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

[zeke]

Something kicked her off. She been onto Nominet again about me being in the UK.

Sheila Harding cant help blabbing to all and sundry, its going to reach me eventualy - as it has. This is why I am convinced she is mentally disturbed. This behaviour is abnormal.

I'm only here for a week. So, let me guess, She will want my passport seized.

[John The Baptist]

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.

Most of the words and phrases that she regularly uses originate from her solicitor boyfriend. "Naturally" and "Most importantly" being prime examples. One of her latest phrases is "I would suggest" which also originates from her boyfriend.

A funny one was when he sent a document in which he ended a sentence with "(yet) again". Within 2 days, Harding was using this phrase herself. The only trouble was she did so by memory (and we all know how poor her memory is). When Harding wrote down the phrase, she bracketed it in it's entirety, ie "(yet again)" thus losing the impact of bracketing it.

Unfortunately for Harding, using the odd word or phrase that she's learned from a solicitor does not mask her stupidity and ignorance as we see when she over uses the word "highly". For example, suggesting that she left school with no qualifications is not just defamatory but according to Harding, it's highly defamatory. Likewise, if she thinks someone has posted some inaccurate information, it is not just inaccurate but highly inaccurate.

[zeke]

I'll put them up.in members.

PS. There's something else but I can't remember.

PPS. She doesn't know what PS means.

Just an afterthought. I think she should try and think before engaging keyboard.

[John The Baptist]

Unbelievable. She's just come out with the "man of straw" phrase that PF Gerber used when discussing Larnyou:

PF Gerber:

As the claimant's barrister indicated that the claimant was a man of straw......

Harding:

I had considered him to be a man of substance and to read that he was merely a man of straw was not believable

[zeke]

Not just Larnyou.

The "Man of Straw" comment features regurlarly in PF Gerbers documents, especially when he cannot recover his fee.

The adage "wholly" was a trademark that identified him as the source of Newlyns answer to a complaint. Typical use "wholly vexatious".

[dannny]

If my N244 application to set aside the judgment is successful, what is the process then to recover the money that has been paid to DCBL?

[zeke]

You ask for it from the Creditor and the bailiff company giving your bank details with a deadline.

Bring a MCOL claim against the creditor as the first defendant and the bailiff company as the second defendant.

Interest at 8% starts from the date the money was taken.

Don't forget to add any damages if there is a breach of any schedule 12 provisions.

Remember, preparing your claim documents and witness statement, you never say "money paid" to DCBL. It is always "money taken" by the second defendant.

[dannny]

What really upsets me about this whole episode is that during the hearing at guildford county court on 31/01/18, after the judge had declared the claim dismissed it was discussed with the claimants solicitor the matter of the other parking tickets. The judge advised the claimants solicitor it would not be appropriate to claim under the same circumstances for the other tickets... to which the claimants solicitor agreed. YET THERE WAS ALREADY A
A SECOND CLAIM IN FOR OTHER TICKETS ALREADY - the second claim had been submitted 2 months previous. The claimants solicitor had no idea.

[dannny]

I contacted UK car park management ltd today to find out if there was any other claims against my name but as expected they had no interest in speaking to me and would only point me in the direction of gladstones solicitors. After finally managing to track down a phone number I was told there is a third claim. Surprise suprise this time they had been sending the paperwork to an address i have never resided at. A neighbours address in the block of flats that I previously lived in.

Is this behavior normal? Incorrect spellings of names, incorrect addresses. Its all seems very convenient as it leaves the defendant out of the loop only to find out once the claim has gone on for an extended period of time.

[zeke]

If the address is wrong and you have a prospect of defending the original claim, then apply to stay the writ.

[dannny]

This time there is no writ, theyve not actually submitted the claim as of yet. I completed their 'pre-action protocol reply' form and explained I would have a strong chance of winning due to successfully defending a claim under the same circumstances previously. Im not holding my breath, i expect them to take it to court again because thats what they do.

[dannny]

The judgment was set aside this morning. The claimant did not attend the hearing. The judge said they are behind and it will be approximately 3 weeks before the hearing is written up. Am I in a position to retrieve the funds immediately or will I have to wait? Also I've not looked at my credit file but assume I will need to go about having the CCJ removed? Thanks

[zeke]

You will need to get the judgment removed if the court service does not update the register.

The bailiff is tucked up in bed, and the claimant did not defend the claim.

[Paulnmusic]

Hello all,

I know this is an old thread and the pokerman has probably run away by now, but i just wanted to get on and add my bit, which i am sure he knows about and will no doubt try to BS his way out of.

So Gary attended my family home chasing a ltd compay drbt, took control of goods after entering and staying in the property alone with an 80 year old vulnerable woman, but decided to take control of goods whilst he waited for my return. I almost forgot, he had to tell me my belongings would not be there in the hour it took me to leave work and drive home from Fawley to Portsmouth.
ANyway i digress, Gawy, decided to move my tools into my conservatory, which had a polished floor, and in doing so scratched the flooring and caused damage enough fo rme to have to have it replaced. of course he denies it, like he denies that my mother in law is too scared to answer the front door of the home she lives at.

Gary you are low, the lowest, no apolgy to my mother in law and the camra footage clearly identifies you as the person damaging the floor, this could have been rectified easily and without the need to drag it threw the courts, i only wish pray and curse you, that you may befall similar sort of issues in your life, or at least in those close to you, so you can know exactly how this has left my family out of pocket and traumatised.

love to meet up and discuss if you have a pair and would like to resolve

Portsmouth Paul, you know who i am

[Paulnmusic]

And here's hoping a few more crap on your trousers Gaz mate.

The sheer volume of complaints does lead to make one consider where the truth lies, don't it though? You've already admitted that you're prepared to scare a debtor by following them in your car, pulling up alongside to 'talk' to them (yeh, we've got the pics Gaz), and you've told us that a colleague preloads the fees (did you consider informing your bosses Gaz, or was he just following your lead? Or perhaps you saw a good thing and followed suit?).

Here's a task for you Gaz, have a look round the various forums and FB pages and see how many times complaints about DCBL overcharging and misleading comes up.

I'm sure DCBL appear in many complaints just like all other enforcement companies. I'm not sure that I "admitted" scaring a debtor and I didn't say the other agents were colleagues. I doubt me telling you that will make a difference or change your opinion of me, but I don't mind as I deal with idiots who refuse to accept the truth on a regular basis.

you wouldnt admit it would you, dumb ass

[Paulnmusic]

, 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 Harriet Hillman has been in contact with you? Please allow me to tell you all about Harriet Hillman. A few years ago, her husband had a stroke and from what I've been told, the pair now live virtually separate lives. Harriet seems "married" to the internet and is trawling through these forums all hours of the day and night, 7 days a week. Harriet 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. Harriet 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. Harriet Hillman 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, Harriet 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 Harriet 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 Harriet Hillman.

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.

I have footage and evidence, you are a piece of shit - simple - now all you have to do is realise it

[Paulnmusic]

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.

you need training on how to protect items you are apparently taking control of, oh no, you weren't doing that either were you, just moving them around my house for the pleasure of it.

[Paulnmusic]

Hi all,

apologies for my rant, I found the thread entertaining until i read Gawy's responses.
I have a court case as stated previously, DCBl have provided 2 of reciepts of mailbags, signed dated ( twice on one copy ) and a single number 4, added as a time on one and the other an additional signature with 16.00
my question is, will this provide a small claim court evidence enough of postage ? I did not receive any notice, nor did my registred ltd company address.
There are other matters that may fall into this; a second notice was issued and sent out, served on 28th Feb 2019 and attended on the 7th March 2019, only 5 days had passed. breaching the attendance rules.

we all know they BS things but i could do withh ammunition and some support in ensuring i supply the right information to the judge. I am aware of the Rooftops 2018 case. I am happy to share everything that occurred that day and after with DCBL, but need to ensure i dont damage any possibilities of winning my case. It has been a long stressful road for me and my family.

[zeke]

I don't think you will get far pursuing Gary Brown at the moment. He is currently out of circulation.

You would be better to pursue DCBL, because they do pay their judgments and costs orders.

You need to collate a list of damages, a list of enforcement regulation breaches, then prepare a letter of claim, and chase it through the small claims track. They will vigourously defend it, but that's OK, you can re-use their material to rack up a bill.

[Paulnmusic]

Hi Zeke,

Thank you.
I have indicated that they attended a property before 7 days expired, attended a went into a property with a vulnerable adult, took control of good when alone with vulnerable adult, and the damaged flooring, failiure to supply body cam footage.
Gary says an 80 year old woman home alone is not vulnerable in his opinion.

[zeke]

Its not down to a bailiffs opinion.

Its in the guidelines, paragraph 77 of the Taking Control of Goods National Standards.

[Paulnmusic]

Hi Zeke,

I have been supplied a statement for hearsay evidence from a thomas Ennis, he states he is a high court enforcement officer in training, obviously i will ask that his bhearsay evidence be disallowed, but i wondered if i could check anywhere the status of this person, so i can explain why he should not be allowed to provide his statement.

[Paulnmusic]

Something else that this group may find interesting, I requested the bodycam footage and wasn't given it for months until I informed the court that they were withholding evidence.
Anyway, the video footage has been tampered with, or Gary Brown switched it off ( doubtful as the timing changes ) the video which should have been full footage, loses around 20 minutes of time, and then a few minutes, which is the important section for me as it would display Gawy damaging the flooring scraping the tool chests along the floor.
Is this a criminal offense?

[zeke]

Its a criminal offence to tamper with bodycam footage.

https://stopthebailiffs.uk/template-bai ... otage.html

[Paulnmusic]

Quick update, had hearing today, it has been adjourned and DCBL istructed to supply the full unedited footage so i can appoint times (points) when the damage occurred. I was informed that further claims are not important, so attempting to state the agent was not allowed in the property in the first place did not get heard, nevermind taking control whilst alone with a vulnerable adult and so on.
I intend to find a suitable barrister via public access, share all of my information, upon conclusion of the claim, possible entering others for the breaches, cost andf distress caused as well as making it public, in order to achieve a solution to this rogue company and Gawy B, hopefully he will lose his license.
If you know of an educated well versed legal practioner, i would be very thankful.

[zeke]

I'll put you in touch with the legal team that did the DCBL case by referring them to this thread.

They might send you a private message.

[Paulnmusic]

much appreciated

[Paulnmusic]

Hi Zeke
I am looking for information relating to HCE agent's permission, or not, to open filing cabinets, open sealed plastic folders, remove documents that have been inserted and filed (paid for service ) to ensure accuracy and security. Only Gary brown decided that was what he was going to do, numerous times, he also failed to return some receipts that were secured in one of the folders he returned, to an incorrect place, leaving the filing system in complete shambles.
I was told that HCE agents do not have permission to do this type of thing, but I wanted to ask for some advice. He also read my criminal disclosure, although only attending for a limited company.

[zeke]

When you say HCE, do you mean High Court Enforcement Group Limited, a bailiff company, or generically, an HCE as in High Court Enforcement agent?

Bailiffs cannot take control of documents because they cannot be sold.

They are not exempt goods under regulation 4 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, unless the documents are used by the debtor personally in his trade or business, but I have seen a successful action brought against a bailiff company for the replacement cost of the documents that were removed.

You can bring the action under section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, and you can also apply for an interlocutory action, under section 4 of the Act if the return of the documents is urgent.

Also under section 3, you may recover any damages that arise from the interference of documents by a bailiff. For example, the cost of hiring temporary workers to put right the disturbed filing system.

If bailiffs remove documents, and do not list them on an inventory, as required by regulation 33 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, then you can pursue an action under paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, or if the claimant is not the debtor, then section 3 of the Torts Act.

[Paulnmusic]

Hi Zeke,

The documents were not taken or seized, but they were within a filing cabinet, in sealed folders and he opened the folders, removed the documents, and displaced everything, not returning it to the original state. He also opened a bureau and looked at private and confidential documents, unrelated to or connected to the debtor company.
I have been advised it is a breach of article 8 of the human rights act, but I am looking to understand what laws the HCE agents have been permitted when it comes to opening and reading mail or documents, especially when sealed or within a drawer / sealed piece of furniture.

Under par 66, TCE act. this implies a defective writ, are you saying that because they were removed and not listed, this is the breach, or that the writ is void because of the actions of the agent, overstepping his permitted duties.
Appreciate the assistance.

[zeke]

I’ve never done an Article 8 claim, right to privacy, against bailiffs when the claimant is the debtor.

I have only seen it brought against bailiffs against non-debtors. The most recent was only a few months ago against a bailiff company called Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited when the bailiff entered a flat and searched it to satisfy himself the debtor did not live there. The claimant was given £10,000.

The regulations only enable the bailiff to take control of goods that belong to the debtor. There is nothing to enable them to interfere with documents or ransack a filing cabinet of documents, so you could bring a claim.

It would fall under section 3 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, but with many claimants against bailiffs, the court expects a much higher burden of proof. This means you must show a loss because your documents were disturbed.

An example of this type of claim is a bailiff entered a debtor's property and disconnected their wall-mounted TV and internet router. The claimant had to call out an engineer to put it all back again, and successfully sued for that call out charge. The bailiff defence, which failed, was the claimant did not allow the bailiff the opportunity to repair the damage first, instead calling out an engineer in haste and racking up a bill. The defence failed because the claimant did not want the bailiff to enter her home.


If you brought an article 8 claim, then you would have to get an expert opinion on setting an amount in damages for the breach.

The bailiff interfering with documents, doesn't make a writ defective.

Examples of a defective writ is having a different address from the address the bailiff attended, or the original judgment debt conferred on the writ is under £600. In both of those cases, the bailiff paid damages in a claim under Paragraph 66 of Schedule 12.