The £4,000 costs order
Here we have a thread where the debtor had a visit from DCBL with a writ in the name of a limited company. Although the poster started a thread on BHF, it looks like they had previously contacted Jason’s “helpline” directly, possibly via DWB. Jason was quick to say that the bailiff cannot attend the director’s home “because the company doesn’t live there”. Actually Jason, it often does. It’s not uncommon for companies to be registered at the director’s home address.
The debtor argued that the bailiff had pushed his way into his house and Jason said that this “revokes everything that followed”. He also offered a detailed assessment hearing and said that “the costs in bringing this proceeding is also charged to the bailiff company because they breached regulations.” and “Redress for the money taken is recovered in an action in the county court.” He told his client that, should he choose to bring proceedings, he could see DCBL “losing a lot of money and will have to pay back all the money taken.” On July 2nd 2016, Jason told his client that DCBL would pay for all his solicitors’ costs.
Jason then offered to draft all the court documents and then assign the case to a solicitor, which begs the question: if you are going to instruct a solicitor, why would you draft the court documents yourself? A solicitor representing Jason’s client wouldn’t care to appear in court with documents drafted by an unqualified lay person, would he? He then offers the client a “Damages Based Fee Agreement, often called ‘no-win no-fee'”. Only a few hours earlier, Jason had said that DCBL would pay for the solicitors’ costs. We have a bit of a contradiction here, because at 8:35, DCBL would pay the client’s costs, presumably after being landed with a costs order against them, yet at 3:18pm, he proposes a damages based agreement, where the client would be paying the solicitor from the money he recovers in damages. Not quite the same thing, is it?
Jason goes as far as to say the client can bring a claim against the bank! Then, on the 4th of July, Jason really goes to town with a long least of breaches, most of them related to the address. Despite having instructed a solicitor to deal with the case, Jason is still publishing the details on the forum. Then it all goes quiet and we here nothing further from the client until seven months later, when a mysterious newbie joins BHF and starts posting on the thread.
The mysterious poster said the following, addressing the client rather than Jason:
How did that work out for you? I heard the judge was most displeased with your comparisons to the
“Germans invading Poland” and other exaggerated claims. It’s a shame you were led down a path that was
only ever going to lead to failure, embarrassment and further financial loss. This is what Jason does; he
gives people false hope and makes them believe they have a case, so he can earn money by referring
people to solicitors. He contacts Mr Brown every now and then trying to get a reaction and trying to
convince him there are a number of cases waiting to go to court, but these cases never materialise. Maybe
it would help if people reading this forum didn’t automatically believe what a complainant says and
understand that there are always two sides to a story. Especially when the complainant is accusing a
“professional, polite, calm and courteous” (the judge’s words) Enforcement Agent of trying to “record his
wife getting dressed” and naming him in the letter to the court, “a sex case peeping tom pervert”. How
could you ever believe this kind of comment would go down well with a judge???
He ends his posts with the following:
Maybe if you hadn’t have blatantly lied in your letter to the court when you state you “shouted at Mr Brown
to move his car off your driveway” and “he refused to show me his ID or the writ” and “he pushed past me
to gain entry” and pretty much everything else you say from then on, you wouldn’t have burdened yourself further with over £4,000 in court costs.
Says it all really!
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab
Leave a Reply
192 Comments on "The £4,000 costs order"
Well, seems like Peter is not the only critic to Jasons expertise.
Do we think Mark has a Vendetta, what is this going to do to Jasons Google ratings?
“Building site language” from Mark Bowley. You have to laugh.
He does like copying Peter, has anyone noticed?
PMSL!
“You completely let your emotions take over your mind.” Black pots and kettles come to mind! Whenever Mark started a rant, he kept going like the Duracell Bunny!
“Building site language”, he must be well acquainted with this lingo, being his first language. One of sand and two of cement anyone?
From: MARK BOWXXX [mailto:mark.bowxxx567@btinternet.com]
Sent: 11 October 2017 21:04
To: Westbrook
Subject: FAO David
Dear David
It is a matter of great regret that you have not afforded me the courtesy of a response to my texts, especially given the hours of work that I put in regarding your case, many of which went unpaid. It is my understanding that although you haven’t bothered phoning me, you still found time to return Jason’s call. That action alone sums your terrible judgement up perfectly. Please allow me to explain:
1. Jason has a very poor understanding of bailiff law and the law in general. Part of the reason that your ridiculous complaint against Gary Brown failed is because you believed in the crap that Jason had fed you.
2. Jason cannot draft legal documents any more than he can install air conditioning units. Any money that you paid to Jason after the initial £35 consultation fee was just like putting money through a paper shredder. Do you really think a qualified lawyer would want to use the drafts from a layman? Most of what Jason had determined about your situation was wrong in any case.
3 You completely let your emotions take over your mind. Instead of concentrating on getting your money back (which could have been achieved quite easily), you went off on some stupid crusade that you were never going to succeed in, trying to get Brown’s certificate removed and talking about private prosecutions. For your information, no bailiff has ever had his certificate removed by a judge in any complaint since the year dot. You were never going to win. Did you really think that you would succeed in yours by calling Brown a “peeping Tom pervert”? Do you not understand that judges aren’t receptive to this kind of “building site” language? You stood to win nothing by complaining, what was the point?
4. You then threw more money down the drain paying private investigators for doing absolutely nothing.
5. You chose to pay solicitors fees as you went along, you didn’t have to do it that way. You then complained about it half way through because money was needed to sort the mess out that you, yourself had created.
6. You were told by a solicitor what you needed to do in order to get your money back. You then decided that you knew best and went down a different road. The end result was the most obvious outcome in history. Do you seriously think that you know more about the law than solicitors do?
I really could cry over your stupidity in this, from start to finish.
What the hell have you done David? And then to top it all off, you insult me, the only person who was genuinely fighting your corner for you.
“Jason has a very poor understanding of bailiff law and the law in general. Part of the reason that your ridiculous complaint against Gary Brown failed is because you believed in the crap that Jason had fed you.”
Very true! The reason he ended up bankrupt was due to not being able to grasp the most basic legal principles, such as knowing WHO to sue in the first place! He then kept mixing up civil and criminal law, accusing Nominet of “aiding and abetting” “these people” who “commit criminal offences against me”. He couldn’t even draft proper particulars of claim, yet he charges money for drafting documents!
If I ever needed some legal document drafted, I’m sure my 8 year old would do a much better job than Bennison!
Oh dear!
Now where did I very recently read an article of denial from Mr Westbrrok ?
From: MARK BOWXXX [mailto:mark.bowxxx567@btinternet.com]
Sent: 11 October 2017 21:04
To: Westbrook
Subject: FAO David
Dear David
It is a matter of great regret that you have not afforded me the courtesy of a response to my texts, especially given the hours of work that I put in regarding your case, many of which went unpaid. It is my understanding that although you haven’t bothered phoning me, you still found time to return Jason’s call. That action alone sums your terrible judgement up perfectly. Please allow me to explain:
1. Jason has a very poor understanding of bailiff law and the law in general. Part of the reason that your ridiculous complaint against Gary Brown failed is because you believed in the crap that Jason had fed you.
2. Jason cannot draft legal documents any more than he can install air conditioning units. Any money that you paid to Jason after the initial £35 consultation fee was just like putting money through a paper shredder. Do you really think a qualified lawyer would want to use the drafts from a layman? Most of what Jason had determined about your situation was wrong in any case.
3 You completely let your emotions take over your mind. Instead of concentrating on getting your money back (which could have been achieved quite easily), you went off on some stupid crusade that you were never going to succeed in, trying to get Brown’s certificate removed and talking about private prosecutions. For your information, no bailiff has ever had his certificate removed by a judge in any complaint since the year dot. You were never going to win. Did you really think that you would succeed in yours by calling Brown a “peeping Tom pervert”? Do you not understand that judges aren’t receptive to this kind of “building site” language? You stood to win nothing by complaining, what was the point?
4. You then threw more money down the drain paying private investigators for doing absolutely nothing.
5. You chose to pay solicitors fees as you went along, you didn’t have to do it that way. You then complained about it half way through because money was needed to sort the mess out that you, yourself had created.
6. You were told by a solicitor what you needed to do in order to get your money back. You then decided that you knew best and went down a different road. The end result was the most obvious outcome in history. Do you seriously think that you know more about the law than solicitors do?
I really could cry over your stupidity in this, from start to finish.
What the hell have you done David? And then to top it all off, you insult me, the only person who was genuinely fighting your corner for you.
From: MARK BOWXXX [mailto:mark.bowxxx567@btinternet.com]
Sent: 11 October 2017 21:04
To: Westbrook
Subject: FAO David
Dear David
It is a matter of great regret that you have not afforded me the courtesy of a response to my texts, especially given the hours of work that I put in regarding your case, many of which went unpaid. It is my understanding that although you haven’t bothered phoning me, you still found time to return Jason’s call. That action alone sums your terrible judgement up perfectly. Please allow me to explain:
1. Jason has a very poor understanding of bailiff law and the law in general. Part of the reason that your ridiculous complaint against Gary Brown failed is because you believed in the crap that Jason had fed you.
2. Jason cannot draft legal documents any more than he can install air conditioning units. Any money that you paid to Jason after the initial £35 consultation fee was just like putting money through a paper shredder. Do you really think a qualified lawyer would want to use the drafts from a layman? Most of what Jason had determined about your situation was wrong in any case.
3 You completely let your emotions take over your mind. Instead of concentrating on getting your money back (which could have been achieved quite easily), you went off on some stupid crusade that you were never going to succeed in, trying to get Brown’s certificate removed and talking about private prosecutions. For your information, no bailiff has ever had his certificate removed by a judge in any complaint since the year dot. You were never going to win. Did you really think that you would succeed in yours by calling Brown a “peeping Tom pervert”? Do you not understand that judges aren’t receptive to this kind of “building site” language? You stood to win nothing by complaining, what was the point?
4. You then threw more money down the drain paying private investigators for doing absolutely nothing.
5. You chose to pay solicitors fees as you went along, you didn’t have to do it that way. You then complained about it half way through because money was needed to sort the mess out that you, yourself had created.
6. You were told by a solicitor what you needed to do in order to get your money back. You then decided that you knew best and went down a different road. The end result was the most obvious outcome in history. Do you seriously think that you know more about the law than solicitors do?
I really could cry over your stupidity in this, from start to finish.
What the hell have you done David? And then to top it all off, you insult me, the only person who was genuinely fighting your corner for you.