Why is this illegal? It is not unreasonable for the HCEO to seek company assets at a residential address. Many directors/employees have company vehicles and/or home office equipments at their home.

The letter from Essex Police appears to be common sense. Bailiffs/HCEO's are not in the business of commiting fraud. They are their to recover monies from debtors/defendants that still refuse to pay after a liability order/judgment has been passed. Some people just dont like getting caught.

The claimant will be liable for the HCEO fees if they call them off like this, however many HCEO's will not bill the claimants in circumstances like this.

LFB, unfortunately that is incorrect. An application to set aside does not prevent further enforcement action.

The bailiffs are after payment or assets. If you have neither then it will probably be returned Nulla Bona. The creditor may elect to make you bankrupt but this has a cost and will not benefit them.

Fee 12 allows the HCEO to make charges not otherwise provided for, not mug people. To run a national HCEO company providing the general public with the enforcement services they need to recover monies owed after judgment is issued and still not paid has it's costs. These costs can be passed to the defendant. However, upon application, the defendant can have these costs reviewed by a Master. However, it has only got to this stage because you didnt pay the original judgments or make arrangement to pay the courts.

If what you say is true I am surprised that you did not go to the Police at the time. Was this the bailiffs first visit? Do you run your business from home?

It's been a long time since I was involved in parking but I will try and find what I can. If I remember correctly, a Certificated Bailiff can charge for an attendnace to remove and can levy on a levy. eg: If they visit for £180 and charge £100 levy and attendance for doing so, the next levy is on £280.

Are you saying that you believe the creditor intentionally sent the goods and court paperwork to an incorrect address? I can see no reason for issuing a claim against you at an incorrect address as it can be easily defended. I would imagine that Sherforce (or the claimant) have traced you to your current address somehow.

Tell them that the person they are looking for no longer resides at that address.

I would disagree with Nintendo here on two counts: 1) Not phoning the Bailiff will result in further visits and further costs and charges. 2) I would also state that £280 is not illegal. You are not necessarily being swindled. Nintendo only quotes part of the fees allowable.

I understand your stance but Sherforce have been issued with a Writ and they have a legal obligation to enforce it. They are not postmen either, they are there to seize and remove your assets for sale to cover the judgment debt. The fact that you are avoiding them or wont let them in mean they have no option but to deliver a notice detailing their visit, the reason for it and the costs associated with it. I would also advise that I think you will have very little chance of getting reimbursed for using alternative accomodation as this is your own decision. If you really dont owe the monies you need to get into the court and apply for a set aside and a stay of execution and get your defence in. It may well be that somebody fraudulently accepted the goods in your name and that's why you've been sued.

Incorrect Ploddertom. A writ can be issued at any District Registry (in a County Court).

£150 per letter and £200 per hour. Yeah, good luck. I honestly think you're wasting your time.

I believe that Nintendo is giving you incorrect advice. Marstons are HCEO's and Certificated Bailiffs. Their fees are added to the debt and there is no ruling that their fees cannot be more than the debt. If a Bailiff has to visit you many times and you refuse payment or break an agreed arrangement then you will be liable for the fees accordingly. I believe you should make an offer to the Bailiff but explain your circumstances in detail, providing proof if necessary. After all, you do admit breaking the arrangement to the court.

For somebody that wants to put this whole episode behind them you spend an awful lot of time on here posting about it. You state that nobody levied. Unlike Certificated Bailiffs, an HCEO can levy on 'part' and this is considered a levy of the whole. Indeed, the prescribed Notice of Seizure paperwork does state that by attending your address that seizure is taken of the goods. I personally would argue that a levy was made. And again, thanks, but I am not prepared to meet in person.

RE: Can i ask you a question HCE. If a HCEO takes goods and there is an interpleader claim to the goods and the creditor admits the claim of the interpleader claimant before any court hearings take place what would you do? If I understand you correctly, I would release the goods/monies back to the defendant and the creditor would be liable for the HCEO fees. There would be no need for a hearing. Can i also ask if the person who was acting for you in court had been found to be lieing in order to gain protection what would you do? Can you explain further? When you say 'you' do you mean the HCEO or yourself? I have a case where a HCEO did not inform the master at a hearing the the creditor had withdrawn there claim to the goods not only that but agreed with the master that the creditor should attend to defend there claim to the goods knowing full well the the creditor had withdraw. If you can prove the above then you should seek some indepedant legal advice. The creditor should be liable for the HCEO fees in such an event anyway so I dont understand why they would continue any action.

They are run by one of Directors of HCE Group Ltd....

I know that you've already approached the Police but I personally and honestly believe that Sherforce have NOT commited fraud. They charged what they believed was correct at the time and it was only a Master who denied some of these upon application (as in Fee 12). Another Master on another day may have allowed all their charges. But, you seem to have the bit between your teeth and as you said in your other post that you want to hurt them as much as possible. If it is your wish to spend hours and hours doing this then that's up to you. Personally, I'd take my money and enjoy my life.

At this stage I would respectfully decline a meeting however you are more than welcome to PM the details and I give you my personal and impartial views on the matter. I wish to remain anonymous on this forum at this time. I would say however that I am already fully aware of what needs to change in the industry and there are some provisions being discussed to achieve these but it will not happen overnight. However, no matter how transparent and legitimate our industry, forums like this will always despise us. Unfortunately, that just has to be accepted. It is easily forgotten that for most of the claimants I work with, we are the heroes, not the villians. I spent some time on here before but found myself getting embroiled in arguments with members of limited knowledge and was generall abused. My intention was to correct some of the myths banded around on this site. I can honestly say that over the last few months, this forum has cost several defendants further fees not to mention a recent removal of goods. This sites Happy Contrails aided entry into a defendants home recently by repeatedly stating that HCEO's are nothing more than debt collectors with no powers of entry. The defendant stated this and left the door wide open. Needless to say the officer walked in. The claimant was not interested in the defendants proposals of repayment (admittedly it would take many years to clear) and authorised removal of the household goods and a vehicle which duly happened. I am also here to advise creditors of the options available to them for the recovery of their debts as is the case with a post yesterday. Anyway, I'll sit on here for a bit longer, helping and advising where I can and what I believe is right. Not everybody will agree with me, but the same is said vice versa.

No Nintendo, the defendant acknowledges the debt and judgments, therefore if he cannot pay his goods should be removed. You are merely encouraging him to break the law by lying that he hasnt received the documents. You have to have the grounds to set judgment aside, not just make things up.

Any HCEO acts in accordance with the Writ that is passed to them after judgment was obtained in favour of the claimant. On a Writ of Fi Fa (which I would guess this is) they are commanded to seize in execution your goods, chattels and other property. I can see nothing wrong with what has occured so far. If you cannot afford to pay or your offer is refused by the claimant (which at £15 per month I'd imagine it would be) then Marstons enforcement officers shall attend your address (and others if they contain your assets) and remove them to sell at auction. Whether you like this or not is irrelevant. This is the job of the HCEO. Judgment has been passed and you are deemed liable. I would suggest you find a means to pay.

I would truly be surprised if the level of misconduct detailed on this forum is as common as you state. I have also read many posts where the debtor admits the debt, knows about the liabilty order / warrant / judgment and still refuses to pay. It is these people that necessitate the need for Bailiffs. In my many years in the industry I met far more 'wont pays' than 'cant pays'. However, if there is a genuine case to answer for the misconduct described then the appropriate action should be taken. The law will no doubt decide who is right and who is wrong.

So, am I right in thinking that this personal vendetta against Sherforce is because they treated you poorly and didn't respect you? I am also surprised that the individual officer involved has escaped your contempt in this matter.

True, but as the regulations state, Fee 12 relates to fees that a Master will allow upon application. As with any judge, it is a matter of judgement by the individual Master as to whether the fees are lawful. If the HCEO can prove that it costs £180 to send an officer to an address then the Master should allow this. However, as I already said, it comes down to the individual Master. My experience with them has been that they will take each case on it own merit. Therefore, there is not always exact consistency in their decisions. Master Rose is extremely knowledgeable and fair, to both the defendant and the HCEO.