Back in the 70s, I had shipped a stereo home to NY from Virginia via Greyhound (bus companies back then would carry parcels for a fee). During the journey, the stereo went missing and I filed a claim for it. When I took out the insurance policy on the shipment I had put the replacement cost as the value, not what I paid for it, because I had purchased it in a military exchange overseas at a considerable discount, but was now being discharged and would not have military exchange access. Greyhound refused to pay me that, saying they would only pay what I had paid for it. I then took the fight to small claims court. No one from Greyhound showed up, despite being properly notified, so I won by default. The court gave them 30 days to pay me. When day 31 rolled around without payment, a friend of mine who happened to be an NYC sheriff, said, "C'mon, let's go collect your money" and off we went to the Port Authority Bus Terminal. We went upstairs to the Greyhound gates and, when the next Greyhound bus came in (I seem to remember it was on the way to Boston) he went out, showed the driver his ID, explained the bus was being seized to satisfy a judgment and ordered all the passengers and their effects off the bus. Pandamonium then ensued involving Port Authority police (who washed their hands of it when shown the judgment and my friend's ID), several passengers, and a bunch of Greyhound employees vs us two. When things calmed a bit and we could be heard again my friend then announced that the bus would be auctioned in 15 minutes to satisfy the judgment which was a bluff, he couldn't really do it that quickly and without notice in a newspaper, but the Greyhound manager-on-duty didn't know that and had a check for the judgment, court costs, and sheriff fees in my hands in 14 minutes. I then refused to accept it unless they also immediately cashed it, which they did. My friend and I then went to lunch and had a couple of really excellent steaks down the street.
Simply fascinating how there are some actual great stories of officers helping people and doing the right thing. Too bad days like that are long gone or far and few in between. It’s great to have wonderful friends. I certainly hope he rests in peace.
lets hope that is true .. I been fighting county fraud for years and now i'm not paying no more.. I'm gonna force this in court. No legal team because no money.. So lets hope that they lose and end up in jail .. otherwise I'm gonna be one of the stories that Steve reads one day ..
I retired from a very large package delivery company. A part time employee sued the company for a civil rights violation. The company didn't bother to show up for whatever reason, and the employee won the case. I'm assuming they didn't pay the judgement in a timely matter, because when I came into the building after my day's work, a sheriff told me and everyone else to park my tractor to the side and exit quickly. There must have been 50 wreckers waiting, hauling off tractor trailers, delivery vehicles, anything with wheels. This is a 24/7 operation, and management then had to go out and rent equipment to keep the operation going, at great expense. It didn't take very long for the company to cut a big fat check to cover the judgement, as well as all the wrecker fees to get their stuff back. I was always curious to find out who dropped the ball, and what consequence befell them. Management was tight lipped and never discussed it publicly.
There's a program in the UK following the sheriffs executing court judgements. These are mainly businesses. I remember one case they turned up at a restaurant that had failed to make the final payment for the cooker. Think it was like £500 they owed. By time the sheriffs turned up it was £3k they owed. Told all customers to leave the restaurant and the sheriffs started removing all tables and chairs. Only when they'd emptied the place and loaded a van did the owner decide to pay the amount that was now £5200! Don't understand it!
In the UK if she had gone to court in the first instance and proved that she did not owe the money she could have claimed all reasonable costs from the claimant of the bogus debt, then she could have foreclosed on their house/castle.Steve you are entirely right "Don't ignore a court summons, it will cost you dear if you do, but nothing if you don't and win your case"
Absolutely spot on Malcolm. I remember years ago a UK water company claimed I owed them £200 but couldn't tell me what for. Anyway it ended up in court with their big hitting lawyers. The judge asked me if I owed the money and I said no as they've failed to provide any evidence I do. Their lawyer presented a letter as evidence saying I owed the £200. The judge wasn't impressed, threw it out of court, complained about wasting his time and awarded me costs.
Which is why you have a choice of doing two things. You pay the couple of hundred, which is what most people will do or you turn up at court and represent yourself.
It may not be the height of stupidity, but it is the depth of the worst well of logic I have seen, and I used to work in the deep well oil fields of Texas
Elias you are so right. My father was a lawyer in the UK and always said never throw good money chasing bad money. It sounds like she went through the whole UK court system to try and prove she didn't owe the money. Ending up with huge legal costs. She should have taken the hit at some point. It also sounds like she tried to pass the property off to her brother to avoid eviction! Courts are very wise to such acts.
I got this info off another Blog don't know if it's correct but it does make sense. "Just to clarify, the £230 bill wasn't for a bridalwear rental. She owned a bridalwear shop and failed to pay a bill to the factor of the building in 1997. The courts ordered her to pay the bill plus interest and legal fees, amounting to ~£1600, in 1998. She kept failing to pay after that and the courts sequestrated her property in 2001 to force her to pay, but also fined her another £30,000. Sequestration means a court-appointed trustee is put in charge of her estate, and she has claimed that the trustee has threatened and harassed her family and kept using civil laws to prolong things. The eviction in 2010 happened after she sold the castle to her brother, despite not legally being allowed to because of the sequestration." Silly arogant woman in my view.
Silly and arrogant she may be, that doesn't mean it's okay to take away her house over such a small amount of money. £1.5m for £30,000 and change isn't exactly "proportional".
@@tissuepaper9962 We don't do that in the UK . She wen't through years of self inflicted harm. The escalation was entirly her own doing she showed contempt for a fair legal process. Then she commited a crime by selling her house. She gets to keep every thing that is not legally due. If she don't have the bulk of the value of the house (it ain't a castle) then other stupidity of her and her brother will be to blame.
@@tissuepaper9962 I 'm not sure what you mean. I do suggest you pay your rent though. Especially if it has been proven in court that you owe the money. Stealing from others isn't very niece. It's always "forgive, forgive, forgive", until the money comes from your wallet.
(Paraphrasing) Steve: "You have to answers that court summons, even if it's bogus, or else bad things will happen!" Heather: "The less you respond to negative people, the more positive your life will become. " 😅
The original 230 was a "factor fee" related a bankrupt business. It looks like things had already blown up by the time there was effective notice due to the fee, AFAICT, coming in post bankruptcy and not actually reaching the woman. Not seeing any documentation on why that stood and breached the bankruptcy, but the castle was already put into trust as of 2000
the funny thing is, if she had been a uk citizen,, they would NEVER take it from her.. there are castles in uk, 1000 years old, that have 1000s in back taxes for a 1000 years.. and even tho the family has been evicted over time and left empty,, ..their heirs can buy it back for the original taxes, 1000 years later
I very much doubt that. You would struggle to find any family in the UK that has owned anything continuously for a thousand years let alone any taxes that have existed for that long. And I highly doubt any taxes owed from such a long time ago would have any legal relevance today. The UK may be old but we hardly have to deal with legal issues from a millennium ago.
I don't know about the inflation in UK, but 200$ from from that era is more than. 960$ today. And that is how the system fail people. She should have pay even if it's not her duty. The point is the corporation can go over an appellate process and then you aren't going to recover your attorney fees in some estates even If you win.
I never get people like this. UK court papers are very clear when served. You have 21 days to file a defence. If not then a court hearing date will be set. As Steve says you need to show up. No show and a default judgement will be entered against you. I recently had to sue a computer retailer. My computer broke under warranty and I asked for a repair. They refused all the way to court but then were a no show in court. The Judge just confirmed the amount I was claiming and my costs. Judgement in my favour in 5 minutes!
I don't know a lot about castles, but come on. Isn't the whole point of a castle to have some defenses against hostile raiders? Can't she pour boiling oil on the sheriff's head when he comes to the door, or something?
Knockderry Castle is considered a "fairy tale castle" because of it's Scottish baronial architecture. Located in Cove, Argyll, it sits on a promontory about 100 yards from the western shore of Scotland. Nice.
never understood people who would risk losing their property over a small amount of money. to me it's akin to taking your siblings to court over your parents estate just because you don't want your siblings to have something. mean while the bulk of the estate goes to lawyer fees and court costs. the family doesn't get anything. totally mind boggling in what people will do, "just because."
That is why they make laws that are maybe not constitutional in localities knowing people will just pay it rather than spend thousands to take it up through the appeals process.
Many years ago I had a joint savings account with my then-husband. The bulk of that money was mine, including a legacy from my grandmother. When I filed for divorce, he withdrew half the money. I contemplated suing him to get it back (I had evidence showing where most of it came from) but the brutal truth was that even if I won the suit, the lawyer fees and court costs would have eaten up the entire amount. Moral of the story: If your marriage is crumbling around you, DO NOT PUT YOUR INHERITANCE IN A JOINT ACCOUNT.
@draco I wonder the same thing about people who carry around a lot of cash, "just because." Even if nobody had ever heard of Civil Asset Forfeiture, I call it dumb. You could have a crash and the money burns up, or you're injured and while being taken to the hospital someone grabs the money... It really makes no difference how the money disappears. It's GONE.
Steve here is a question: can you say in court "I thought this was a scam because this looked like a poorly constructed phishing letter and I didn't want to get scammed"
Nope, as a court summons has contact details on it for the court and thingd including reference numbers, which you can independently verify by ringing the court (google the number to be safe), going to the court and asking at the front desk (they can check the reference number to get its details), and even in some cases going to the court website, entering specific details and you'll find the case. It's like saying your gas bill is a scam, because you don't like the amount on it. There are multiple ways to verify it is legitimate, claiming a scam without trying to verify it doesn't work.
This was not a foreclosure. Foreclosure while theoretically possible In practice is obsolete in the UK as the court will order possession and sale instead.
One other quick note; you said that "the sheriffs over there are pretty much the same as the sheriffs over here". That is literally the opposite of true. In Scotland, the word sheriff means one single thing, which is what we would call a district or circuit court judge. That is all. Those courts in Scotland are called sheriff courts, and the judges are called sheriffs. They are thus solely judicial officers and are in no respect what we would commonly call law enforcement officers. Certainly there was no plurality of them knocking down a door, since they are constitutionally barred from executing the laws. In England and Wales, there are high sheriffs who are nominally part of the executive, but since they're appointed by the crown, they have had no law enforcement powers since the reforms of 1974. They theoretically have a reserve power of protection of judges, however they could only exercise this in the most dire emergency and only under direct instruction from the Queen in person. Moreover they would have no staff available for this purpose, since the official power of judicial protection is in the hands of district police, over whom the high sheriffs have no authority whatsoever. In theory, in an emergency and when so authorized by the Queen, they could raise a posse comitatus to assist them in that task. However, since the high sheriffs are not under democratic civilian control, this would be extremely controversial and would likely result in legal challenges and a statutory ban on the practice. So for all practical purposes, they are today purely ceremonial offices that are handed out as social currency within the aristocracy. The positions are also unpaid and carry only a one year term with a term limit of two terms in every three years. So is that a law enforcement officer? De jure, almost entirely no, de facto entirely 100% no, and in no way are they authorized under modern law to perform evictions or seize assets in satisfaction of any judgement.
This summonsing to the court, I think they should be compensated by default, if the claim is fake. Meaning, that if the City/County makes a claim like this and it loses the case, then by default the defendant receives compensation, I think it's a no brainer! I mean it is or it isn't!
The sheriffs over here in the UK,have more powers than the police, they can literally go anywhere, as they are under high court instruction (highest court in the land), where as baliffs are normally instructed by lower courts, if you are seeking a quick(er) resoulution to someone owing you money you can opt to transfer your case from county court to a higher enabling you to avail yourself of the sheriffs service ,they are bad ass no nnonsense takers, "if you have a debt owed to you who you gonna call ?? the sheriffs", oh btw thank you for your dollar to Pounds correction Steve :) :)
People should realize it's better to show up and defend yourself, because even if you lose, it will be FAR cheaper than getting a default judgement against you usually will...
@@peachesrambo4037 Yeah, but that actually applies both ways... If default judgements weren't available, someone could steal something and when you sue to get it back, they could just not show up... Without default judgements, there is no practical way to ensure that both parties to a lawsuit participate in it, and the entirety of civil law no longer means anything...
I'm not sure the issue is she didn't respond at all, it says "didn't show up in person" in the article... that wording of "in person" seems very specific here. Pretty sure there is a lot more going on here than a default judgement.
i don't think even the small claims court here in wichita would bother with a case like this, back in the mid 90s a thousand bucks of value was the minimum. this would have either been turned over to arbitration if insurance were involved or ignored by the court as insignificant.
For something that's small they should have just paid it and then filed legal motions to get it back if they really really wanted to make a point or something
@ Lehto’s law, I have been trying to keep a sharp eye out for these laws. I am concerned that it is an attempt at civil asset forfeiture in a different manner. Same type of carnival games where a homeowner and/or tax payer may lose.This is a great example of why, I advocate for my Vietnam Veteran husband. As his wife, I am not on his home/mortgage. Yet he has remembered me in his will. Advocation can be heartbreaking when the court system is so adversarial. Thank you 🤔❤🇺🇸
This isn't even close to civil asset forfeiture, no such law exists in the UK, closest the UK has is criminal seizure laws, which require a conviction or the item itself to be illegal. In this case she transferred the ownership for free/well below market value, and then was declared bankrupt. Her transferring it made it a gift, gifts of significant value are taxable for 7 years, and can be reclaimed to the estate of the gift giver if there is a court ordered debt. Also transferring it was an attempt to hide assets, which is actually illegal in the UK, she is lucky to not have been charged for that. Now the castle may be sold for £1.5million, she will be given the entire sum minus what is owed. Bailiffs have a legal duty to get the best possible value for anything they sell, they can't just sell it for the value of the debt, they are legally required to get close to or above market value. Also a bailiff is not a sheriff/police officer, but a court officer who seized it. Infact sheriff's are not police officers in the UK, it's a separate legal title with specific duties and responsibilities. Steve used that term because in the US they are police officers, in the UK they have not been directly linked to law enforcement in a very long time. Police officers will have been involved in the eviction and removal of the occupants at the request of the bailiffs who will have had a court order.
it sounds like a legal hole to be honest, if that is the case any person can accuse another of anything repeatedly without consequences until they force them to give them money.
Steve Had in Alaska they seized peoples property over a debt that they didn't owe after property SOLD ...OOPS we made a mistake you didn't owe that money so what happens next? their property is GONE.
Steve, you missed the real story here. The sheriffs were able to knock down the door of a castle! Wasn't it created to stop attacks from governments and armies?
The Sheriffs here aren't LEOs but officers of the courts to collect debts mainly, they have no powers of arrest etc. They are all sheriffs and not deputies. If a property is repossessed they do get the excess after their debts are paid. This was a fine from court, if you’re found guilty you owe the money it’s not like an outstanding bill or some other debt owed. She went through the appeal process but the SC didn’t see a point of law that needed clarifying. If a County Court Judgement (the usual financial case) goes against you for a normal, non mortgage debt, they can’t come after your house unless you’ve secured a loan against your house. If you have a legal case pending against you you can't transfer property as you’ll still be the notional owner. People starting with dementia try it all the time and fail.
I had a very similar situation, I had a verizon bill for $80 which was for a phone I never had. I refused to pay, they eventually hit my credit really hard and I was in the process of buying a house, it ended up costing me about $2,000 annually for the life of my loan because of the worse interest rate I got because of the worse credit. I quickly paid the 80$ and learned a valuable lesson
Was the lesson you learned to: a) fold to the demands of a soulless corporation? or b) resolve the issue in a timely manner, even if it requires defending yourself in court?
Hey Mr. Lehto, In 2019 my daughter went to a day care here in Dallas County Texas that the parent would drop off thier child at daycare, where they drove them to school and then returned in the afternoon to pick them up and bring them back to the day care, until the parent picked them up from daycare. On Oct 9th 2019 they failed To do so in spectacular fashion. In this instance they took the kids to school, then to gas station to filled up the van, drove it back to the daycare and parked it until that afternoon As they were preparing for the pickup run and they discovered my daughter in the back seat crying in a puddle of urine.... As it turns out she had fallen asleep on the ride to school and the other children left without waking her up, the teacher didnt notice her in there And did not verify the bus was empty at any point, put gas in the Van, nobody went in it again until that afternoon when they were going to pick up the kids. ( Even though they are required to verify that the bus is empty by turning off an alarm Is made to prevent this And also signed a form stating that she did in fact check the Bus. Both the driver and one of the daycare teacher both signed the "EMPTY BUS FORM" My wife and I were only informed as parents when GROUP email/text message went out, to all the parents of the daycare, stating That there had been an incident. Immediately following the text message we were called by the daycare's office And we're asked to come in without telling us what had happened. When we got there our daughter had already been cleaned up and put in fresh clothes and made the look as comfortable as possible. After talking to children's services and eventually the police after children's services called them we went home to months of separation anxiety, nightmares, fears of EVERYTHING. About 5 months later there was a separate instance involving one of her daycare teachers asking my daughter where we lived because she thought my daughters friends dads was attractive and we lived a few doors down from them.... Don't get me wrong she didn't just like say Hey what town do you live in?, she pulled out her cell cell phone, opened up Google maps, and had her show her on the streetview where our house was and how to walk down to his house.. So anyway I obviously was not happy about any of this and wanted action taken in the midst of talking about it I had mentioned look 'I'm the one who's kids who locked in a car and I didn't even Sue you'.. To which they replied "you're no longer allowed here, please leave the property" yes that's right they kicked us out and didn't even refund the rest of that month's tuition.... I gotta have a case right or has to much time gone by?
@@roxcyn cps fined the crap out if them. When I was talking to cps it seemed like they were trying to contain themselves and keep from upsetting me and setting me off because of how serious it was
But I did call a lawyer at the time and the lawyer's response was "well, What damages have you incurred?" What I said was none because I dont have any money to pay for an attorney Or a child psychiatrist... And he said that's how much they owe you
A classic case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Presumably the original fine was well within her means. As for the 'transfer of ownership,' that's a really bad idea over here, instead of one person to prosecute, the government now see two, especially if the house was handed over for nothing.
@@tissuepaper9962 Her business got a £230 bill that she refused to pay, she fought it in court for 3 years and racked up £30k in legal fees, then she lost anyway. When it came to settle the debt she was suddenly bankrupt, no cash, no business, her £500k (in Y2K money) castle suddenly being the property of her brother, which she just gave to him for nothing out of the goodness of her heart. Fast forward 22 years and she has appealed, ignored and stonewalled the case at every turn and lost anyway. Moving money and assets into family member's names won't give you any protection in the UK courts, they're wise to tricks like that. . This all started over her refusing to pay a small bill to a contractor. Between the costs racked up, the assets involved and the transfers of ownership it stinks of "I'm rich and there's nothing you can do about it,". Once the castle is sold and the debts are paid, she'll probably still be a millionaire with the leftovers from the sale. More importantly somebody somewhere is finally going to get their £230 invoice paid, with interest. . Like I said, play stupid game, win stupid prizes. A normal person would have put the £230 on their credit card and complained about it for six months, then got on with their life.
@@fix0the0spade every time you give the government tools to take assets away from filthy rich people, they inevitably get used against progressively poorer and poorer people as there comes a need for more and more money. Your desire to punish this one person for their arrogance opens the door for abuse. Again, they couldn't take a car and "be done with it in 6 months"? The complete lack of proportionality is ridiculous. You act like trying to avoid the seizure of your assets is somehow proof of guilt.
@@tissuepaper9962 No, the repeated losses in court over 25 years is proof of guilt. Bare in mind that her initial defence was that she didn't owe any money, somebody else must owe that money. When the court turns around and says 'the evidence shows you owe the money, pay the damn bill,' she should have just paid the damn bill. If I were guessing I'd say they took the castle because she signed everything else she owned (cars, cash, businesses etc) to other people as well and property is the most traceable thing. Or, after she's fought against a £230 bil for a full quarter of a century, the legal fees and interest might be so huge that only the castle could possibly cover the costs.
Knockderry Castle is widely regarded as one of the finest examples of Victorian mansion architecture in Scotland. Belgian businesswoman Marian van Overwaele was evicted from the property. £230 in 1997 is equivalent in purchasing power to about £446.03 today (2022), an increase of £216.03 over 25 years. The pound had an average inflation rate of 2.68% per year between 1997 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 93.93%.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.15 (3/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IVwR87OH0_A/mqdefault.jpg)
Back in the 70s, I had shipped a stereo home to NY from Virginia via Greyhound (bus companies back then would carry parcels for a fee). During the journey, the stereo went missing and I filed a claim for it. When I took out the insurance policy on the shipment I had put the replacement cost as the value, not what I paid for it, because I had purchased it in a military exchange overseas at a considerable discount, but was now being discharged and would not have military exchange access. Greyhound refused to pay me that, saying they would only pay what I had paid for it. I then took the fight to small claims court. No one from Greyhound showed up, despite being properly notified, so I won by default. The court gave them 30 days to pay me. When day 31 rolled around without payment, a friend of mine who happened to be an NYC sheriff, said, "C'mon, let's go collect your money" and off we went to the Port Authority Bus Terminal. We went upstairs to the Greyhound gates and, when the next Greyhound bus came in (I seem to remember it was on the way to Boston) he went out, showed the driver his ID, explained the bus was being seized to satisfy a judgment and ordered all the passengers and their effects off the bus. Pandamonium then ensued involving Port Authority police (who washed their hands of it when shown the judgment and my friend's ID), several passengers, and a bunch of Greyhound employees vs us two. When things calmed a bit and we could be heard again my friend then announced that the bus would be auctioned in 15 minutes to satisfy the judgment which was a bluff, he couldn't really do it that quickly and without notice in a newspaper, but the Greyhound manager-on-duty didn't know that and had a check for the judgment, court costs, and sheriff fees in my hands in 14 minutes. I then refused to accept it unless they also immediately cashed it, which they did. My friend and I then went to lunch and had a couple of really excellent steaks down the street.
Do you think your friend would be My Friend, I sure could use one like him.😉 Great story.
@@fibber2u Unfortunately, he passed away in 1997 from lung cancer.
@@life_with_bernie Thank you for your response and I hope my pun did not offend. It is fine however to have such a story to remember an old friend by.
Simply fascinating how there are some actual great stories of officers helping people and doing the right thing. Too bad days like that are long gone or far and few in between. It’s great to have wonderful friends. I certainly hope he rests in peace.
Castle Foreskin Blapherfino
It would most likely have a Snooker table not a billiard table.
Hundo, unfolded, laid on the top of the near center of the main cabinet next to the drivers side of the Tucker '48. 1k+.
The court doesn't know that you don't owe the debt till you show up & explain it to them.
lets hope that is true .. I been fighting county fraud for years and now i'm not paying no more.. I'm gonna force this in court. No legal team because no money.. So lets hope that they lose and end up in jail .. otherwise I'm gonna be one of the stories that Steve reads one day ..
One shouldn’t have to prove they are not responsible for something when they warEnt in the first place. That’s the problem with the current system.
230£= $285 USD
Organized crime, nothing new.
I retired from a very large package delivery company. A part time employee sued the company for a civil rights violation. The company didn't bother to show up for whatever reason, and the employee won the case. I'm assuming they didn't pay the judgement in a timely matter, because when I came into the building after my day's work, a sheriff told me and everyone else to park my tractor to the side and exit quickly. There must have been 50 wreckers waiting, hauling off tractor trailers, delivery vehicles, anything with wheels. This is a 24/7 operation, and management then had to go out and rent equipment to keep the operation going, at great expense. It didn't take very long for the company to cut a big fat check to cover the judgement, as well as all the wrecker fees to get their stuff back. I was always curious to find out who dropped the ball, and what consequence befell them. Management was tight lipped and never discussed it publicly.
There's a program in the UK following the sheriffs executing court judgements. These are mainly businesses. I remember one case they turned up at a restaurant that had failed to make the final payment for the cooker. Think it was like £500 they owed. By time the sheriffs turned up it was £3k they owed. Told all customers to leave the restaurant and the sheriffs started removing all tables and chairs. Only when they'd emptied the place and loaded a van did the owner decide to pay the amount that was now £5200! Don't understand it!
In the UK if she had gone to court in the first instance and proved that she did not owe the money she could have claimed all reasonable costs from the claimant of the bogus debt, then she could have foreclosed on their house/castle.Steve you are entirely right "Don't ignore a court summons, it will cost you dear if you do, but nothing if you don't and win your case"
You wouldn't be able to seize a home anyway in the UK for a $230 debt. You wouldn't even be able to get a writ of control on goods.
Absolutely spot on Malcolm. I remember years ago a UK water company claimed I owed them £200 but couldn't tell me what for. Anyway it ended up in court with their big hitting lawyers. The judge asked me if I owed the money and I said no as they've failed to provide any evidence I do. Their lawyer presented a letter as evidence saying I owed the £200. The judge wasn't impressed, threw it out of court, complained about wasting his time and awarded me costs.
Spending tens of thousands of pounds call lawyers to fight a couple hundred-dollar fine is the height of stupidity.
Which is why you have a choice of doing two things. You pay the couple of hundred, which is what most people will do or you turn up at court and represent yourself.
It may not be the height of stupidity, but it is the depth of the worst well of logic I have seen, and I used to work in the deep well oil fields of Texas
Elias you are so right. My father was a lawyer in the UK and always said never throw good money chasing bad money. It sounds like she went through the whole UK court system to try and prove she didn't owe the money. Ending up with huge legal costs. She should have taken the hit at some point. It also sounds like she tried to pass the property off to her brother to avoid eviction! Courts are very wise to such acts.
I got this info off another Blog don't know if it's correct but it does make sense.
"Just to clarify, the £230 bill wasn't for a bridalwear rental. She owned a bridalwear shop and failed to pay a bill to the factor of the building in 1997. The courts ordered her to pay the bill plus interest and legal fees, amounting to ~£1600, in 1998. She kept failing to pay after that and the courts sequestrated her property in 2001 to force her to pay, but also fined her another £30,000. Sequestration means a court-appointed trustee is put in charge of her estate, and she has claimed that the trustee has threatened and harassed her family and kept using civil laws to prolong things. The eviction in 2010 happened after she sold the castle to her brother, despite not legally being allowed to because of the sequestration."
Silly arogant woman in my view.
Did the brother get his money back?
Silly and arrogant she may be, that doesn't mean it's okay to take away her house over such a small amount of money. £1.5m for £30,000 and change isn't exactly "proportional".
@@tissuepaper9962 We don't do that in the UK . She wen't through years of self inflicted harm. The escalation was entirly her own doing she showed contempt for a fair legal process. Then she commited a crime by selling her house. She gets to keep every thing that is not legally due. If she don't have the bulk of the value of the house (it ain't a castle) then other stupidity of her and her brother will be to blame.
@@fibber2u it's always "punish, punish, punish" until you're the one on trial.
@@tissuepaper9962 I 'm not sure what you mean. I do suggest you pay your rent though. Especially if it has been proven in court that you owe the money. Stealing from others isn't very niece. It's always "forgive, forgive, forgive", until the money comes from your wallet.
"A man's home is his castle" is a quote from the movie 'The Castle' an Australian film from 1997.
They might have said that in that film, but that’s not the first time anyone said that.
(Paraphrasing)
Steve: "You have to answers that court summons, even if it's bogus, or else bad things will happen!"
Heather: "The less you respond to negative people, the more positive your life will become. "
😅
Opps lol
The "Scottish Sun"? Surely a misnomer, like "dry cleaning".
hey!!! it does come out once a decade.
The original 230 was a "factor fee" related a bankrupt business. It looks like things had already blown up by the time there was effective notice due to the fee, AFAICT, coming in post bankruptcy and not actually reaching the woman. Not seeing any documentation on why that stood and breached the bankruptcy, but the castle was already put into trust as of 2000
Steve, it is Scotland... The game there is Snooker. Snooker tables have pockets (small ones), but billiards has no pockets and only 3 balls.
the funny thing is, if she had been a uk citizen,, they would NEVER take it from her.. there are castles in uk, 1000 years old, that have 1000s in back taxes for a 1000 years.. and even tho the family has been evicted over time and left empty,, ..their heirs can buy it back for the original taxes, 1000 years later
I very much doubt that. You would struggle to find any family in the UK that has owned anything continuously for a thousand years let alone any taxes that have existed for that long. And I highly doubt any taxes owed from such a long time ago would have any legal relevance today. The UK may be old but we hardly have to deal with legal issues from a millennium ago.
.
I live just beside it here in Scotland
.
You going to bid when they sell it?
The moral being:
Even though your home literally is your castle, it can still be foreclosed on …
Regardless the details, it is still sad
Great insight as usual Steve. Gotta say, I love that shirt!
I don't know about the inflation in UK, but 200$ from from that era is more than. 960$ today. And that is how the system fail people. She should have pay even if it's not her duty. The point is the corporation can go over an appellate process and then you aren't going to recover your attorney fees in some estates even If you win.
I never get people like this. UK court papers are very clear when served. You have 21 days to file a defence. If not then a court hearing date will be set. As Steve says you need to show up. No show and a default judgement will be entered against you.
I recently had to sue a computer retailer. My computer broke under warranty and I asked for a repair. They refused all the way to court but then were a no show in court. The Judge just confirmed the amount I was claiming and my costs. Judgement in my favour in 5 minutes!
The Sheriff of Nottingham seized a castle over a small fee?
How Robin the Poor of him.
Steve, over here we might have a Snooker or Pool table, but never a Billiards table ;)
It used to be that if the builder of a castle wasn't paid, he'd have to get a whole army with him to repo it.
And thus we have the history of Europe.
I don't know a lot about castles, but come on. Isn't the whole point of a castle to have some defenses against hostile raiders? Can't she pour boiling oil on the sheriff's head when he comes to the door, or something?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Guess she forgot to keep her moat filled with water, and crocodiles and sharks...
Scottish sheriffs wash their hair in boiling oil every morning before their haggis and black pudding.
A 'menstrual gallery' - OK ... not sure if this is a selling point or not
This was a disgusting overreach by the local authority.
shouldn't they have seized assets inside of the property before seizing the property
Knockderry Castle is considered a "fairy tale castle" because of it's Scottish baronial architecture. Located in Cove, Argyll, it sits on a promontory about 100 yards from the western shore of Scotland.
Nice.
never understood people who would risk losing their property over a small amount of money. to me it's akin to taking your siblings to court over your parents estate just because you don't want your siblings to have something. mean while the bulk of the estate goes to lawyer fees and court costs. the family doesn't get anything. totally mind boggling in what people will do, "just because."
Having seen that kind of stuff go down, I'll just say that family makes things complicated. Especially when things should otherwise be cut and dry.
That is why they make laws that are maybe not constitutional in localities knowing people will just pay it rather than spend thousands to take it up through the appeals process.
Many years ago I had a joint savings account with my then-husband. The bulk of that money was mine, including a legacy from my grandmother. When I filed for divorce, he withdrew half the money. I contemplated suing him to get it back (I had evidence showing where most of it came from) but the brutal truth was that even if I won the suit, the lawyer fees and court costs would have eaten up the entire amount. Moral of the story: If your marriage is crumbling around you, DO NOT PUT YOUR INHERITANCE IN A JOINT ACCOUNT.
@@CrankyBeach as far as the bank would be concerned, he could have taken out the whole amount if he wante
@draco I wonder the same thing about people who carry around a lot of cash, "just because." Even if nobody had ever heard of Civil Asset Forfeiture, I call it dumb. You could have a crash and the money burns up, or you're injured and while being taken to the hospital someone grabs the money... It really makes no difference how the money disappears. It's GONE.
what if i am involuntarily sanctioned in a mental hospital and i am summoned to court?
Steve here is a question: can you say in court "I thought this was a scam because this looked like a poorly constructed phishing letter and I didn't want to get scammed"
The thing is once you show up in court…..they’re just going to say nope it was legit. So let’s litigate this on the merits lol.
Nope, as a court summons has contact details on it for the court and thingd including reference numbers, which you can independently verify by ringing the court (google the number to be safe), going to the court and asking at the front desk (they can check the reference number to get its details), and even in some cases going to the court website, entering specific details and you'll find the case.
It's like saying your gas bill is a scam, because you don't like the amount on it. There are multiple ways to verify it is legitimate, claiming a scam without trying to verify it doesn't work.
If you have a small fine that you dispute, pay the fine, then claim it back if you have evidence. That way the debt is on their side not yours.
Hmmmm.... I have been looking for a place with a nice minstrel gallery.
This was not a foreclosure. Foreclosure while theoretically possible In practice is obsolete in the UK as the court will order possession and sale instead.
“I lost my dog, I found it, and it ran away”….now there’s a country song played backwards.
If the guvament gives you papers...you better read and heed. You can't just ignore them.
If you think you own property, don't pay the taxes.
One other quick note; you said that "the sheriffs over there are pretty much the same as the sheriffs over here". That is literally the opposite of true. In Scotland, the word sheriff means one single thing, which is what we would call a district or circuit court judge. That is all. Those courts in Scotland are called sheriff courts, and the judges are called sheriffs. They are thus solely judicial officers and are in no respect what we would commonly call law enforcement officers. Certainly there was no plurality of them knocking down a door, since they are constitutionally barred from executing the laws.
In England and Wales, there are high sheriffs who are nominally part of the executive, but since they're appointed by the crown, they have had no law enforcement powers since the reforms of 1974. They theoretically have a reserve power of protection of judges, however they could only exercise this in the most dire emergency and only under direct instruction from the Queen in person. Moreover they would have no staff available for this purpose, since the official power of judicial protection is in the hands of district police, over whom the high sheriffs have no authority whatsoever.
In theory, in an emergency and when so authorized by the Queen, they could raise a posse comitatus to assist them in that task. However, since the high sheriffs are not under democratic civilian control, this would be extremely controversial and would likely result in legal challenges and a statutory ban on the practice. So for all practical purposes, they are today purely ceremonial offices that are handed out as social currency within the aristocracy. The positions are also unpaid and carry only a one year term with a term limit of two terms in every three years. So is that a law enforcement officer? De jure, almost entirely no, de facto entirely 100% no, and in no way are they authorized under modern law to perform evictions or seize assets in satisfaction of any judgement.
This summonsing to the court, I think they should be compensated by default, if the claim is fake. Meaning, that if the City/County makes a claim like this and it loses the case, then by default the defendant receives compensation, I think it's a no brainer! I mean it is or it isn't!
Police can knock down Castle gate but can't open a classroom door.
For want of a nail the horseshoe was lost...
All the way up to: For want of a brain the the castle was lost....
It's odd to see this type of thing happen in Scotland, their government isn't known to be petty or authoritarian.
When my clients get a tax notice for under my hourly rate, I tell them , pay them or pay me , they are cheaper!
It's hard to believe that in 2022 castle's are still being stormed and seized lol
It’s also funny that in 2022, people still don’t know when to use an apostrophe.
The sheriffs over here in the UK,have more powers than the police, they can literally go anywhere, as they are under high court instruction (highest court in the land), where as baliffs are normally instructed by lower courts, if you are seeking a quick(er) resoulution to someone owing you money you can opt to transfer your case from county court to a higher enabling you to avail yourself of the sheriffs service ,they are bad ass no nnonsense takers, "if you have a debt owed to you who you gonna call ?? the sheriffs", oh btw thank you for your dollar to Pounds correction Steve :) :)
Now I understand: Lehto's heritage is SUOMI.
People should realize it's better to show up and defend yourself, because even if you lose, it will be FAR cheaper than getting a default judgement against you usually will...
It just proves you don't own anything if someone else can just say it's no longer yours.
@@peachesrambo4037 Yeah, but that actually applies both ways... If default judgements weren't available, someone could steal something and when you sue to get it back, they could just not show up... Without default judgements, there is no practical way to ensure that both parties to a lawsuit participate in it, and the entirety of civil law no longer means anything...
True Sean and UK courts will normally give you 14 days to pay if you show up and lose. No show = default judgement.
Interesting outro, considering the topic
This just shows you never really own your home even after you have paid every single penny of the mortgage . It's bull crap.
230 Pound sterling equals 289 United States Dollar
I'm not sure the issue is she didn't respond at all, it says "didn't show up in person" in the article... that wording of "in person" seems very specific here. Pretty sure there is a lot more going on here than a default judgement.
At first I swore it was "not dairy castle"
i don't think even the small claims court here in wichita would bother with a case like this, back in the mid 90s a thousand bucks of value was the minimum. this would have either been turned over to arbitration if insurance were involved or ignored by the court as insignificant.
Did the sheriff use a battering ram or siege equipment?
Makes yo wonder why Hell is an enduring lake of fire.
Its for people who make the lives of innocent people a living hell over nothing.
For something that's small they should have just paid it and then filed legal motions to get it back if they really really wanted to make a point or something
@ Lehto’s law, I have been trying to keep a sharp eye out for these laws. I am concerned that it is an attempt at civil asset forfeiture in a different manner. Same type of carnival games where a homeowner and/or tax payer may lose.This is a great example of why, I advocate for my Vietnam Veteran husband. As his wife, I am not on his home/mortgage. Yet he has remembered me in his will. Advocation can be heartbreaking when the court system is so adversarial. Thank you 🤔❤🇺🇸
This isn't even close to civil asset forfeiture, no such law exists in the UK, closest the UK has is criminal seizure laws, which require a conviction or the item itself to be illegal.
In this case she transferred the ownership for free/well below market value, and then was declared bankrupt. Her transferring it made it a gift, gifts of significant value are taxable for 7 years, and can be reclaimed to the estate of the gift giver if there is a court ordered debt. Also transferring it was an attempt to hide assets, which is actually illegal in the UK, she is lucky to not have been charged for that.
Now the castle may be sold for £1.5million, she will be given the entire sum minus what is owed. Bailiffs have a legal duty to get the best possible value for anything they sell, they can't just sell it for the value of the debt, they are legally required to get close to or above market value.
Also a bailiff is not a sheriff/police officer, but a court officer who seized it. Infact sheriff's are not police officers in the UK, it's a separate legal title with specific duties and responsibilities. Steve used that term because in the US they are police officers, in the UK they have not been directly linked to law enforcement in a very long time. Police officers will have been involved in the eviction and removal of the occupants at the request of the bailiffs who will have had a court order.
it sounds like a legal hole to be honest, if that is the case any person can accuse another of anything repeatedly without consequences until they force them to give them money.
thats heavy!
"Upgrades" Lol it is not a normal house or an apartment that you can just refurbish.
and in some parts of the UK, a man's castle is his home.
Not anymore.
@@fix0the0spade that was just one. many of the castles that aren't in ruins are still residences.
Steve Had in Alaska they seized peoples property over a debt that they didn't owe after property SOLD ...OOPS we made a mistake you didn't owe that money so what happens next? their property is GONE.
Only in the UK can you have your castle foreclosed 😂
Steve, you missed the real story here. The sheriffs were able to knock down the door of a castle! Wasn't it created to stop attacks from governments and armies?
I assumed the real obstacle was the moat. Once they're across that, it's all over.
The Sheriffs here aren't LEOs but officers of the courts to collect debts mainly, they have no powers of arrest etc. They are all sheriffs and not deputies. If a property is repossessed they do get the excess after their debts are paid. This was a fine from court, if you’re found guilty you owe the money it’s not like an outstanding bill or some other debt owed. She went through the appeal process but the SC didn’t see a point of law that needed clarifying. If a County Court Judgement (the usual financial case) goes against you for a normal, non mortgage debt, they can’t come after your house unless you’ve secured a loan against your house. If you have a legal case pending against you you can't transfer property as you’ll still be the notional owner. People starting with dementia try it all the time and fail.
It wasn't her castle to begin with. It belongs to her brother. What am I missing?
That’s not much of a castle if a couple of police officers can storm the gates. Sounds like someone needs to refurbish the battlements.
What about a see-ment pond?
At 2:40 the $100 disappeared. What happened to it?
I had to zoom in on the shirt today.
What the heck is a billy yard table? Oh...billiard .
The equivalent of Bucks for the Dollar, is Quid for the Pound.
The castle was stormed.
Yeah, but the sheriff in the UK has Robin Hood bothering him half the time !
I had a very similar situation, I had a verizon bill for $80 which was for a phone I never had. I refused to pay, they eventually hit my credit really hard and I was in the process of buying a house, it ended up costing me about $2,000 annually for the life of my loan because of the worse interest rate I got because of the worse credit. I quickly paid the 80$ and learned a valuable lesson
Was the lesson you learned to:
a) fold to the demands of a soulless corporation?
or
b) resolve the issue in a timely manner, even if it requires defending yourself in court?
It's odd because it's a scam the township performs on innocent people.
Ben - This side of Tucker.
It moves at the 2:40 mark
Ben flat along the side of the Tucker.
It moves at the 2:40 mark
What makes your Finnish style "slaw" finer than any other Michigan slaw?
All this can be yours if the price is right
Hey Mr. Lehto,
In 2019 my daughter went to a day care here in Dallas County Texas that the parent would drop off thier child at daycare, where they drove them to school and then returned in the afternoon to pick them up and bring them back to the day care, until the parent picked them up from daycare.
On Oct 9th 2019 they failed To do so in spectacular fashion. In this instance they took the kids to school, then to gas station to filled up the van, drove it back to the daycare and parked it until that afternoon As they were preparing for the pickup run and they discovered my daughter in the back seat crying in a puddle of urine....
As it turns out she had fallen asleep on the ride to school and the other children left without waking her up, the teacher didnt notice her in there And did not verify the bus was empty at any point, put gas in the Van, nobody went in it again until that afternoon when they were going to pick up the kids. ( Even though they are required to verify that the bus is empty by turning off an alarm Is made to prevent this And also signed a form stating that she did in fact check the Bus. Both the driver and one of the daycare teacher both signed the "EMPTY BUS FORM"
My wife and I were only informed as parents when GROUP email/text message went out, to all the parents of the daycare, stating That there had been an incident. Immediately following the text message we were called by the daycare's office And we're asked to come in without telling us what had happened. When we got there our daughter had already been cleaned up and put in fresh clothes and made the look as comfortable as possible. After talking to children's services and eventually the police after children's services called them we went home to months of separation anxiety, nightmares, fears of EVERYTHING.
About 5 months later there was a separate instance involving one of her daycare teachers asking my daughter where we lived because she thought my daughters friends dads was attractive and we lived a few doors down from them.... Don't get me wrong she didn't just like say Hey what town do you live in?, she pulled out her cell cell phone, opened up Google maps, and had her show her on the streetview where our house was and how to walk down to his house.. So anyway I obviously was not happy about any of this and wanted action taken in the midst of talking about it I had mentioned look 'I'm the one who's kids who locked in a car and I didn't even Sue you'.. To which they replied "you're no longer allowed here, please leave the property" yes that's right they kicked us out and didn't even refund the rest of that month's tuition.... I gotta have a case right or has to much time gone by?
I'd read the contract and talk to an attorney. What did CPS do?
@@roxcyn cps fined the crap out if them. When I was talking to cps it seemed like they were trying to contain themselves and keep from upsetting me and setting me off because of how serious it was
But I did call a lawyer at the time and the lawyer's response was "well, What damages have you incurred?" What I said was none because I dont have any money to pay for an attorney Or a child psychiatrist... And he said that's how much they owe you
1 pound sterling = $ 1.22 Dollars American
Debt is treated completely different in the UK.
One's home may be one's castle, but the opposite is not necessarily true.
Got served? Read The Damm Papers!
She said that her brother owned the property so how could thy get a foreclosure on the property with a judgment against her?
A classic case of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Presumably the original fine was well within her means. As for the 'transfer of ownership,' that's a really bad idea over here, instead of one person to prosecute, the government now see two, especially if the house was handed over for nothing.
So it's okay to take away her £1.5m house for £30,000 of debt? They couldn't take a car? How is that proportional?
@@tissuepaper9962 Her business got a £230 bill that she refused to pay, she fought it in court for 3 years and racked up £30k in legal fees, then she lost anyway. When it came to settle the debt she was suddenly bankrupt, no cash, no business, her £500k (in Y2K money) castle suddenly being the property of her brother, which she just gave to him for nothing out of the goodness of her heart. Fast forward 22 years and she has appealed, ignored and stonewalled the case at every turn and lost anyway. Moving money and assets into family member's names won't give you any protection in the UK courts, they're wise to tricks like that.
.
This all started over her refusing to pay a small bill to a contractor. Between the costs racked up, the assets involved and the transfers of ownership it stinks of "I'm rich and there's nothing you can do about it,". Once the castle is sold and the debts are paid, she'll probably still be a millionaire with the leftovers from the sale. More importantly somebody somewhere is finally going to get their £230 invoice paid, with interest.
.
Like I said, play stupid game, win stupid prizes. A normal person would have put the £230 on their credit card and complained about it for six months, then got on with their life.
@@fix0the0spade every time you give the government tools to take assets away from filthy rich people, they inevitably get used against progressively poorer and poorer people as there comes a need for more and more money. Your desire to punish this one person for their arrogance opens the door for abuse.
Again, they couldn't take a car and "be done with it in 6 months"? The complete lack of proportionality is ridiculous. You act like trying to avoid the seizure of your assets is somehow proof of guilt.
@@tissuepaper9962 No, the repeated losses in court over 25 years is proof of guilt. Bare in mind that her initial defence was that she didn't owe any money, somebody else must owe that money. When the court turns around and says 'the evidence shows you owe the money, pay the damn bill,' she should have just paid the damn bill. If I were guessing I'd say they took the castle because she signed everything else she owned (cars, cash, businesses etc) to other people as well and property is the most traceable thing. Or, after she's fought against a £230 bil for a full quarter of a century, the legal fees and interest might be so huge that only the castle could possibly cover the costs.
Knockderry Castle is widely regarded as one of the finest examples of Victorian mansion architecture in Scotland.
Belgian businesswoman Marian van Overwaele was evicted from the property.
£230 in 1997 is equivalent in purchasing power to about £446.03 today (2022), an increase of £216.03 over 25 years. The pound had an average inflation rate of 2.68% per year between 1997 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 93.93%.
Cool shirt Mr. Lehto.
If they defended their castle the way they used to centuries ago, this would truly be a wild story.
The family should offer 250 pounds for it…
Bucks carries. can be used as lingo for local currency
Did the poor guy in the story ever get his dod back? LOL!
And: Delivered wiith a straight face!!!!
Omg I LOVE THE SHIRT
Dang. If your dog runs away from you after you find the animal. Gezz maybe you need a dog lawyer against your dog..
Ben being used as a floor mat before stepping into the Tucker, Behind Steve's Right ear.
It moves at the 2:40 mark
A man's home is only their castle if suffering from dissociative identity disorder.
8:30 Write a hit country song and pay the judgment with that.
Ben is still under the Tucker
Steve, you are a sly guy. Ben moves at the 2:40 mark and goes under the Turbine car
It moves at the 2:40 mark
@@BenLeitch Well spotted, didn't notice
I can’t get over the fact that even as a Brit, I hear you talk about *numbers* pounds, I still hear a weight.
230 pounds.... sterling.