‘Gun’ man sues Southend Council for £288k lost earnings (From Echo)

No, it was your fault. Face up to it.

He wants £48,000 for the last two years and £240,000 to cover wages he would have earnt over the next ten years.

Who said he would have kept his job that long?

It was his fault he was sent down anyone who pulls a gun real or fake on anyone deserves to be se sent to prision.

I wonder what side jayman will take knowing his anti-council.

You couldn't make it up!

Should have paid the fine in the first place (probably £60), Why did he have an imitation firearm anyway, especially if he has a short fuse.

This guy must be stupid or something, he commits a criminal act and expects to sue the council because he has lost his job by committing the criminal act, i don't understand how this can possibly be the council's fault.

I agree that the council had an obligation to investigate the parking fine and the use of the baliffs but i don't think that he went to prison and lost his job due to parking tickets, this was because of his behaviour.

Lets hope when he loses (and there is little doubt he will) he has to pay all of the councils costs in defending this outrageous lawsuit. After all why should the taxpayer foot the bill for legal costs incurred because of this delusional maniac.

Without the illegal bully-boy tactics of the bailiffs, we wouldn't be where we are.

I think the mistake he made was pleading "guilty" at his trial. If he had pleaded "not guilty", he would have at least had the opportunity to show why he did what he did and the circumstances surounding the situation could have been examined.
However, whether Mr Sanderson's reasons are genuine or not, I feel that sueing the council could be "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted". Having said that, he is, of course, within his right to do so especially if the council did, indeed, mess up on the debt collection. How far he will get is anybody's guess but I do think £288,000 is a tad optomistic.
Waving a replica gun at people is not the ideal way to deter people entering your home on legal business. However, if they were entering illegally...well...

Most bailiffs are thugs without any real legal authority..the councils of the land are fully aware of this and are thus culpable, as are the bailiff company, for any loss.

j-w wrote:
Should have paid the fine in the first place (probably £60), Why did he have an imitation firearm anyway, especially if he has a short fuse.

It is quite possible the "replica" firearm is an airsoft or BB gun. It could even be an old film prop.
There are various reasons replica guns are owned by people an none of these people need to be psycologically screened to own one.

Mr Sanderson is a sad joke!
I've never heard so much **** & bull in all my life!

Pay or contest the fine. If bailiffs enter your premises illegally, without a full court warrant signed by a JP, then you can use reasonable force to defend yourself or property.

naffeville wrote:
Pay or contest the fine. If bailiffs enter your premises illegally, without a full court warrant signed by a JP, then you can use reasonable force to defend yourself or property.

yes 'reasonable force' waving a gun & firing it real of fake is byond reasonable force.

Hasn't Mr Sanderson got exactly the same rights as everyone else when it comes to protecting his self/property against uninvited intruders?

Aren't we led to believe by previous incidents, that under the 'right circumstances', even a *real* firearm is acceptable.

This man had two strangers on his property, who had no legal right to be there....

He was stupid. He presumably has no firearms license, so they had no way of knowing if it was real or not, you cant point guns at people fake or not, its asking for trouble. If he felt threatened for his safety however, he could have picked up the nearest blunt object to hand, given them sufficient warning of his intention, then proceded to defend himself, if he felt he was under threat on his own property.

I'd have thought the claim would be against the person who gave him the severe head injury.

Dream On

emcee wrote:

j-w wrote:
Should have paid the fine in the first place (probably £60), Why did he have an imitation firearm anyway, especially if he has a short fuse.

It is quite possible the "replica" firearm is an airsoft or BB gun. It could even be an old film prop.
There are various reasons replica guns are owned by people an none of these people need to be psycologically screened to own one.

you wouldn't normally describe fired air weapons as gun shots?

http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/local_ne
ws/southend/8444467.
Shots_fired_in_South
end_road/

emcee wrote:

j-w wrote:
Should have paid the fine in the first place (probably £60), Why did he have an imitation firearm anyway, especially if he has a short fuse.

It is quite possible the "replica" firearm is an airsoft or BB gun. It could even be an old film prop.
There are various reasons replica guns are owned by people an none of these people need to be psycologically screened to own one.

You don't normally get a prison sentence either!

Perhaps when he pulled the trigger a flag should have popped out and said
bang, thats what clowns usually do.

Perhaps when he pulled the trigger a flag should have popped out and said
bang, thats what clowns usually do.

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Hasn't Mr Sanderson got exactly the same rights as everyone else when it comes to protecting his self/property against uninvited intruders?

Aren't we led to believe by previous incidents, that under the 'right circumstances', even a *real* firearm is acceptable.

This man had two strangers on his property, who had no legal right to be there....

If you draw a weapon on someone in your home you will get one or it. They would of knocked and said who they were, this guy is just trying his luck.

Done for it not one for it

Unfortunately this guy is just a sad chancer & another parasite trying to ponce money from whatever situation he can.

If he had paid his fine in the first place and accepted that he was at fault, none of this would have happened.

Nebs comment seems to wrap up this article in one!

shoebury52 wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Hasn't Mr Sanderson got exactly the same rights as everyone else when it comes to protecting his self/property against uninvited intruders?

Aren't we led to believe by previous incidents, that under the 'right circumstances', even a *real* firearm is acceptable.

This man had two strangers on his property, who had no legal right to be there....

If you draw a weapon on someone in your home you will get one or it. They would of knocked and said who they were, this guy is just trying his luck.

'If you draw a weapon on someone in your home you will get done for it.'

Not according to today's 'Daily Moan' front page headline.

Clearly the council/bailiffs did act incorrectly but this claim hasnt a hope in hell, did he seek legal advice ?. You cant sue for damages for hypothetical lost earnings like that.

First of all havingm a criminal recoird does not bar you from every job, actually only a minority would ask.

As its a huge amount it wouldnt be on the no-costs small track, it would be on the multi-track and he could be liable for costs totalling many thousands.

Soouthchurch59 wrote:

shoebury52 wrote:

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
Hasn't Mr Sanderson got exactly the same rights as everyone else when it comes to protecting his self/property against uninvited intruders?

Aren't we led to believe by previous incidents, that under the 'right circumstances', even a *real* firearm is acceptable.

This man had two strangers on his property, who had no legal right to be there....

If you draw a weapon on someone in your home you will get one or it. They would of knocked and said who they were, this guy is just trying his luck.

'If you draw a weapon on someone in your home you will get done for it.'

Not according to today's 'Daily Moan' front page headline.

Good point, is there a difference between a burglar entering your house illegally to take goods and a bailiff entering your house (possibly illegally) to take goods ?

makes you think how would he feel & what would he do if someone pull a real/fake gun out on him? I bet the first think he would do is run to the police & get them nicked & what them sent down.

He would have a claim against the Bailiffs, as they are not allowed to enter your property unless they have a warrant, and the police are with them.


I'd better not say more, as apparently one or two people don't like my comments, and are running to the Echo to complain.

This guy is just a pimping parasitical WUS & this should be put a stop to.

How can any of the facts be proven?
Shouldn't you have just paid your parking fine having been in the wrong.

Shame on you Mr Sanderson. You should try to learn to control your emotions & your short fuse. The latter will get you no-where!

Not sure this story has much in the way of truth from the way it is told.
For a start it is unlikely that a council, even in Southend would employ bailiffs who would work outside of the law and the bailiff fees are usually based on the council concerned recovering their costs, unlike debt collectors who have no legal rights to enter a property and can add all the fees they like, but have no authority to levy them.
Perhaps a little more research is needed into the facts.

Not quite the case. Debt collectors can only add fees in line with the original agreement. Bailiffs can add fees for every attempted visit. The question often asked is how many of those visits charged for we're actually attempted. Very hard to prove either way.

BIRLIS wrote:
Not quite the case. Debt collectors can only add fees in line with the original agreement. Bailiffs can add fees for every attempted visit. The question often asked is how many of those visits charged for we're actually attempted. Very hard to prove either way.

Bailiffs can only charge for 2 visits, any more visits can't be charged for. That is the law.
Check: bailiffadviceonline .c o.u k

I hope I never am in a situation like this. But what is one supposed to do when there is a knock on the door and when opened a bailiff says he is coming in to remove property to the value of what ever is owed ? Is all of this proceeded with registered letters of warning of their arrival ? what is the legal standing on this ? In the situation that they are on the door step what can you actually do to check its all legal and above board ?