Default on walking possession

[chelle1990]

Re: Default on walking possession

So of course you told her to write to them for a breakdown of fees?

No I didnt.... as it was a few years ago and it's all been paid etc.. Should i have done? :/

[CleverClogs]

Re: Default on walking possession

No I didnt.... as it was a few years ago and it's all been paid etc.. Should i have done? :/

Yes.

Even if it was over six years ago, there may still be a chance that she could reclaim any improper or unlawful fees.

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

You have six years to claim back any unlawful fees, after that it is Statute Barred.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Default on walking possession

You have six years to claim back any unlawful fees, after that it is Statute Barred.

Not necessarily, though it would be more difficult after six years as one would need to shew evidence of concealment - section 32 (link) of the Limitation Act 1980

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

How much is involved, Chelle? If your friend has only recently found out the fees are unlawful, the six years starts from the date she discovered they were unlawful. So, she still may be "in time". If the amount involved is £200 or more, there is evidence of criminal dishonesty which is capable of proof and there is a prospect of securing a conviction of 51% or higher, then that is a possible route, but it would need to be put to the CPS and, once the culprit has had charges laid against them, proceedings must commence within six months of the charges being laid.

[chelle1990]

Re: Default on walking possession

Morning guys, received this email this morning from one of the councillors:

Councillors received assurances about Bailiff behaviour. In view of your experience and other residents experience of Chandlers I will gather evidence from other councillors and seek a change or their removal.

Sounds rather interesting! Look forward to hearing the progress on that. Though I did state my concern of the evidence as I'm not sure how many people would think to contact their councillors.

I will talk to my friend when I see her next on the school run, but it could be coming up to the 6 years...

[CleverClogs]

Re: Default on walking possession

You should also point your councillors to the official Guidance Notes - PDF link

[chelle1990]

Re: Default on walking possession

You should also point your councillors to the official Guidance Notes - PDF link

I presume they have a copy already and don't want to sound.... Sarcastic or anything as if like them on side to help hsha. But thanks cleverclogs, it's useful for me to read and refer to.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Default on walking possession

So just ask them if they've seen it.

[ploddertom]

Re: Default on walking possession

So just ask them if they've seen it.

better still ask them if they have actually read & understand it. If the answer is no then suggest they should resign.

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

These councillors sound as if they are on a roll finding out just how corrupt the civil enforcement industry is. However, they are going to find that corruption is a lot closer to home and, if they intend seeking the removal of Chandlers, they should also seek the removal of the council officers who engaged them in the first place. Some very searching questions need to be asked. They also need to be educated about the illegal practice of Passing Off, involving CT Liability Orders, and the unlawful manner in which CT Liability Order hearings are conducted. I would draw the attention of the councillors to the Human Rights Act 1998, particularly, Section 6, which states-

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right

It should be noted that any reference to a public authority also includes a commercial entity performing any public function, which means Chandlers are subject to the Act as well as the council and are equally-liable in law.

The way in which CT LO hearings are conducted breach Article 6 of the Act, which confers the right to a fair hearing before a court or legally-convened tribunal. There is no way in which a person, summonsed for non-payment of CT can be said to receive a fair hearing if the local authority is running the hearing. There have been cases where people have been summonsed for alleged non-payment of CT, when no grounds in law exist to seek an LO, been prevented from disputing the evidence and then been subject to blackmail, fraud, harassment and intimidation by the civil enforcement industry.

Article 17 states -

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention

Article 18 states -

The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed

Article 1 of the First Protocol deals with the protection of possessions and prohibits a State from depriving a person of their possessions except in certain circumstances.

The councillors you mention, Chelle, need to get as many of the other councillors onboard and onside as possible. As the saying goes "There is safety in numbers". When they find out just what has been going on in their name and that of the residents of the borough in which you live, they are going to be shocked, upset and angry - very angry - and they need to channel any anger into positive action. By this, I do not mean taking to the streets. Exposing those involved is a good start and involving the police is a must. If any redundancies are in the offing, make sure those involved are first in line for the push. The councillors will need to stand up to the trade unions and tell them to shut up if they bleat about those exposed as being involved in wrongdoing.

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

It would do the union makeweights and activists a whole heap of damage if they came out in the open suppoprting criminal actions, notwithstanding the councillors now MUST act as they have evidence of wrongdoing, or they could find themselves in court alongside the CEO and the officials.

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

It would do the union makeweights and activists a whole heap of damage if they came out in the open supporting criminal actions, notwithstanding the councillors now MUST act as they have evidence of wrongdoing, or they could find themselves in court alongside the CEO and the officials.

Totally agree with you, BB.

Chelle's ward councillors need to get as many other councillors as possible onboard and onside and show no mercy to the quislings, crackpots and crooks who have infiltrated the borough and are causing trouble and committing fraud, etc.. Exposure is what terrifies these ne'er-do-wells the most.

Also, it appears Freemasons are coming up against Common Purpose, so the Freemasons cannot be entirely blamed for what is going wrong.

[bizzybob]

Re: Default on walking possession

Totally agree with you, BB.

Chelle's ward councillors need to get as many other councillors as possible onboard and onside and show no mercy to the quislings, crackpots and crooks who have infiltrated the borough and are causing trouble and committing fraud, etc.. Exposure is what terrifies these ne'er-do-wells the most.

Also, it appears Freemasons are coming up against Common Purpose, so the Freemasons cannot be entirely blamed for what is going wrong.

Now there is something a Freemason who has had Common Purpose brainwashing, he would be confused as to whether he was on the square or the level...

Seriously Common Purpose is far more sinister than anything to do with freemasonry. These councillors will need to be looking out for lies and what is hidden within their rotten borough

[bluebottle]

Re: Default on walking possession

Now there is something a Freemason who has had Common Purpose brainwashing, he would be confused as to whether he was on the square or the level...

Seriously Common Purpose is far more sinister than anything to do with freemasonry. These councillors will need to be looking out for lies and what is hidden within their rotten borough

The way Common Purpose work is to collapse things from within so that no-one is wise to what is going on. If these councillors can expose what is going on in their borough and do something decisive to stop what is happening, they will have achieved something good and give councillors in other boroughs the backbone and balls to do the same. I have a very strong feeling that once one borough rids itself of Common Purpose and the corruption and fraud that goes with it, others will follow. Then, I suspect, you will see the Westminster Mafia start to panic as the net closes in on them. It will happen, no matter what.