https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIafTR3tF9c
Case was ridiculed on CAG - https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/t ... /#comments
Awarded £10k damages plus costs paid.
DCBL Hammered
-
Syd Snitkin
- The Watcher
- Posts: 171
- Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
- Location: In your loft, waiting
DCBL Hammered
Former General Manager of a nursing home, trained in music and classical guitar, MBA in contract law, expert legal commentator on bailiff law. enjoys PG tips. No not me, some screwball elsewhere
Re: DCBL Hammered
I remember it well back in 2018. I am not surprised the Consumer Action Group was panned for endorsing this kind of behaviour insinuating the victim is FMOTL as posts #4. 6 & 7, plus, some serious factual error in posts #22 & 34.
The crux of the case was whether bailiffs collecting a writ has authority to enter non-debtors homes to search for ID. This has never been the case because Paragraph 14 of Schedule 12 expressly limits entry to debtor's premises or specified premises.
It is also interesting that Andyorch deleted Crimebodge from the CAG forums. I think its a case of saying something that Andy disagrees with, and on came a ban, because engaging in meaningful debate is probably outside his intellect.
It was one of the extreme cases at the time, and the judgment does further prove that DCBL does not give a NOE to ambush the debtor.
Only this week, DCBL lost another detailed assessment and was also made to pay the legal costs, and that application also cited previous DCBL judgments that found that DCBL did not give a NOE.
For a case like this, the costs would be about £45K, with the barrister taking the lion share, but the damages award is comparatively small. However, the victim documented and filmed the evidence that brought the claim to fruition.
This is the first time I have heard body armour to be described at court as "combat gear". I'll have to borrow that one when preparing documents.
The crux of the case was whether bailiffs collecting a writ has authority to enter non-debtors homes to search for ID. This has never been the case because Paragraph 14 of Schedule 12 expressly limits entry to debtor's premises or specified premises.
It is also interesting that Andyorch deleted Crimebodge from the CAG forums. I think its a case of saying something that Andy disagrees with, and on came a ban, because engaging in meaningful debate is probably outside his intellect.
It was one of the extreme cases at the time, and the judgment does further prove that DCBL does not give a NOE to ambush the debtor.
Only this week, DCBL lost another detailed assessment and was also made to pay the legal costs, and that application also cited previous DCBL judgments that found that DCBL did not give a NOE.
For a case like this, the costs would be about £45K, with the barrister taking the lion share, but the damages award is comparatively small. However, the victim documented and filmed the evidence that brought the claim to fruition.
This is the first time I have heard body armour to be described at court as "combat gear". I'll have to borrow that one when preparing documents.