Quatloos!

longdog wrote:I hope he remembers to inform his insurers or he will have invalidated his cover... Assuming he has any.

And a change of registered keeper cancels the road tax, so unless it's declared off road (by the new keeper) they risk having it seized and crushed anyway.

BTBAB still endorsing the DD clawback scam

letissier14 wrote:BTBAB still endorsing the DD clawback scam...

Surprised that the financial sector and regulatory bodies haven't fixed this issue yet. Doesn't seem complicated, they just need to add a clarification to the DD Guarantee and/or crucify a few cheaters pour encourage les autres.

I suspect the retail banks don't see a problem, but they made that mistake with werebank and should be recognising all the disputes and aggravation which will arise from this. Shockingly reckless to facilitate fraud by their own customers.

"I got zeroed" doesn't that mean the bank wrote you off as too much trouble? Then you decide that instead of quitting while you're ahead, you're going to poke at them again? That's a good way to make them reconsider the write off.

no inboxing allowed sorry

Wasn't "no inboxing" one of Nasty Nadine's rules?

Btbatb advice earns someone £600 of court costs , what a great win !!!1!!

Even for the BTBATB crowd that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, although I get the impression that this pair?? doesn't exactly comprehend and/or communicate well to start with. My take is that they owed an old debt, it got assigned, they claimed it wasn't valid, mumbo jumbo argle bargle, new owner said "your magic papers aren't magic and are nonsense", took them to court, they lost, and it cost them more money. Their uptake, they didn't say the magic words right.

They're saying "put aside", but I think they mean "set aside". If that's the case then I think they probably didn't respond to the original claim when it was raised in the court system, so the claimant has been awarded judgement by default. In those circumstances the defendant can apply to have the judgement set aside. To succeed they need to provide a sensible explanation of why they didn't respond in the first instance, and show that they have a defence with real prospects of success.

So my take is that this was the hearing for the set aside application. The extra costs would be for the claimant responding to the set aside application.

Note the reference "she said it was discretionary put aside", suggests they applied unreasonably late after the judgement.

SteveUK wrote:Btbatb advice earns someone £600 of court costs , what a great win !!!1!!

Pah, that's nothing. If they had gone with David Robinson he could've got them a couple of nights in the cells.

lol. dope.

this bailiff and his friend turned up in April 2017 saying that i owed for a parking charge that i didn't know about and instead of being nice he decided to clamp my car and said he is going to tow it no paperwork was seen and his little friend didn't want to id himself but was happy to be on my property for what reason i don't know
hope you all enjoy

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=10f_1494793537

Glad to see BTBAB still giving out sound advice. Ceylon's mate Paul Webster being as thick as normal

To use a PN the business has to do 2 million quid of revenue? When did that happen or are they just making it up as they go along again?

It always makes me quite upset when someone like this goes on about cancer cures. Whatever else she does, she is potentially committing suicide. I really hope she isn't paying that absolute c##t Ceylon for his colloidal silver crap. He deserves the worst life possible and I hope he gets it.

King Lud wrote:To use a PN the business has to do 2 million quid of revenue? When did that happen or are they just making it up as they go along again?

The second one, of course. A PN is simply an IOU note. Anyone can choose to accept a PN in lieu of immediate payment, but nobody can be obliged to do so.

https://imgur.com/a/TxozM

No loss, no harm, no injury. Unless you are a bailiff trying to get somebody's rightfully owed money.

Apparently the guy who smokes drugs, doesn't work, isn't allowed to see his kids and posts pictures of sleeping girls is better than them.

Is ' Same to you with bells on' just a bit too childish.

I think not.

Same to you AND the horse you rode in on?

obadiah wrote:Same to you AND the horse you rode in on?

No, that implies some competence in horse riding.

And unfair to an innocent horse.

Have you any evidence or case law to support your contention that horse is, in fact, innocent.

Unsupported allegations are contrary to the spirit of Qautloosian enquiry.