VicS
Well-Known Member
ITYWF that the Bailiffs will request police presence if they anticipate trouble but in this case I think somewhere, in her link in #18 ??? , the "lady" concerned claims to have called them herself.
Last edited:
Gallions point marina repossessed
- Thread starter Outinthedinghy
- Start date
ITYWF that the Bailiffs will request police presence if they anticipate trouble but in this case I think somewhere, in her link in #18 ??? , the "lady" concerned claims to have called them herself.
Leigh@Gallions
New Member
Again, none of the trolls on this thread have any idea what they are talking about as naturally, they do not have access to all the information. Please read the following article which sums up the basic facts: https://freedomnews.org.uk/piracy-by-the-mayor-of-london/ The unlawful eviction executed using a defective writ (a total of 8 errors were made) was without any notice whatsoever. I'm wondering how the nasty little keyboard warriors on here (who are rubbing their hands together with glee at the unfortunate situation myself and my family find ourselves in) would react given a shock of that magnitude? I am tired of idiots assuming we were evicted because we owed money. We have NEVER missed or been late with a rent payment in 27years. In fact, rent payments have continued to be debited from our business bank account since this unlawful eviction. The Bailiff assured me my office would be locked up and secured, but in fact, RoDMA were in there that night and asking our customers if any of them knew the passwords for our computers. There is much more going on here than ANY of us realise.
Leigh@Gallions
New Member
SavageSeaDog: You are spot on. Police are only supposed to prevent a breach of the peace, not assist with an eviction. Who stole our business? The Mayor of London. Who controls the Police? You get the picture....!
savageseadog
Well-Known Member
High Court Enforcement is carried out without notice. There is a difference between Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Agents who act for and hired by High Court Enforcement Officers who are appointed by the High Court. There are cases of improper enforcement. Generally, for non payment of Commercial rent a Landlord can take possession using High Court procedure. Other than that there should have been a notice to quit served. The problem is that these legal matters can run away unless the defendant actively defends. There can be trickery with these things. Just because there's Solicitors, the High Court involved doesn't mean there's not skulduggery.
As indicated above. The Law commands the Police to assist High Court Officers or agents if requested to do so. It's all a bit strange as it's a Civil matter, we have Bliar to thank for a very badly flawed piece of legislation which has already undergone extensive re-writing. Historically at least some Solicitors applied to be High Court Officers and grossly overcharged their victims.
Last edited:
KINGFISHER 9
Well-Known Member
Boris Johnson signed off, the day before he quit office, on a huge project that some big building conglomerate had been trying to get planning permission on for years. Turned out to be run by an old mate of his. (source Private Eye).
You're up against big business and big backhanders I'm afraid. A very sorry tale and I've no idea what can be done but good luck to you for trying. Any chance of getting the concession for the new marina when it gets built? That'll be another big backhanders story probably. Don't look to the caring mayor for help!
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
They will turn up if there is a risk of public disorder. Which there clearly was.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
If only there was some sort of body paid to evaluate claims and counterclaims and come to decisions about them, eh?
But you haven't had a lease for eight years and have paid month by month on an informal basis, right?
Leigh@Gallions
New Member
Making us equitable sitting tenants.
PuffTheMagicDragon
Well-Known Member
I am not familiar with your legal system but doesn't the mere act of accepting the money that is due imply recognition of a tenant?
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
:encouragement:
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Indeed, but it also suggests that the situation is seen as temporary.
Leigh@Gallions
New Member
27 years. Temporary? Do give over. Right, not wasting my time on this thread for the time being as have other more important things to concentrate on.
john_morris_uk
Well-Known Member
As I understand it, security of tenancy that applies to businesses has some definite exemptions.
I'm confused as to why the family think that paying the rent guarantees them security. Non payment is certainly a reason for eviction but there are plenty of good reasons why a commercial tenant cannot claim security of tenure. What was the reason given for eviction in the (allegedly faulty) high court writ? There's a deafening silence on this matter.
Of course if some huge injustice has been done, then presumably the answer is to get a judicial review in the High Court. This is not cheap, but if the case was cut and dried one might get a lawyer to take it on pro bono (unlikely) or one could try crowd funding.
IMHO appealing to 'insights' and 'truths' published on an anarchist website gains little credibility with most people.
I'm confused as to why the family think that paying the rent guarantees them security. Non payment is certainly a reason for eviction but there are plenty of good reasons why a commercial tenant cannot claim security of tenure. What was the reason given for eviction in the (allegedly faulty) high court writ? There's a deafening silence on this matter.
Of course if some huge injustice has been done, then presumably the answer is to get a judicial review in the High Court. This is not cheap, but if the case was cut and dried one might get a lawyer to take it on pro bono (unlikely) or one could try crowd funding.
IMHO appealing to 'insights' and 'truths' published on an anarchist website gains little credibility with most people.
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
A good summary and I can't say I'd be happy to entrust the care of a valuable asset (ie a boat) to an commercial entity that doesn't have the basic business knowledge to grasp that.
dom
Well-Known Member
Last para is just ad hominem, but what is this linkage you imply between pro bono advice and cut and dried cases?
High-stakes commercial claims can be both expensive and uncertain, which can in turn hold back businesses of all sizes from pursuing even meritable and winnable claims. In practice, the higher end of the risk spectrum is most interesting to litigation finance investors.
savageseadog
Well-Known Member
The costs could run into hundreds of thousands
Scotsailor
N/A
My sympathies are completely with the marina on this one. I’m surprised and disappointed by the inhumanity shown by some of the posters to this thread.
lw395
Well-Known Member
While it's a terrible thing to happen, I have known similar happen to other businesses. Some business lease arrangements have security of tenure. Some do not. I once got quite close to buying a certain business, but could not reach agreement on a secure lease. If you want to get premises with a secure, renewable lease, you often have to pay a big slice of the freehold value. Some landlords let property 'outside the act', where you can get a cheap deal but you may be given notice and have to relocate. It's pretty common where the land is up for redevelopment.
That's cse-level commercial property lesson one.
Obviously I don't know the full facts of the arrangement here.
Blue Sunray
Well-Known Member
Oh dear, what a pity, never mind. You are, of course, in possession of the facts of the case and are aware that the marina was business, not some sort of charity?
Last edited:
chrishscorp
Well-Known Member
:encouragement:
