‘Gun’ man sues Southend Council for £288k lost earnings (From Southend Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
‘Gun’ man sues Southend Council for £288k lost earnings
12:00pm Wednesday 26th September 2012 in News By Jon Austin
Claim – David Sanderson
A MAN who was jailed after firing a replica gun at bailiffs in a row over an unpaid parking fine is trying to sue Southend Council for £288,000 in lost wages.
David Sanderson, 44, from South Avenue, Southend, blames the council for sending bailiffs to his door who he claims acted illegally, forced their way into his home without the proper paperwork, and charging £396 on top of the £124 fine, which he says caused him to “flip”.
The council says it will vigorously contest the case.
Mr Sanderson claims he saw red and pulled out the imitation firearm to scare them off, because a severe head injury 20 years ago has left him with a short fuse.
He was jailed for 18 months, in March 2011 at Basildon Crown Court, after pleading guilty to possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.
The incident, on October 11 2010, sparked a full armed police response involving the force helicopter. Mr Sander-son’s street was also cordoned off.
He now claims the criminal record meant he lost his job as a lithographic printer, with Circle Services, in Southend, and has been unable to get new work.
He wants £48,000 for the last two years and £240,000 to cover wages he would have earnt over the next ten years.
In a claim lodged at Southend County Court he said: “Bailiffs showed no warrant of execution in hard copy, as required by the laws. “They also forced entry into my home and levied an illegal sum in the process.”
Since being released from prison, Mr Sanderson has spent months trying to get the £520 fee he was charged by the bailiffs repaid by the council, after enlisting the help of a parking expert.
He is confident of a court win after the council agreed he was overcharged and paid him back £410 of it in June.
He said: “If the bailiffs the council used had not forced their way into my home without a warrant and then overcharged me, I wouldn’t have reacted the way I did. And the council has now accepted I was over charged.”
The council refused to comment when asked why it paid back Mr Sanderson some of the money.
However, in relation to his court claim, it said: “The council will be vigorously contesting the civil proceedings brought by Mr Sanderson.”
Comments(33)
southendshrimper
says...
12:11pm Wed 26 Sep 12
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.
Son of stropmag
says...
12:22pm Wed 26 Sep 12
j-w
says...
12:32pm Wed 26 Sep 12
...???...
says...
12:38pm Wed 26 Sep 12
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.
Soouthchurch59
says...
1:03pm Wed 26 Sep 12
emcee
says...
1:04pm Wed 26 Sep 12
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...
E-Types...
says...
1:10pm Wed 26 Sep 12
emcee
says...
1:12pm Wed 26 Sep 12
j-w wrote:It is quite possible the "replica" firearm is an airsoft or BB gun. It could even be an old film prop.
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.
There are various reasons replica guns are owned by people an none of these people need to be psycologically screened to own one.
Alec Cikes
says...
1:13pm Wed 26 Sep 12
I've never heard so much **** & bull in all my life!
naffeville
says...
1:25pm Wed 26 Sep 12
southendshrimper
says...
1:33pm Wed 26 Sep 12
naffeville wrote:yes 'reasonable force' waving a gun & firing it real of fake is byond reasonable force.
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.
Soouthchurch59
says...
2:06pm Wed 26 Sep 12
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....
naffeville
says...
2:12pm Wed 26 Sep 12
Nebs
says...
2:26pm Wed 26 Sep 12
billericay boy
says...
3:05pm Wed 26 Sep 12
j-w
says...
4:02pm Wed 26 Sep 12
emcee wrote:you wouldn't normally describe fired air weapons as gun shots?
j-w wrote:It is quite possible the "replica" firearm is an airsoft or BB gun. It could even be an old film prop.
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.
There are various reasons replica guns are owned by people an none of these people need to be psycologically screened to own one.
http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/local_ne
ws/southend/8444467.
Shots_fired_in_South
end_road/
j-w
says...
4:05pm Wed 26 Sep 12
emcee wrote:You don't normally get a prison sentence either!
j-w wrote:It is quite possible the "replica" firearm is an airsoft or BB gun. It could even be an old film prop.
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.
There are various reasons replica guns are owned by people an none of these people need to be psycologically screened to own one.
firedog
says...
5:01pm Wed 26 Sep 12
bang, thats what clowns usually do.
firedog
says...
5:01pm Wed 26 Sep 12
bang, thats what clowns usually do.
shoebury52
says...
5:02pm Wed 26 Sep 12
Soouthchurch59 wrote: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.
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....
shoebury52
says...
5:04pm Wed 26 Sep 12
Alec Cikes
says...
10:55pm Wed 26 Sep 12
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!
Soouthchurch59
says...
10:14am Thu 27 Sep 12
shoebury52 wrote:'If you draw a weapon on someone in your home you will get done for it.'
Soouthchurch59 wrote: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.
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....
Not according to today's 'Daily Moan' front page headline.
andy:)
says...
10:25am Thu 27 Sep 12
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.
andy:)
says...
10:28am Thu 27 Sep 12
Soouthchurch59 wrote: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 ?
shoebury52 wrote:'If you draw a weapon on someone in your home you will get done for it.'
Soouthchurch59 wrote: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.
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....
Not according to today's 'Daily Moan' front page headline.
southendshrimper
says...
2:17pm Thu 27 Sep 12
APR
says...
8:41am Fri 28 Sep 12
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.
Alec Cikes
says...
9:35pm Fri 28 Sep 12
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!
maddriver
says...
9:38pm Sat 29 Sep 12
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.
BIRLIS
says...
9:21am Sun 30 Sep 12
I_hate_scum!
says...
11:32am Sun 30 Sep 12
BIRLIS wrote:Bailiffs can only charge for 2 visits, any more visits can't be charged for. That is the law.
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.
Check: bailiffadviceonline .c o.u k
r6keith
says...
8:55am Mon 1 Oct 12
ccd says...
12:05pm Wed 26 Sep 12