Jason Bennison (a.k.a. Schedule12) is Wrong Again
Maybe it is time that we started to examine, and correct, the wrong advice that is being doled out by Jason Bennison. We are not alone in thinking that his advice is wrong, and the Management would like to thank Mark Bowley for sharing his true feelings about Jason so openly on the Bailiff Help Forum. These are his comments:
“Do you not realise how unprepared you are to act in any form of professional capacity in these cases? Have you no idea just what a walking disaster you really are? Or more importantly, do you even care”.
On Jason Bennison’s endless boasts of court victories, Mark Bowley challenged him with this attack:
“I’m sorry Jason but I can’t help but feel that all these cases are little more than figments of your imagination”.
Leave a Reply
724 Comments on "Jason Bennison (a.k.a. Schedule12) is Wrong Again"
Pote or Mark pretending to be peter, for some reason. Never happen. Everyone can see your new enlightened persona of knowledge, is gleaned however dimly from him.
Quote
Post
by zeke » 04 Nov 2019 15:47
It the writ of control is stayed then the debtor is not liable for the enforcement fees.Bailiff companies state in their contracts the creditor pays the enforcement fees when a writ is stayed.
BULL
nope, the action is stayed, that’s all. why would they refund anything, when the stay may be thrown out?
If the judgment is set aside without a stay on the writ then the writ is a nullity and nobody is liable of the enforcement stage fees.
BUT
Set asides are applied for at the county court, these can take months to be heard, in the mean time action may continue unless there is also a stay in place.
If money has been taken and the judgment is stayed then you are entitled to a refund. Give them your bank details to enable them to pay.
NOPE THATS NONESENSE SEE ABOVE and the stay is only there to examine the case.
If the bailiff company gets funny with the fees the have a detailed assessment under CPR 84.16. You will need a solicitor. Search online
Rubbish
This is the worst thing you could possibly do and will just cost you a lot more money, although it will benefit Zekes coffers.
“CPR 75 says the authority may request a new warrant if the respondent has moved”
No little mushroom it doesn’t.
It says a warrants should be re issued..
(7) Where the address of the respondent has changed since the issue of the warrant, the authority may request the reissue of the warrant by filing a request –
Not a new warrant, its important, you little dung dinner.
Seriously, how can a complete idiot like this ever give advice on legal matters?
Section 27 of the DVCA, introduced schedule 4A into the Magistrates court act 1980.
It had nothing to do with force against a person it was about entry by force. It is still there of course and still applies to criminal matters.
This page should be re-named Jason Bennison Lying Bstd.
“I made representations in 2016 to the MOJ in the first round of reviews of the new regulations and got an amendment to the Schedule 12 provisions to delete the use of force against people.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
One wonders why he was making such representations, when the sections within the TCE were deleted from part 3 TCE in 2013, three years earlier.
Crimes and Courts act 2013 Section 25(4).
The option for Bailiffs to use force against the debtor was never introduced in 2014 and has never existed.
Lying moron.
He not only is a liar but he lacks knowledge about bailiff enforcement. Take this comment from Jason Bennison yesterday:
“A TV license is enforced using a warrant of control issued in a magistrates court, but since 2016, the use of force against people has been repealed, as was section 27 of the Domestic Crimes Violence and Victims Act 2004, that was secretly rushed through parliament in 2006 by a Dr Steve Everson who was at the time, the CEO of a bailiff trade association, the forerunner of CIVEA”
https://www.bailiffhelpforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5426
Not only has section 27 NOT been repealed, the relevant amendment to the DVCV Act was NOT secretly rushed through Parliament by Dr Everson. How could it possibly be…..he was not a member of parliament!!!
For the sake of accuracy, the amendment was introduced by Baroness Ashton.
I think he is confusing himself with his enemies. BA and Peterbard effectively petitioned parliament in 2006-7, to reconsider forced entry on civil debt, not force against the person. One reason the option does not exist under statute now.