck, they'll clear it without question, then send me a £39 bill for a £0.01 overlimit - written on a piece of mouse-$h1t - just so I can't see the small print.

......signed by some French twerp called Leclerc...!!!

'NO WAY, Hose-pipe !!!' :lol:

[charitynjw]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

On an ape suit, £500 may be more appropriate!

If you write one for a fiver (Lady Godiva), don't forget to send us a 'photo.

[Bill-K]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

'NO WAY, Hose-pipe !!!' :lol:

Please - Mrs. J., if you find yourself using that rebuff on a future Balearic holiday, remember - you heard it here, first. Just try not to laugh too much as you remember me, ma'am.

On an ape suit, £500 may be more appropriate!

This guy's no plonker, Rodney.

If you write one for a fiver (Lady Godiva), don't forget to send us a 'photo.

Hard currency - say no more, squire !!!

...So let it be written...so let it be witnessed...!!!

[Gorang]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

then send me a £39 bill for a £0.01 overlimit

Thats ok Bill as you are in good hands here to RECLAIM it pmsl

'NO WAY, Hose-pipe !!!' :lol:

Here yeah (thanks Mrs J) HOSE PIPE, BL88DY HOSE PIPE where the hell did that come from ya grumpy ape? ? ?

NO WAY, Hose-pipe !!!
Knowing my luck, they'll clear it without question, then send me a £39 bill for a £0.01 overlimit - written on a piece of mouse-$h1t - just so I can't see the small print.

......signed by some French twerp called Leclerc...!!!

O well it was worth a try

You get nothing in this life without trying PMSL

mutter mutter ........son of a ape.......that didn't work...........spoilsport.............mutter mutter.......................

[Bill-K]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

Thats ok Bill as you are in good hands here to RECLAIM it pmsl
LOL - Easy for you to say. Just wait until my DSAR response arrives. Are YOU any good at reading r@t$h1t ?" My glasses just don't work when there's 6 years of bank statements lasered onto 2 tons of rat-$h1t. It won't scan, either....!!!
Here yeah (thanks Mrs J) HOSE PIPE, BL88DY HOSE PIPE where the hell did that come from ya grumpy ape? ? ?
Look mate. I'm cleverer than you. I did Spanish in evening class. "No way, José," is pronounced "No way, Hozay."
Hence "No way, Hoze.....pipe".....
Capische ? - Ooops, sorry...wrong lingo...!
Too many Mediterranean Holidayz !!!
O well it was worth a try

You get nothing in this life without trying PMSL
You get a result. It's usually "Get back, Jack, do it again..."
mutter mutter ........son of a ape.......that didn't work...........spoilsport.............mutter mutter.......................
Just don't give up. But if you do, then remember......
.........I was never here...

....

[Gorang]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

Thats ok Bill as you are in good hands here to RECLAIM it pmsl
LOL - Easy for you to say. Just wait until my DSAR response arrives. Are YOU any good at reading r@t$h1t ? Not a problem now Bill I have had plenty practice reading your posts PMSL" My glasses just don't work when there's 6 years of bank statements lasered onto 2 tons of rat-$h1t. It won't scan, either....!!!Just give me a shout and I will come running and READ em out to ya no probs in brail lol
Here yeah (thanks Mrs J) HOSE PIPE, BL88DY HOSE PIPE where the hell did that come from ya grumpy ape? ? ?
Look mate. I'm cleverer than you. LOL Thats not hard to beat then and it shows LOLI did Spanish in evening class. "No way, José," is pronounced "No way, Hozay."
Hence "No way, Hoze.....pipe".....
Capische ? - Ooops, sorry...wrong lingo...!
Too many Mediterranean Holidayz !!!O so you buggad off with Di after all then PMSL
O well it was worth a try

You get nothing in this life without trying PMSL
You get a result. It's usually "Get back, Jack, do it again..."Not wrong there
mutter mutter ........son of a ape.......that didn't work...........spoilsport.............mutter mutter.......................
Just don't give up. But if you do, then remember......
.........I was never here...I never do and NOR was I as I was away watching the F1 on TV PMSL

I was RIGHT weeee heee

Your mad LOL

[Bill-K]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

You're SO kind, Mr. G. How can I express my thanks ?
...Got it...!!!

I wasn't able to order 2 tons of r@t$h1t, but you seem to be the sort of guy who might love growing roses, my friend.

Please accept an imminent delivery of 20 tons ('cos I loves ya SO much !!!) of first-class rose-growing material. Prime equestrian produce. Do NOT insult me by refusing delivery of this.

[Gorang]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

You're SO kind, Mr. G. I thank you kid Sir How can I express my thanks ? I know what about 20 tonnes of....o I see you read my mind again Bill..........your tooooo good squire
...Got it...!!!

I wasn't able to order 2 tons of r@t$h1t, but you seem to be the sort of guy who might love growing roses, my friend. I'm going to get you on TV for this mind reading stuff as you brill at it mate

Please accept an imminent delivery of 20 tons ('cos I loves ya SO much !!!Awwwwww thank you) of first-class rose-growing material. Prime equestrian produce. Good for the roses that you know! Do NOT insult me by refusing delivery of this.I woulds NEVER EVER insult you by refusing any $h1t from you kind sir as I know your have plenty of it to give out, and for that alone, I lurves you tooooooooo Sooooooo Murch !!!!!

I am ROTFPMSL

you nutter LOL

[CleverClogs]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

The other bit on the under 18's in the property - my understanding of it, which is minimal, is it is illegal to enter to levy on goods in a property where only a minor is present - they could levy through the door gap or viewed through window etc - but those levys would only be as legal as at any other time if no one was home.

You are correct in stating that it is illegal to enter a property where only a minor is present

So what if it is, strictly speaking, more than a little bit naughty? What can the parent/householder do about it?

S/he could threaten to call the plods who, even if they do not respond with their usual litany of "Nuffink we can do, it's a civil matter" [1], will doubtless wish to hear the bailiff's account of what happened. Were he to tell them that the householder let him in to discuss his debts but, when the bailiff started to his job, the householder phoned the police, which side do you suppose the plods would believe?

Even if the plods asked him to leave without having levied correctly or completed a WPA, the bailiff would still have at least one police witness that he had apparently been given permission to enter the house.

[1] I really must ask one of my friends if that litany is one of the first things drummed into police recruits; he certainly ought to know, being a chief inspector...

how ever you are incorrect in stating that a Bailiff may levy through a gap in the door or viewed from a window, this is commonly refered to as a constructive levy and would not stand up to scrunity. the law as it sets out states that a Bailiff must be able to not only have sight of but be able to touch the items being listed, this is so the ATR fee (attended to remove fee) can be added as such instances would mean that the Bailiff could have removed your good there and then but insted chose to make an arrangement with you.

Once more, the problem for the householder is one of proof. As you will doubtless be aware, the standard of proof at English Civil Law is "on the balance of probabilities" - that is, whether it is more likely than not that a statement is true or, where there are two conflicting statements, which statement is more likely to represent the truth.

Were such a matter to come to court - as it might do if the householder were to apply for the bailiff's fees to be taxed (i.e. assessed or checked for accuracy) - the householder could be perceived by the court as having a stronger motive than the bailiff to dissemble and thus the bailiff's tale - that he was admitted but that the householder just refused to sign the walking possession agreement and called the police instead - could be accepted by the court.

[EXC]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

it's also worth noting that it is an offence to knowingly write a chq without cleared funds in the account.

I don't think it's as simple as that.

Your bank gives you a contractual right to present a cheque without sufficient funds to meet it. In those circumstances the payment instruction becomes a payment request. As banks often honour cheques in these circumstances it would be impossible to establish that you knew it would bounce.

[Caspar]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

I don't think it's as simple as that.

Your bank gives you a contractual right to present a cheque without sufficient funds to meet it. In those circumstances the payment instruction becomes a payment request. As banks often honour cheques in these circumstances it would be impossible to establish that you knew it would bounce.

Surely in these circumstances it is a case of the account holder having the onus on them to be aware that banks can, and will, cash post dated cheques. Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable plea.

[CleverClogs]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

Surely in these circumstances it is a case of the account holder having the onus on them to be aware that banks can, and will, cash post dated cheques. Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable plea.

How about sydlexia?

[Amy]

Re: postdating cheques / levying in minors presence - discussion

The other bit on the under 18's in the property - my understanding of it, which is minimal, is it is illegal to enter to levy on goods in a property where only a minor is present - they could levy through the door gap or viewed through window etc - but those levys would only be as legal as at any other time if no one was home.

As Ex-bailiff correctly states, a levy through a window is illegal. See below.

It is quite clear that levies cannot be made just by being able to see goods. If this were the case, thousands of levies would be made by bailiffs listing things seen through a window, and if this was then considered valid, they would then have the right to force entry. It makes sense therefore that the bailiff MUST gain entry prior to any internal levy taking place.

So what if it is, strictly speaking, more than a little bit naughty? What can the parent/householder do about it?

S/he could threaten to call the plods who, even if they do not respond with their usual litany of "Nuffink we can do, it's a civil matter" [1], will doubtless wish to hear the bailiff's account of what happened. Were he to tell them that the householder let him in to discuss his debts but, when the bailiff started to his job, the householder phoned the police, which side do you suppose the plods would believe?

Even if the plods asked him to leave without having levied correctly or completed a WPA, the bailiff would still have at least one police witness that he had apparently been given permission to enter the house.

[1] I really must ask one of my friends if that litany is one of the first things drummed into police recruits; he certainly ought to know, being a chief inspector...


Once more, the problem for the householder is one of proof. As you will doubtless be aware, the standard of proof at English Civil Law is "on the balance of probabilities" - that is, whether it is more likely than not that a statement is true or, where there are two conflicting statements, which statement is more likely to represent the truth.

Were such a matter to come to court - as it might do if the householder were to apply for the bailiff's fees to be taxed (i.e. assessed or checked for accuracy) - the householder could be perceived by the court as having a stronger motive than the bailiff to dissemble and thus the bailiff's tale - that he was admitted but that the householder just refused to sign the walking possession agreement and called the police instead - could be accepted by the court.

You all need to read up on your bailiff caselaw.

See Davidson V Roach [1991] and Evans V South Ribble Council [1991]

Both of these concern levies by either viewing items through a window or by posting a walking possession through a front door.

It is not hearsay or opinion, they are facts and the latter clearly shows that the process of distraint consists of three stages:-

Entry to the premises, seizure of goods followed by impounding of said goods. Therefore, the bailiff cannot omit the first stage of distraint and simply go straight to the second.