August 20, 2011

Question Everything.

This is a very interesting conversation.

Liz Watson is a forensic investigator and a paralegal. Listen as she asks some basic questions of the Bulk Centre. They "authorise" local councils to issue Warrants. Unlawfully. Warrants must be signed by a judge or a magistrate to have any legality/lawfulness. This local councils simply churn them out, demanding money from people, without even bothering to follow any recognisable law process. And people receiving these "warrants" simply pay up. They assume they are real.

They are not.

If, like me, you enjoy hearing the jobsworths in the judiciary squeal, then set aside some time to listen to the phone calls in this clip.

Listen right to the end as one manager, caught out in the scam, simply hangs up.

Scary stuff. This practise is absolutely illegal and very definitely unlawful. All of your most basic rights are being violated. For the sake of a few quid. It is pitiful.

Listen, learn, and protect yourself. No-one else will. The trick is to always ask questions. Always say no. Say it politely, and firmly, but get used to saying it.

It will transform your life.



Anonymous said...

Love it, new ways of presenting this sort of stuff are always valuable. (Download whilst you can in case YT deletes it...)

Anyone who doesn't already know of the NBCC should watch a few Veronica Chapman videos for more "interesting" information on this abomination. Was it not outsourced to EDS (now part of Hewlett Packard)?

I liked these lines from the first scambot she spoke to:

- "They have judges sitting, but they don't have any courtrooms"
- "We're not legally trained"
- "I don't know what the law is"
- "I don't know where the warrant has come from"


Disseminating this sort of stuff is vitally important, IMO; I have educated many people about the scam that is the Northampton centre and every single one has been completely shocked by it.

However I am sad to say that despite Liz Watson's intentions the media and the organs of local government are unlikely to be interested in exposing the scam as they are manifestations of the same system. (Not that such efforts should cease on that regard; quite the contrary, in fact.)

The bit at around 11m30s is also interesting, highlighting the continued effort to shift all this sort of stuff online entirely. Cos that always works well. IIRC the bulk centre was supposed to have been completely electronic ab initio ad finem by 2005, but then govt + IT = unholy mess, at the best of times.



Captain Ranty said...


I agree.

The more we share this stuff, the better we all become at defending ourselves.

Liz was great on the phone. She was persistent, polite, and knowledgeable.

Great stuff.


Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

I have one of these warrants and am contesting it. Ignoring it for now but am contesting the jurisdiction I now have more to write on my reply to them

Mmmm Questions Questions Questions

I have illegally not paid my bill!
Due date of payment 31/03/2012 ??
and I have a £50 fine for not doing it.

You know I work a week and get paid for that week these bastards tell me I have to pay and then they supply they get paid THEN work. Cheeky sods.

Namaste, phil;

Anonymous said...

The Bulk Centre (and the TEC) do not issue any warrants. They 'authorise' the local authorities to issue them.
See CPR part 75 for the TEC 'story'. Note the use of "as if" i.e. it isn't, its just make believe.

They are a scam.

Captain Ranty said...


Good luck with your mini-war!

I have received and read your email, BTW. I am not ignoring you, just mulling it over. My reply has to accurate for it to be of any use.

Stay well,


Captain Ranty said...


You are quite right. I have amended the post to suit.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Isn't pretty much everything we "know" make-believe?


Anonymous said...

The bulk centre is 'an office of the court' - note lower case 'court'. Not 'Court'. Handily - for them - there is in fact no general legal definition of 'Court' although there are some Act specific definitions in the various Acts.. The people on the phone were 'mistaken' in my opinion.
This is something I have researched and would love to be able to contact the lady that made the calls in the you tube posting as I have information to share with her. Anyone know how I can contact her ?

Captain Ranty said...



You can try here:

Liz founded the group. You may have to join in order to email her.

Good luck!


Anonymous said...

My thanks.
plenty of contact information there without signing up.
I suspect she is well in front of me in research but its only by sharing mine with her that I can be certain. I just hope I have a nugget or two that she finds useful.

John Pickworth said...

What the bloody hell is a Bulk Centre?

You doze off for 5 minutes and the bastards invent a whole new agency/bureaucracy or whatever.

banned said...

What John Pickworth said

Anonymous said...

@John Pickworth & Banned

As I understand it, very very basically it's a building in Northampton (the running of which may be outsourced to EDS/HP), in which various unpaid "demands" are rubber-stamped into meaningless and unlawful "warrants" by moonlighting deputy district judges (solicitors of at least 5 years’ experience, who do the job for 15 days or so per year for a bit of extra cash). The "warrants" themselves are, aside from being unlawful, also frequently incorrect.

I really would recommend one of the Veronica Chapman videos for this; e.g.: (includes the relevant slide from the PowerPoint)

AFAIK, the concept originated with the Summons Production Centre which was set up under the County Court (Amendment No. 3) Rules 1989. Hansard records the salivating Attorney General of the time crowing about the anticipated 800,000 summonses it would issue in the first year. The "county court bulk centre" succeeded it in 1992 and derives its present "authority" from the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Section 7, in which the following is stated:

Production Centre for claims

7.10—(1) There shall be a Production Centre for the issue of claim forms and other related matters.
(2) The relevant practice direction makes provision for—
-(a) which claimants may use the Production Centre;
-(b) the type of claims which the Production Centre may issue;
-(c) the functions which are to be discharged by the Production Centre;
-(d) the place where the Production Centre is to be located; and
-(e) other related matters.
(3) The relevant practice direction may disapply or modify these Rules as appropriate in relation to claims issued by the Production Centre.

The "relevant practice direction" is "Practice Direction 7c" which you can read here.

1.2 of that is interesting: "For any purpose connected with the exercise of its functions, the Centre will be treated as part of the office of the court whose name appears on the claim form to which the functions relate, or in whose name the claim form is requested to be issued, and the officer will be treated as an officer of that court."

"Will be treated as part of the office of the court" - so it isn't a court then, is it?

Exactly what law requires that we consent to the Practice Direction?

Indeed, one could argue this: is not the Practice Direction by definition an internal rule – bylaw/ordinance/whatever– of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CORPORATION? Which by its definition applies solely to the members of that corporation and no one else?

If you follow the various law dictionaries and other writings a county court is an "inferior court", and technically inferior courts cannot impose fines, nor can they imprison, and proceedings in them can be denied and put to jury trial. C.f. Black's Law Dictionary, Tomlins, etc; the first few Black's even say that the phrase "county court" was "appropriated to a system of tribunals established by the statute 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95*, having a limited jurisdiction, principally for the recovery of small debts", so that's something else of Ye Olde Englande that they nicked and subverted for their own purpose.

* The County Courts Act 1846

I believe the clearance centre also "deals" with those equally unlawful Attachment to Earnings orders.



Anonymous said...

It is a 'deemed' court. i.e. imagined to be one. A pretence. Just as they 'deem' the defendant is in court for summary offences and so pass sentence even though the defendant could be hundreds of miles away - or may not have even heard that the proceedings were being taken against them.

John Pickworth said...

Thanks guys, I consider myself enlightened. I'll certainly be looking into this more.

I don't believe I've ever had dealings with any of these racketeers but I'll certainly be on my guard.

coz said...

A plucky Englishwoman!

Span Ows said...

John Pickford, me neither but it isn't the ones who are even a bit switched-on that will suffer: I have no doubt many thousands of weaker souls suffer and pay up, many elderly on their own not really understanding this and following the 'orders' of any official looking scrap of paper.

George Speller said...

Jesus. It's worse than I thought.

James Higham said...

It really is bad. They're almost playing or "pretending" to be official but that makes it demanding money with menaces. And who will attend to this illegality?

Woodsy42 said...

So many 'laws' and 'processes' have been insinuated into our (so called) justice system in the past decade that in many areas I no longer even know what the country's laws are.
Even when I do see something about them I find they are frequently interpretted and misused in a manner at odds to what they say or the official explanation.
I guess that's the idea, keep us confused and we will be docile.
Posts like this to get at some truth are vital, thanks CR.

Stealth said...

Fascinating on so many levels :P

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Regarding denying County Court determinations and going to Jury trial, here is the relevant Act:
(2)In all other proceedings in a county court the trial shall be without a jury unless the court otherwise orders on an application made in that behalf by any party to the proceeings in such manner and within such time before the trial as may be prescribed.(3)Where, on any such application, the court is satisfied that there is in issue—(a)a charge of fraud against the party making the application; or(b)a claim in respect of libel, slander, malicious prosecution or false imprisonment; or(c)any question or issue of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph,the action shall be tried with a jury, unless the court is of opinion that the trial requires any prolonged examination of documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury.

County Courts Act 1984.
"Fixed Penalties" are in breach of Magna Carta 1215. Claiming othwerwise is fraud.

Regards, John Hurst.

Anonymous said...

Indeed! Question Everything! Liz Watson is NOT a paralegal.....Where & when did she qualify, ask her who / where she got her info. Claiming to be qualified is without ethics, so is just as dishonourable as the actual legal profession. Good Fortune to all who stand on their own two feet, WITHOUT treading on others!