PCN's dimissed in Guildford county court followed by DCBL visit

[John The Baptist]

I accept that EAC2s should not phase you. A bailiff would have to be unbelievably stupid to do something to jeopardize his livelihood. I know you're not that stupid. I do think that on occasions though, you carry out actions that justify considering you for retraining.

Do you know what? I would welcome some further training as no one is the perfect agent. You may think that I'm just saying this for the benefit of my image, but without any official course dedicated to training agents in the matters of High Court Enforcement, I would welcome the introduction of such a course.

The current course is what? 3 days? In that course, they have to cover a multitude of things, from anger management, all the way through to Schedule 12 (which I think is 3 hours of the course).

The biggest problem is that you work on commission and like every other job that pays in that manner, from the 2nd hand car salesman, to the bricklayer, all the way through to the bailiff, there are problems.

I said before, your industry is decades behind most other types. It is riddled with snotty aholes at the top, many of whom are members of masonic lodges. Many foot soldiers are black, asian or Eastern European but hardly any hold positions of management. I looked at DCBL's website over the weekend and all bar one legal girl were white. The figures are completely disproportionate and I'd wager that even ethnic minority foot soldiers in High Court Enforcement are in a very, tiny minority.

Your industry look at people like me, the Citizens Advice etc and view as as do gooders or anarchists who don't understand what it's like to recover these debts. Of course we understand how difficult it is and the kind of things you have to put up with. The problem is, you can't just assume someone is a debt avoider. Not all of them are and I know that you personally like being away from fine defaulters etc because of that reason. This forum helps many people who encounter bailiff wrongdoing and sometimes creditor wrongdoing. Other than Nigel, we all provide our time for free. The bailiff industry hate us and want to "police themselves". Apart from an 80 year old woman getting battered, I can't imagine what the bailiff industry would deem as wrongdoing. I've never known a bailiff/bailiff manager agree with an LGO decision that went in favour of the debtor.

My personal feeling is that post April 2014, the biggest problems by a long shot are in the HCEO sector of your industry, led not least by the sale fee. If a survey was carried out listing sale fees charged in High Court Enforcement, compared to all other types of enforcement, the difference between the two totals would be massive.

[Syd Snitkin]

I'm well aware what documentation I am required to provide. Proof of postage isn't one of them.

But Gaz, you've already told us that your office keeps a proof of postage. If the record exists why would it bother you to provide a copy when a debtor says a NOE hasn't been sent?

Let's see what the Royal Mail site says a proof of postage is - or to give it's official title, a Cerificate of Posting.

• A Certificate of Posting is your proof that you have posted the item declared on the certificate into the Royal Mail network. The Certificate of Posting needs to be date stamped and signed at a Post Office window as having been accepted into the network.

The OP of this thread has requested a copy of this certificate and has so far been fobbed off. Why is that Gaz?

[Syd Snitkin]

Imagine if you lived at an address where you paid your council tax and people kept knocking asking you to prove it. You may show your council tax bill to the first few people to prove it, but after a few days of it I'm sure you'd eventually get sick and tired. Eventually, you would stop jumping through hoops, knowing you're doing what you're supposed to do. If those people wanted to report you for not paying your council tax, that's up to them right? It doesn't mean you MUST keep showing it to everyone who knocks on your door because they demand to see it. After all, you've got other things to be getting on with that take priority. If the court said that you MUST show it to people upon request, you would have no choice, but until then, I'm sure you would just end up closing the door in their face.

Going by your argument Gaz, after you've been asked to show your ID badge a few times to different debtors, after a few days you'd get sick of doing so and I assume refuse to carry on jumping through that hoop. Tell you what, why don't you make it easier and simply have copies of everything you know a debtor may ask for -it's only a sheet of paper. If you were to visit 20 people in a day then it's 20 bits of paper, hardly a burden is it?

Why not just nip it in the bud - have a copy of the warrant available, a copy of the NOE that was sent, a copy of the proof of postage, and then when the debtor tries to make you jump through hoops just whip the paperwork out. It seems to me that bailiffs just don't want to in case it proves something in the debtor's favour. Just look at the recent Chrisy Morris events - from what I've quickly read through, turns out the eviction was done on the wrong warrant and has seemingly voided everything that followed. It's implied that this is why the bailiff refused to show the warrant.

[Poker man]

The course I did at Marston is 5 days in the classroom, followed by 6 weeks on street shadowing several different certificated agents and then another 3 days in the classroom. When I trained Cona Jackson, he was with me for 6 months while he read up on the legislation and regulations in his spare time and I would quiz him in the van. So he never actually did a course, but passed the exam with flying colours.

Whatever the job, commission structures produce results. County Court Bailiffs are paid a salary and work office hours. They have no financial incentive to collect the debt and often walk away without a payment, without an arrangement and the claimant gets nothing. HECA's turn up outside of normal working hours and should (if they're any good) be somewhat more tenacious and insist on a payment. I get up and leave the house before 0500 most days and I work hard to give my family the best lifestyle I can.

If the CAB and charities gave debtors sound advice that was actually in their interest, I wouldn't have a problem with them. What is actually given to the debtor in many instances is advice on how to be evasive rather than how to actually resolve their issue. Forums such as this seem to be about causing problems for the agents and spreading the belief that the agents and agencies are the enemy.

Many people ask me how I sleep at night. I sleep well each night safe in the knowledge that I have done everything I can (within the law of course!) to recover as much as possible owed to the claimants who instruct us. I'm sure there are some claimants who are in the wrong and don't deserve the money I collect, but it's very difficult (and not my place) to get involved with disputes. I am commanded to enforce a writ, so I don't need to know who's right and who's wrong, but I ALWAYS inform a debtor of their right to appeal and I ALWAYS inform them that the money is held in a ring fenced holding account for 14 days before being remitted to the claimant. Sometimes I'll even go a little further and help them find the N244 and I leave them on positive terms. You won't hear from those people or from the many debtors who aren't charged the Sale Stage Fee because they paid before I started the removal process. You hear from the people who want to complain and aren't happy with the way I've enforced against them. You hear a one sided story and all of a sudden I'm a "piece of shit",

I've seen the lot now. It must make a change for this piece of sh%t to be a witness for the prosecution rather than being the accused.

but if you actually knew what had happened on that day you wouldn't be so quick to judge. Abigail Brown-Boateng is another bare faced liar, but thankfully the judge realised that before it was too late. It was a close call as she was very convincing giving her evidence.

[Syd Snitkin]

Hey, has anyone got a copy of those Whatsapp clips? You know the ones I mean Gaz.

[John The Baptist]

Gary - I am not a bailiff basher. I would have hoped that you had realised that by now. Furthermore, I have told you that I will always give you the benefit of the doubt. I know nothing about Abigail Boateng other than what I've read on here and that certainly isn't enough to make me form an opinion.

What advice should I give to debtors who have reached the crisis point that leads to bailiffs arriving on their doorstep? Or even, in the case of one matter that you keep referring to, advice to householders who are not even the debtors?

Should I say "let that lovely bailiff in, he will lie through his teeth, reduce you to tears, threaten to destroy your wife's business by taking away her equipment and turn a £4,000 debt into £6,000 but Don't worry though, the bailiff can sleep at night"????????

Or should I say "Don't let him in and he'll go away eventually"?

If you weren't on commission, would you force people who aren't the debtor (ie directors of a limited company) to pay thousands of pounds worth of company debt?

I think you're a piece of shit for what you did in cases that I am aware of and also for what you did to that young girl who bought the car. Maybe that was too strong a description on reflection but you haven't covered yourself in glory.

I suspect that you may well have toned down the sale fees now that you've reinvented yourself as a Z list celebrity. Long may that continue if that is the case. You have to admit though, the commission on offer from DCBL sure as hell beats that £90 for PIF you used to get at Marstons doesn't it? There surely has to be a temptation there - You wouldn't be human if there wasn't.

[dannny]

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

If Gary were the type to take personal responsibility for his own actions, he would have probably left DCBL long ago or never joined them in the first place. It takes a certain type of individual to work for these companies. I'm sure plenty of Nazis slept just fine at night too.

[Tuco]

, as the Westbrooks found out last year thanks to your help.

Good morning Gary.

I was very surprised to discover this morning that you had made the above comment. Reading stuff on the internet and taking it as Gospel is a very dangerous game to play. Just ask those who think "wet ink signatures" are required on warrants etc.

I assume that Sheila Harding has been in contact with you? Please allow me to tell you all about Sheila Harding. A few years ago, her husband had a stroke and from what I've been told, the pair now live virtually separate lives. Sheila seems "married" to the internet and is trawling through these forums all hours of the day and night, 7 days a week. Sheila convinces herself that every "new" poster to the forums is me. I have a file of emails that I have sent her, pointing out that I'm not this or that person but have stopped sending mails to her as she still carries on regardless. It is very worrying behaviour and in fact I find it quite scary. Sheila also has a file containing every post I've ever made on the internet. She is my very own personal stalker.

Moving on to your above inaccurate comment. Sheila Harding read our exchanges on here that took place in January or February of last year. Because I urged Nigel to stop talking about a "live" case, Sheila decided that, that meant I had helped in some way regarding the EAC2. That is the only evidence she has. There are actually several reasons why I would or could have wanted to stop talking about a live case but Sheila struggles to grasp and view bigger pictures. One of her downfalls is that she has tunnel vision, just like the handful of ner' do wells and debt avoiders who hang onto her coat tails. They are a group of extremely poorly educated individuals with quite shocking reading and writing standards.

The fact of the matter Gary is that I became involved in the aftermath, ie the process of trying to sort the mess out. This was AFTER the EAC2 hearing and that was when I first became involved. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual EAC2 complaint and certainly didn't help in it, as you wrongly claim. Not long afterwards, I changed firms and actually read about the final outcome in an internet post made by none other than Sheila Harding.

I hope this clears things up for you. I know you were asking Nigel all sorts of questions about me at the time. I'm not going to get into long, drawn out debates over this with you but feel I have the right to correct your nonsense.

[Poker man]

The advice you should give is "be compliant with the agent. Let him in, but you must make some efforts to raise the funds. Once he's satisfied you've actually tried and as long as you haven't got assets that don't suggest a lifestyle where you can pay the debt off, he will very likely put you on an arrangement. Please understand that it's the claimant that decides if the arrangement is acceptable or not."

When enforcement is against a limited company, there's no one else to deal with it other than the director of the company, unless that person isn't around and then another employee can, but it's not as if I can speak to the company itself is it? There has to be a human being to take responsibility and arrange the money. We visit company directors at their home to see if they have company assets after researching the company through various means. I find it completely abhorrent when a person tells blatant lies to convince a court and naive people on this forum with lines such as "he forced his way in" and "he refused to show his ID or the writ" and especially "he filmed my wife getting dressed". I believe people making vexatious claims like that should be ordered to pay costs when the judge sees for himself that nothing of the sort actually happened. Obviously, if I was salaried and wasn't rewarded for my success, then I perhaps wouldn't be as dogged and tenacious, so you can see why agents are commission based because that is the best way to get results for the claimants.

I'm a completely different agent in the way that I operate since I started with Marston, but I'm also dealing with a very different type of debtor. It's impossible for me to know which of those would cooperate when I knock on the door and wait outside to those that would come downstairs, lock the door, be aggressive toward me and even go as far as lying to the court in order to initiate a court hearing. I seize opportunities to increase my chances of success and if that means the debtor is offended, so be it.

I think you're a piece of shit for what you did in cases that I am aware of

Which cases would they be as I'm sure I can justify everything I've done?

[Poker man]

, as the Westbrooks found out last year thanks to your help.

Good morning Gary.

I was very surprised to discover this morning that you had made the above comment. Reading stuff on the internet and taking it as Gospel is a very dangerous game to play. Just ask those who think "wet ink signatures" are required on warrants etc.

I assume that Sheila Harding has been in contact with you? Please allow me to tell you all about Sheila Harding. A few years ago, her husband had a stroke and from what I've been told, the pair now live virtually separate lives. Sheila seems "married" to the internet and is trawling through these forums all hours of the day and night, 7 days a week. Sheila convinces herself that every "new" poster to the forums is me. I have a file of emails that I have sent her, pointing out that I'm not this or that person but have stopped sending mails to her as she still carries on regardless. It is very worrying behaviour and in fact I find it quite scary. Sheila also has a file containing every post I've ever made on the internet. She is my very own personal stalker.

Moving on to your above inaccurate comment. Sheila Harding read our exchanges on here that took place in January or February of last year. Because I urged Nigel to stop talking about a "live" case, Sheila decided that, that meant I had helped in some way regarding the EAC2. That is the only evidence she has. There are actually several reasons why I would or could have wanted to stop talking about a live case but Sheila struggles to grasp and view bigger pictures. One of her downfalls is that she has tunnel vision, just like the handful of ner' do wells and debt avoiders who hang onto her coat tails. They are a group of extremely poorly educated individuals with quite shocking reading and writing standards.

The fact of the matter Gary is that I became involved in the aftermath, ie the process of trying to sort the mess out. This was AFTER the EAC2 hearing and that was when I first became involved. I had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual EAC2 complaint and certainly didn't help in it, as you wrongly claim. Not long afterwards, I changed firms and actually read about the final outcome in an internet post made by none other than Sheila Harding.

I hope this clears things up for you. I know you were asking Nigel all sorts of questions about me at the time. I'm not going to get into long, drawn out debates over this with you but feel I have the right to correct your nonsense.

So where have you been since September then? You were so active on the Westbrooks' thread and had plenty to say - almost as bad (not quite) as Pote Snitkin. I know Syd Thompson (who I mistakenly believed was Snitkin) was helping the Westbrooks and you admitted to me on here that you had seen the footage, which makes you even worse as you would have seen 90% of their complaint was simply untrue.

[John The Baptist]

It doesn't have to be "compliant with the agent".

Complying with an agent will add a minimum of £1,000 to your debt in an instant. A private debtor has no legal obligation to comply or grant access to a bailiff. Who in the right frame of mind would want to grant access if they knew they had a choice and that by doing so, it would add between £1,000 & £2,000 to a debt? I 100% wouldn't, would you? If there is a vehicle outside belonging to the debtor then that changes things.

In the cases of limited companies, where you visit private individuals houses, if you are able to gain entry, you have the right to search for company assets. You cannot simply "presume" a woman's sewing room for example is the office for a building company, you have to have reasonable belief. Surely you know this?

If a debtor makes false accusations to a court, (s)he runs the risk of costs being awarded against them if footage subsequently shows otherwise. This is a rule of thumb for most actions, not just EAC2s.

I'm pleased to hear that you've changed since your Marston days because from what I've read from an ex colleague (not Sid), it sounds like you had quite a reputation.

When you are working, you are entitled to use whatever tactic and power that you chose, provided that it falls within the realms of the law. Here is something your ex-colleague said:

Re phoning a van, 9 times out of 10 it is a blag, they ring another bailiff who goes along with it. Management don't want us seizing goods.

I would hope you accept that pretending to phone for a van is operating outside of the law, as is adding a sale fee on the back of it?

[Poker man]

I'm guessing this guy is no longer enforcing then. I don't know who he is or why he has a problem with me, but he's probably the same guy who has told people about our What's App group that Snitkin keeps banging on about.

[zeke]

You have a WhatsApp group?

[John The Baptist]

You have a WhatsApp group?

Marston bailiffs had one. It has been claimed (by an ex-bailiff) that they used to share footage of them visiting debtors and the more the debtor begged/got stressed, the funnier the group found it.

Gary - The bailiff didn't have a problem with you per se, his problem was more concerned with the wrongdoing that was going on. He mentioned many bailiffs, of which you were one.

[zeke]

I remember the Marston one, but I didn't know DCBL had one.

[Poker man]

I remember the Marston one, but I didn't know DCBL had one.

I never said we had one at DCBL, not that there'd be anything wrong with it if we did.

Marston bailiffs had one. It has been claimed (by an ex-bailiff) that they used to share footage of them visiting debtors and the more the debtor begged/got stressed, the funnier the group found it.

Gary - The bailiff didn't have a problem with you per se, his problem was more concerned with the wrongdoing that was going on. He mentioned many bailiffs, of which you were one.

I have a pretty good idea who that person is then and he didn't last long anyway. Always complaining the work was crap, when there were plenty of others collecting PIF's every day, so it wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to put us all down and make us look bad.

[zeke]

The quality of work at Marston is a world apart from High Court writs.

I've had bailiffs doing court fines and council tax complaining about the quality of work, but parking tickets offer a vehicle as leverage.

Writs are usually on the middle classes or businesses that can pay, but can also afford to a detailed assessment or hire someone to go into the QB and stop the writ. This results on the enforcement power ending after money or good have been taken, which means the enforcement company needs deep pockets definding them.

Right now as I sopeak, I have a Patrick Faram DCBL case which is about to be scuppered with a stop application or a detailed assessment hearing. Eitherway, its going to be expensive for DCBL because the creditor can recover our clients costs from the enforcement company.

[Syd Snitkin]

I remember the Marston one, but I didn't know DCBL had one.

It was the Marston one. Hey Gaz, did you get sacked from Marston's?

[Syd Snitkin]

I never said we had one at DCBL, not that there'd be anything wrong with it if we did.

A whatsapp group sharing videos of debtors distressed and pleading? You see nothing wrong with that? Wonder how the debtors would feel? I wonder how the courts would feel?

Now there's an idea....

[zeke]

The videos weren't up to much, but they could attract a Data Protection Act liability a-la to Channel 5.

[Poker man]

I never said we had one at DCBL, not that there'd be anything wrong with it if we did.

A whatsapp group sharing videos of debtors distressed and pleading? You see nothing wrong with that? Wonder how the debtors would feel? I wonder how the courts would feel?

Now there's an idea....

Now this is why I refuse to respond to you. By saying there'd be nothing wrong with having a What's App group, you try and twist it to say we'd automatically be sharing videos of debtors. I'll respond to those who have valid points and arguments, but your intentions are so plain to see. I'm always ready for people like you whose main goal is to berate and try to get a reaction. I think you see it as a sport, but I'm not so stupid to get involved in it, so I'll just ignore you instead. Remember, when you deal with someone who isn't thick, you need to up your game.

Now this really IS the last time I'll ever respond to any of your comments, so you may as well find some other posts to comment on.

[Syd Snitkin]

Oh boo-hoo Gaz, grow a spine and stop bleating. Obviously I'm absolutely distraught that you've decided to ignore me but I guess it means I'm free to say whatever I want about you. Nice one.

Seeing as the topic being discussed about the Whatsapp group was how it was used to share videos of distressed debtors, your comment that you see nothing wrong with that can only lead to the conclusion that you believe that sort of behaviour is ok. Y'see Gaz, it's these little unguarded comments that belie your true self rather than the polite veneer you show to the courts - an ex-military numpty desperate for what he thinks is some sort of power status. Behind that gossamer thin mask is the real Gaz Brown - the snidey, deceitful, bullying, delusional chancer, wilfully breaking the rules to take unlawful payments so he can go gambling. The real Gaz Brown was shown naked in those mobile messages and he'll never go away.

Special school to army drone to criminal record to used cars to bailiff, with several sackings on route..... hardly a preferred career route is it? As has been said several times Gaz, why does your name keep coming up in complaints? Why are the complaints always about you adding unlawful fees and pretending to call the van (that always seems to be waiting for your call)? Your only objective on every single visit is to ensure you maximise your fees, whether they become due or not. We've seen it too many times Gaz, far too many.

You never did tell us why you were sacked from Marston's. Sacked from JBW as well? Is that why you're now working self-employed? How's Stabilis coming along? The accounts don't look too healthy. Still never mind eh Gaz, you might have a visit tomorrow where you could claim that a debtor's wife's laundry room counts as company premises.

[dannny]

Gary, stop coming on here trying to justify yourself. Youre not pulling the wool over anyones eyes. It's almost as if youre trying to convince yourself youre not a bad person, so you come on here to make yourself feel better. Just accept who you are for gods sake. You add on stage 2 fees for opening someones door. You add on sale fees immediately at first opportunity for making fake phone calls. This public persona you are putting on is a facade, deep down you know youre a piece of...

[Syd Snitkin]

Hey Gaz, is this you? https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... wing)-nbsp

DCBL have gone in, been informed of a vulnerability and been shown a discharge letter from hospital, made a CGA of mostly work items of a low value and added £1100 in fees. Sounds like one of yours.

[zeke]

Sheila has put nine questions to the OP and given NO advice.

[Syd Snitkin]

I reckon the reference to the Strand has got her conspiracy radar twitching. No-one has yet questioned the fees.

[zeke]

She has been emailing me complaining yet again.

Try complaining to the chimp and she might get somewhere.

[Syd Snitkin]

Jebus, does she never get tired? She must be neglecting her 300-odd weekly clients with all the emails she fires off.

[zeke]

She follows me around the internet every day. She is on the phone talking about me nearly every day.

Her obsession with me is getting worse.

[Syd Snitkin]

She doesn't even understand what an N244 is. She seems to think it's only to set aside a judgement, and as usual her gormless drones lap up her 'wisdom'.

Whilst the N245 is only for a stay/variation/suspension, the N244 is the 'general application' form that can be used for stays, variations, suspensions and set-asides. Not sure why HMCTS feel the need for a separate form only for a stay, but there you go - it is what it is.

[Michelle]

Whilst the N245 is only for a stay/variation/suspension, the N244 is the 'general application' form that can be used for stays, variations, suspensions and set-asides. Not sure why HMCTS feel the need for a separate form only for a stay, but there you go - it is what it is.

The N245 is basically an income and expenditure/statement of means form. This info wouldn't be required when you are making another type of application such as applying for set aside.

[John The Baptist]

That thread is really quite funny.

Only Harding seems to think that a set aside was applied for. Andy had to point this out to her:

they submitted an application to set a payment arrangement BA..only you have referred to it being an application to set a side ?

I stated as recently as last week that Harding hasn't a clue when it comes to High Court enforcement and that statement only reinforces my claim.

Then DX in his infinite wisdom has told the debtor that anything not connected to his business cannot be controlled (this despite the debtor telling us that (s)he is a sole trader, not a limited liability company).

We then hit that grey area of ES2 again. When should it be included? I think that on this occasion, it is difficult to justify the ES2 payment because the EA and the debtor have entered into a CGA which is exactly the scenario covered in regulation 6(1)(b) of the Fees Regs:

where the enforcement agent and the debtor enter into a controlled goods agreement, the first enforcement stage, which comprises all activities relating to enforcement from the first attendance at the premises in relation to the instructions until the agreement is completed or breached

DCBL agents add the ES2 fee before they've even knocked the door (as has happened in this case). This is wrong because until they know whether they can agree a CGA, or even better, obtain PIF, they are still at ES1. (Take note Gary Brown)

Indeed, even if goods are controlled or even removed, that should only trigger ES2, according to the explanatory memorandum:

. If the enforcement agent is then unable to enter into a controlled goods agreement (and has to take control of goods in another manner) or a debtor defaults on a controlled goods agreement, the enforcement agent will be under an obligation to remove goods and therefore the second enforcement stage fee will also apply.

This is because of the command on a writ to seize and sell goods and chattels to raise the sum owed.

Worryingly on the CAG thread, it appears that we should all just blithely accept an EA barging past you in your doorway to enter your home. This is not peaceful entry and more information should be obtained from the debtor as to what exactly happened.

Finally, consideration should have been given to a Part 85 claim for the work tools. Signing a stat dec in front of a solicitor is only part of the process. The correct process would be to then submit a part 85 claim.

If the part 85 claim was successful, that would just leave the TV. How much is that worth? Would it cover the compliance and auction fees if sold at auction? It cannot be sold just to recover the compliance fee. How much would it cost the debtor to replace it anyway? That is all DCBL have now. They cannot go back for a second bite of the cherry - They must have very good reason to believe further goods have been acquired before they can return. It might be cheaper to replace the TV than it is to pay DCBLs fees. The debtor is well within their right (assuming success in the P85 claim) to contact the creditor, explain that DCBL have visited and failed to secure goods to cover the debt. By law, they cannot re-enter the house so the debt is effectively unenforceable as far as DCBL are concerned. The debtor should then make an offer to repay the debt at an affordable and sustainable rate once the enforcement power ceases.

[John The Baptist]

She has been emailing me complaining yet again.

Try complaining to the chimp and she might get somewhere.

Are the words "defamatory" and "highly" (not necessarily in that order) included?

She's like a stuck record. She must spend hour upon hour plotting and scheming, thinking up ways to contact you with some issue or another. You have offered her olive branches on more occasions than I care to remember but not once has she shown any desire to commit to a truce.

Imagine the amount of different things she could be doing to enjoy the twilight of her life? What a waste to spend all of her time in that hut in her garden, carrying out some internet vendetta. What a waste.

[zeke]

She complained about some self-praise that went awry. https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.ba ... line.co.uk

She has started complaining to GOOGLE!.

https://allnightsblog.wordpress.com/tag/sheila-harding/

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?t=11184

https://plentyfishy.wordpress.com/baili ... lp-forums/

For some reason, she wants to know who I sold X-law to. Strange when her own blog says it was dissolved.

Who I do business with is not her concern.

She must want someone else to have a rant to.

Fortunately they already know all about the infamous pathological liar that is Sheila Harding.

She has become so wrapped up in stalking me around the internet and half way across the world, her life has become one big obsession about me.

The information I am getting can only be the work of someone mentally derranged.

[Syd Snitkin]

Are the words "defamatory" and "highly" (not necessarily in that order) included?

Don't forget the compulsory "naturally". Usually accompanied by how she's kept a copy of something.