Discussion
Copied this from Pepipoo.
Well is this the Phoenix rising from the Ashes in relation to LBS Enforcement?
LBS director Matthew Boosey has applied to be a bailiff for First Contact Enforcement at Southend County Court.
People can object to the application if they wish, and the judge will look at these objections before a making a decision about whether to grant the application.
You can write to the court at:
Southend County Court, Tylers House
Tylers Avenue
Southend-on-Sea Essex
England
SS1 2AW
Court number 329
County Court number 329
You also have to list the address of the company Boosey is applying to be a bailiff for:
First Contact Enforcement UK Ltd, Totman House, 2 Totman Way, Brook Road Industrial Estate, Rayleigh, ESSEX SS6 7UZ
The deadline for objections is Tuesday (Feb 2) but the actual hearing is on February 21.
FIRST CONTACT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (www.fceuk.com or http://firstcontactrayleigh.co.uk) is based in the same locality as LBS operated! Its website states that it is a relatively new company with clients in both the private/commercial sector and Local Authorities. They deal with PARKING ENFORCEMENT, ENFORCEMENT OF WARRANTS, BREAKDOWN SERVICES, VEHICLE REPOSSESSION, EVICTIONS, CERTIFICATED BAILIFFS.
The bailiff side enforces ALL debt types, council tax, NNDR, RTA & Commercial Rent. It may well be a bonefide company; however with Matt Boosey (star of Rougue Traders) applying to be a bailiff for the company, one can only have real fears around how he will operate. Obviously as a director of LBS he'll know all about debt recovery!
The real question is "Who are the people behind FIRST CONTACT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED? It states that two 'experienced certificated bailiffs' started the company and goes on to state:
First Contact Enforcement UK Ltd was founded on the idea that the laws and regulations for bailiffs had to be followed without the interference of the bailiff company itself. This leaves the bailiff to do their job within the law in a respectful but forceful manner. I wonder what that actually means?
If you have experienced the way LBS operate and can provide evidence, get your objections into the court to prevent Boosey getting a new licence to operate and potentially cause many more people unnecessary distress & fear!
The actual application is for a 'certificate to levy distress for rent'. No doubt the SIA have some involvement around accreditation etc AND remember Collins & Lapeena have only had their SIA licences withdrawn in respect of vehicle imobilisation - so, could they become part of this?
If FIRST CHOICE ENFORCEMENT is a legitimate and fully professional company it will be in their interests to ensure they do not associate with him.
Well is this the Phoenix rising from the Ashes in relation to LBS Enforcement?
LBS director Matthew Boosey has applied to be a bailiff for First Contact Enforcement at Southend County Court.
People can object to the application if they wish, and the judge will look at these objections before a making a decision about whether to grant the application.
You can write to the court at:
Southend County Court, Tylers House
Tylers Avenue
Southend-on-Sea Essex
England
SS1 2AW
Court number 329
County Court number 329
You also have to list the address of the company Boosey is applying to be a bailiff for:
First Contact Enforcement UK Ltd, Totman House, 2 Totman Way, Brook Road Industrial Estate, Rayleigh, ESSEX SS6 7UZ
The deadline for objections is Tuesday (Feb 2) but the actual hearing is on February 21.
FIRST CONTACT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED (www.fceuk.com or http://firstcontactrayleigh.co.uk) is based in the same locality as LBS operated! Its website states that it is a relatively new company with clients in both the private/commercial sector and Local Authorities. They deal with PARKING ENFORCEMENT, ENFORCEMENT OF WARRANTS, BREAKDOWN SERVICES, VEHICLE REPOSSESSION, EVICTIONS, CERTIFICATED BAILIFFS.
The bailiff side enforces ALL debt types, council tax, NNDR, RTA & Commercial Rent. It may well be a bonefide company; however with Matt Boosey (star of Rougue Traders) applying to be a bailiff for the company, one can only have real fears around how he will operate. Obviously as a director of LBS he'll know all about debt recovery!
The real question is "Who are the people behind FIRST CONTACT ENFORCEMENT LIMITED? It states that two 'experienced certificated bailiffs' started the company and goes on to state:
First Contact Enforcement UK Ltd was founded on the idea that the laws and regulations for bailiffs had to be followed without the interference of the bailiff company itself. This leaves the bailiff to do their job within the law in a respectful but forceful manner. I wonder what that actually means?
If you have experienced the way LBS operate and can provide evidence, get your objections into the court to prevent Boosey getting a new licence to operate and potentially cause many more people unnecessary distress & fear!
The actual application is for a 'certificate to levy distress for rent'. No doubt the SIA have some involvement around accreditation etc AND remember Collins & Lapeena have only had their SIA licences withdrawn in respect of vehicle imobilisation - so, could they become part of this?
If FIRST CHOICE ENFORCEMENT is a legitimate and fully professional company it will be in their interests to ensure they do not associate with him.
Sorry to drag this back up, and apologies too for pointing to a story in the Mail, but I found this amusing.
Not least the quote that, "... the police are supposed to act on everybody's behalf. But unfortunately, it always seems to be for the clampers.". Well, it was Essex.
Streaky
Not least the quote that, "... the police are supposed to act on everybody's behalf. But unfortunately, it always seems to be for the clampers.". Well, it was Essex.
Streaky
Edited by streaky on Friday 11th February 17:17
streaky said:
Sorry to drag this back up, and apologies too for pointing to a story in the Mail, but I found this amusing.
Not least the quote that, "... the police are supposed to act on everybody's behalf. But unfortunately, it always seems to be for the clampers.". Well, is was Essex.
Streaky
I was thinking the same.Not least the quote that, "... the police are supposed to act on everybody's behalf. But unfortunately, it always seems to be for the clampers.". Well, is was Essex.
Streaky
streaky said:
Sorry to drag this back up, and apologies too for pointing to a story in the Mail, but I found this amusing.
Not least the quote that, "... the police are supposed to act on everybody's behalf. But unfortunately, it always seems to be for the clampers.". Well, is was Essex.
Streaky
cant see how that was a victory in ANY sense!!!Not least the quote that, "... the police are supposed to act on everybody's behalf. But unfortunately, it always seems to be for the clampers.". Well, is was Essex.
Streaky
bunch of cabbies wasting their own time and the clamper (quite rightly) gets paid????
Something of interest for the OP 
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/basildo...
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/basildo...
Edited by 911motorsport on Monday 16th May 18:42
I have on monday issued county court proceedings against a company who clamp for the dvla....they came onto my private land and clamped two untaxed vehicles. When I telephoned them they refused to remove the clamps without me paying the release fee....after several hours they agreed to unclamp the cars, this was thursday afternoon before the bank holiday...they turned up tuesday to unclamp. so 5 days with two vehicles clamped on my private land and forcourt.
I sent the clampers a bill in line with their own fees, including £21 per day storage fees, a total of £620. They didnt respond to my letter, hence the summons.
911motorsport said:
Indeed, barstewards.........
I continue to find these goings on in Essex quite bizarre.
Here is a bloke who in a very short time, and probably not in this order, had his SIA clamping licence suspended, gets a 13 week jail sentence suspended for 12 months due to an incident where it's accepted he is not a court bailiff though posing as one, is at an incident where a bloke is subsequently jailed for discharging a replica gun where it appears he still perhaps was a bailiff (unclear), gets convicted of kicking a clamped "client" in the wedding vegetables and upon sentencing gets handed a 12 month conditional discharge from the court (FFS!!!) and then appeals that conviction last week.
How in hell did he expect that appeal to succeed? He and his brief should have got 3 months each just for wasting the court's time.
Here is a bloke who in a very short time, and probably not in this order, had his SIA clamping licence suspended, gets a 13 week jail sentence suspended for 12 months due to an incident where it's accepted he is not a court bailiff though posing as one, is at an incident where a bloke is subsequently jailed for discharging a replica gun where it appears he still perhaps was a bailiff (unclear), gets convicted of kicking a clamped "client" in the wedding vegetables and upon sentencing gets handed a 12 month conditional discharge from the court (FFS!!!) and then appeals that conviction last week.
How in hell did he expect that appeal to succeed? He and his brief should have got 3 months each just for wasting the court's time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff