Re: JBW Group bailiff problems
Thank you. I saved the original version and used the data therein to look in the Bailiff Register; you will doubtless have noted that the name given on the warrant does not quite match that on the Register. Has Mr Gruesomingh changed his name?
It is a Subject Access Request, made under section 7 (link) of the Data Protection Act 1998 and it doesn't really apply in your case, as Mr Gruesome (or Gruesomingh) left you a schedule of the charges made and the fibs he made on which they were based.
He claimed to have visited on 07/12/2011 and, for that visit, he charged you £57 + VAT. On 16/12.2011, he charged not only for "attendance to remove" but also a "levy fee" - £175 and £60 + VAT respectively. As he plainly could not do both at the same time, the charge for "attendance to remove" was improperly made and this may be fraud - though you'll have one hell of a job getting any plod to act on it.
You might have a case for getting the monies charged back by the bank(s).
Yes and no; it is up to Mr Gruesome/Gruesomingh/Whatever-his-name-is-this-week to tell the MOJ, as his change of name and change of employer both make his certificate invalid.
I agree.
Even affixing a notice that can easily be removed has been held to be criminal damage - if one can get the plods to act on it.
Originally posted by fchristensen
View Post
Forgive me for asking stupid questions, but what is a SAR and how would it benefit me?
He claimed to have visited on 07/12/2011 and, for that visit, he charged you £57 + VAT. On 16/12.2011, he charged not only for "attendance to remove" but also a "levy fee" - £175 and £60 + VAT respectively. As he plainly could not do both at the same time, the charge for "attendance to remove" was improperly made and this may be fraud - though you'll have one hell of a job getting any plod to act on it.
You might have a case for getting the monies charged back by the bank(s).
As for the fact that JBW hasn't told the MOJ that Mr.Grusome is working for them. Do I have any leverage here?
There was no damage to the glass as far as I can tell, however I feel that he should have removed it, since he put it there.
Even affixing a notice that can easily be removed has been held to be criminal damage - if one can get the plods to act on it.
Comment