ty virgin i am happy now. and relax…

Hi Paul,

Thank you very much for the reply back to me.

You can use the information as official information from us regarding your complaint.

Your account balance today is £22.64 and once this payment is made your service will be returned to back to normal. Your next bill is due to be produced on the 8/03/2013 which means if a payment of £22.64 isn’t paid before that date a further balance for March will be added on top. I’ve added a note to your account records today stating this resolution for the troubles that you’ve been though.

I hope this helps and if you need anymore support, feel free to give me a shout.

Kind Regards

–Original Message–
From: eek
Date: 18/02/2013 12:07:42
Subject: RE:  No Subject[#277450]

Hi Kyle.

I really appreciate your work on this, as I have had only incoming calls since December.
If you would be kind enough to confirm this in writing, and ensure that your accounts dept are aware of this, upon receipt of this I will be happy to pay £22.64 and look forward to the service being reinstated.
As I understand it, the contract expires next month. I will only be able to continue at the current rate, or any slight increases, on a monthly basis from then. And sadly I would need to inform your accounts that any further “late” charges will leave me with no option but to immediately cancel, with payment of outstanding use pro rata. Could you inform them, or I am happy to do so.

I would like to offer a nominal payment for the  of the phone since Dec, as I have received several incoming calls.
Again many thanks for your efforts here, and I look forward to your confirmation.

Paul Barnard

Sent from my Xperia™ smartphone

socialteam@virginmedia.co.uk wrote:

>Hi Paul,
>How are you?
>I’ve applied the credit today so that your service can be returned. This means your bill this month has now changed from £76.99 to £22.64 this month. I’ve added an extra credit of £54.35 for the troubles that you’ve been through. If you do need anymore support going forward, feel free to give me a shout anytime you wish.
>Kind Regards

Best Bailiff Info Ever

A debtor can remove right of implied access by displaying a notice at the entrance. This was endorsed by Lord Justice Donaldson in the case of Lambert v Roberts [1981] 72 Cr App R 223 – and placing such a notice is akin to a closed door but it also prevents a bailiff entering the garden or driveway, Knox v Anderton [1983] Crim LR 115 or R. v Leroy Roberts [2003] EWCA Crim 2753


Debtors can also remove implied right of access to property by telling him to leave: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434 similarly, McArdle v Wallace [1964] 108 Sol Jo 483


A person having been told to leave is now under a duty to withdraw from the property with all due reasonable speed and failure to do so he is not thereafter acting in the execution of his duty and becomes a trespasser with any subsequent levy made being invalid and attracts a liability under a claim for damages, Morris v Beardmore [1980] 71 Cr App 256.


Bailiffs cannot force their way into a private dwelling, Grove v Eastern Gas [1952] 1 KB 77


Otherwise a door left open is an implied license for a bailiff to enter, Faulkner v Willetts [1982] Crim LR 453 likewise a person standing back to allow the bailiff to walk through but the bailiff must not abuse this license by entering by improper means or by unusual routes, Ancaster v Milling [1823] 2 D&R 714 or Rogers v Spence [1846] M&W 571


Ringing a doorbell is not causing a disturbance, Grant v Moser [1843] 5 M&G 123 or R. v Bright 4 C&P 387 nor is refusing to leave a property causes a disturbance, Green v Bartram [1830] 4 C&P 308 or Jordan v Gibbon [1863] 8 LT 391


Permission for a bailiff to enter may be refused provided the words used are not capable of being mistaken for swear words, Bailey v Wilson [1968] Crim LR 618.


If the entry is peaceful but without permission then a request to leave should always be made first. Tullay v Reed [1823] 1 C&P 6 or an employee or other person can also request the bailiff to leave, Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33


Excessive force must be avoided, Gregory v Hall [1799] 8 TR 299 or Oakes v Wood [1837] 2 M&W 791


A debtor can use an equal amount of force to resist a bailiff from gaining entry, Weaver v Bush [1795] 8TR, Simpson v Morris [1813] 4 Taunt 821, Polkinhorne v Wright [1845] 8QB 197. Another occupier of the premises or an employee may also take these steps: Hall v Davis [1825] 2 C&P 33.


Also wrongful would be an attempt at forcible entry despite resistance, Ingle v Bell [1836] 1 M&W 516


Bailiffs cannot apply force to a door to gain entry, and if he does so he is not in the execution of his duty, Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781


A Bailiff may not encourage a third party to allow the bailiff access to a property (ie workmen inside a house), access by this means renders the entry unlawful, Nash v Lucas [1867] 2 QB 590


The debtor’s home and all buildings within the boundary of the premises are protected against forced entry, Munroe & Munroe v Woodspring District Council [1979] Weston-Super-Mare County Court


Contrast: A bailiff may climb over a wall or a fence or walk across a garden or yard provided that no damage occurs, Long v Clarke & another [1894] 1 QB 119


It is not contempt to assault a bailiff trying to climb over a locked gate after being refused entry, Lewis v Owen [1893] The Times November 6 p.36b (QBD)


If a bailiff enters by force he is there unlawfully and you can treat him as a trespasser. Curlewis v Laurie [1848] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557


A debtor cannot be sued if a person enters a property uninvited and injures himself because he had no legal right to enter, Great Central Railway Co v Bates [1921] 3 KB 578


If a bailiff jams his boot into a debtors door to stop him closing, any levy that is subsequently made is not valid: Rai & Rai v Birmingham City Council [1993] or Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557 or Broughton v Wilkerson [1880] 44 JP 781


If a bailiff refuses to leave the property after being requested to do so or starts trying to force entry then he is causing a disturbance, Howell v Jackson [1834] 6 C&P 723 – but it is unreasonable for a police officer to arrest the bailiff unless he makes a threat, Bibby v Constable of Essex [2000] Court of Appeal April 2000.


Vaughan v McKenzie [1969] 1 QB 557 if the debtor strikes the bailiff over the head with a full milk bottle after making a forced entry, the debtor is not guilty of assault because the bailiff was there illegally, likewise R. v Tucker at Hove Trial Centre Crown Court, December 2012 if the debtor gives the bailiff a good slap.


If a person strikes a trespasser who has refused to leave is not guilty of an offence: Davis v Lisle [1936] 2 KB 434


License to enter must be refused BEFORE the process of levy starts, Kay v Hibbert [1977] Crim LR 226 or Matthews v Dwan [1949] NZLR 1037


A bailiff rendered a trespasser is liable for penalties in tort and the entry may be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights if entry is not made in accordance with the law, Jokinen v Finland [2009] 37233/07

the void

boycott-workfare-weekToday’s damning report from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reveals the shocking revelation that Iain Duncan Smith’s flagship Work Programme is performing significantly worse than if the DWP had done nothing at all.

According to the PAC, just 3.6% of claimants have found long term jobs on the Work Programme.  The DWP had estimated that 9.2% of mainstream unemployed claimants would have been expected to find work had the programme not been launched.

This appalling statistic reveals three things.  The first, which to anyone but a fucking idiot like Iain Duncan Smith is self evident, is that there are no jobs.  Unemployment is not caused by unemployed people as lying DWP ministers have repeatedly attempted to claim.  1,700 so called skivers recently applied for just eight jobs – of which only three were full time and some paid minimum wage – at Costa Coffee in Nottingham.

The second reason for…

View original post 566 more words

Vox Political

NHSRIPBlame it on the norovirus that’s clawing it’s way through my body if you like, but I think I’m getting cold sweats at the thought of the imminent demise of whatever’s left of the English NHS.

By stealth, of course. What can we expect from the most underhanded, base and dissembling government in living memory?

Oh, I suppose you all thought it was safe because Andrew Lansley gave his assurance that creeping privatisation would only proceed where it was in the public interest.

A Tory’s idea of public interest doesn’t coincide with the dictionary definition, you know. They’re nicknamed ‘self-servatives’ for a reason.

That’s why, last Wednesday, when you and I were discussing Workfare or the new regulations for social security benefits (which are themselves almost as scandalous as the Coalition government’s treatment of the NHS), the Department of Health quietly released regulations that open England’s health…

View original post 681 more words