Jason Bennison’s Legal Pretences
We have already read about Jason’s legal aspirations, for example, when he said he would become a Legal Executive. This could well have been just wishful thinking, but when you look at his company’s data controller registration, we find that he’s described his line of business as a SOLICITOR!!!
Now on to Companies House, where we find that the above mentioned company, Xlaw Ltd, has only ONE Director/Officer: Jason Bennison himself, who, on this occasion, describes himself more modestly as a “paralegal”.
It used to be the case that anyone could call themselves a “paralegal”, however, this is no longer the case. The NALP website states the following:
A NALP License to Practise is now required in order to offer advice and legal assistance to the consumer.
Has he got that license? It would be academic, as we will see here, his legal drafting skills speak for themselves: Jason Bennison’s legal drafting skills.
Leave a Reply
26 Comments on "Jason Bennison’s Legal Pretences"
Hi, new poster.
I have just come here to protest about the outrageously wrong advice and information being given on the Bailiff Help Forum. From looking around I see it has been noticed before. Why has no one done anything about this Zeke fellow?
“Just looking at a recent post the poster says, “I have received two notices of enforcement letters from enforcement company: Marston, under instruction from Northampton county court
This has come as quite a shock, as I had not received the original PCN’s or any form of communication from Barnet previously on this matter. The original PCN’s date from 11/2019.” then he states
“I contacted Marston and spoke with one of their agents, who informed me that the original PCN’s issued by Barnet were sent to an address which I have not lived at for fifteen years
My vehicle has never been registered to this address and my driving license has been registered to my current address since February 2018.”
Now the obvious advice is to, alert the authority and send an “out of time application” if accepted it will wind the clock back to the reporting of the offence. The procedure can be downloaded from the TEC site or contact the authority and tell them this, there has probably been a mix up at the DVLA. The council will then withdraw the enforcement order. all fees will be removed.
but Mr Zeke says this unwarranted nonsense.
“It looks like you gots some PCN’s at your old address, and the bailiff company has traced you to your new address and jumped straight to enforcement.
This action is illegal because the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) states that
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 –”
This is nonsense, the Bailiffs have simply traced the debtor to enforce, this is their job. The quoted phrase comes from section 75 of CPR and it says:
(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 –
(a)specifying the new address of the respondent;
(b)providing evidence that the new address for the respondent does relate to the respondent named in the order and against whom enforcement is sought; and
(c)certifying that the amount due under the order remains unpaid.
From what he says, the OP has just received the defective warrant, so the procedure to rectify is stated.
There is nothing “illegal” about it.
Then Zeke says: “The bailiff company has effectively cheated and hoped that you are unaware of the law and they seek to get fees from you which they know they are not entitled to.”
No, Zeke, The Bailiff is simply acting on the court’s instruction, what is Mr Zeke trying to say here?
Here he seems to be attempting to isolate the OP from any contradictory advice from the enforcement agent.
“The bailiff company has effectively cheated and hoped that you are unaware of the law and they seek to get fees from you which they know they are not entitled to.
The bailiff company sent a Notice of Enforcement to a list of addresses they think you are at, to see if any of them get a reaction from the respondent. In this case, it did because you contacted them which verified your current address.
Do not try to negotiate with a bailiff company. They are a commercial business out to make money, even if that gain is not compliant with the law.” This is really nonsense.
He then continues with some devious method of finding out if the DVLA have updated your records, this is ridiculously superfluous as all you have to do is ask? They have committed no offence, even if they have the address wrong, it is merely a mistake.
He then links to his other site, where we see the real story behind the wrong advice.
“Get immediate expert help and peace of mind when dealing with your bailiff matter.
The other site Announces
“You get an immediate consultation with an expert in civil enforcement redress and access to lawyers and barristers to recover damages for illegal bailiff action
Your consultation starts with examining your case and identifying the areas of enforcement regulation the bailiff has failed to comply, then get the remedies and know-how on implementing a remedy to stop the action, usually straight away, or at least, the same day where possible.
If bailiff action has already taken place, or a vehicle has been removed, then you may recover damages, interlocutory action (emergency injunctions) together with your costs.”
Please take your time and be detailed when completing the form, and uploading your evidence.”
Then he convinces the punter there is a legal action to be made out of a simple error.
He charges up to £1500 s to draft unnecessary, redundant document sometimes more, and £35 just for a phone call, promising all the time that they will get all their money back and make a large profit out of costs.
He also has Barrastors and lawyers in tow, hmm.
From looking on here it seems he has never provided proof of one successful claim. One does wonder why.
Anonymous LiP ordered to identify himself – nine months into action
By Charles Dodgson29 August 2018
A litigant in person who is trying to sue web giant Google in the High Court has successfully concealed his identity from court staff and the defendant – as well as the judge – for more than nine months, it has emerged.
The claimant, known only as ABC, represented himself in the Queen’s Bench Division before media list judge Mr Justice Nicklin. The claim alleges defamation, malicious falsehood and breach of confidence connected to a Google-owned website on which objectionable posts were allegedly made.
Opening the hearing, Mr Justice Nicklin said that the claimant had received generous treatment as a litigant in person – but that the court’s patience was running out. ‘I make allowances for the fact you are a litigant in person so that’s why I’m saying this to you: orders of the court are not matters that you are free to decide when and if you will comply with them.’
He added: ’This is the first case I’ve encountered where I’ve not known the identity of a litigant I’m speaking to. It’s a remarkable state of affairs that you’ve managed to get to August without complying with an order of the court.’ He was referring to an order made by Master Yoxall at a hearing in December last year that the claimant identify himself.
ABC, a middle-aged man in a mis-matched suit, said: ’This is not about disobedience. As your lordship is well aware, especially as a judge in this area, this is … a complex area. Unless the court, in the round, understands all the circumstances of the case as to the background, as to any risk, that, actually, of undermining the order, obviously that will defeat the object.’
Nicklin responded: ’I want to give you one final opportunity to explain to me. The order that I’m minded to make is that you’ve got seven days to give the defendants your name as was directed by the court back on 4th December. If you fail to do that I’m going to strike your action out.’
ABC then offered to identify himself in exchange for binding commitments on Google, prompting the response: ’No. Listen. I’m not going to bargain with a litigant who’s in default of an order about the terms on which he complies with a court order. It’s not going to be done on the basis of ‘“you demand, I provide’” You [demand] remedies against a defendant who doesn’t even know who you are.’
The judge ordered the case to be struck out unless ABC identifies himself within seven days. He gave summary approval of Google’s costs
Bennison likes to pretend he is a Legal Bod, yet he doesn’t even know there’s a fee payable for an N245!!!!!!!!
No doubt Bennison has never paid a court fee despite filing all those injunction applications and issuing spurious claims, he probably abuses the EX160a to avoid paying anything…
Hahahahaha, his lap dog has to teach him the basics…
This particular thread on the Bailiff Help Forum is very interesting. Note the subtle way in which Jason Bennison (aka: Schedule 12) tries to get a debtor to pay £35 for a ‘consultation’. He does this by telling a fairytale about a ‘so called’ injunction that went before the court on that same day. As always, no details are ever given.
Importantly, his lapdog, Mark Bowley (posting as John the Baptist) knows full well that these cases are invented. This is what he said on another thread when responding to a post from Bennison:
Whilst we are at it. The idea that goods cannot be taken control of unless they can be sold is a nonsense.
The whole point of taking goods under control is so they can act a surety for future payment, otherwise they would just be taken and sold. All part of the PROCEDURE##