Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by HCEOs

  1. Unfortunately, that appears to be more difficult than it should be. I would suggest that the Regulations relating to the authorisation of a High Court enforcement officer need urgent review, if that isn't happening already. Like many regulations in other sectors, they are just not fit for purpose for the way the industry has evolved in recent years.
  2. http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2019/03/12/when-enforcement-proceedings-go-wrong-if-you-cant-operate-by-the-rules-they-may-take-your-licence-away/
  3. It must be remembered by the judgment debtors that the actions of the HCEAs in this matter are legally attributable to the authorised HCEO, in this case Claire Louise Sandbrook (also of Shergroup) who currently resides in USA. It would be prudent for them to make a complaint to the HCEOA regarding the clear lack of control of Writs issued in her name, no doubt citing residence in the USA as a contributing factor not to mention the considerable revenue 'kick back' she receives from DCBL.
  4. Wow, thanks for the very prompt response Bankfodder. For info, the offer was made in an email chain conversation so I have a record of it and can produce it in any court proceedings if required. Just to state the sums due were £240 so adding £360 for two letters is also hugely disproportionate too.
  5. I usually give advice on this site but now need some myself The company that owns the Freehold of an old property of mine sent a bill for ground rent to that property which was not passed on by the tenant. They have since instructed a Law Firm as Debt Collectors who has charged me 2 lots of £180 for a letters sent to the rental property and then later to my registered office. I paid the initial sums owed as soon as I got the 2nd letter to my registered office but not the Debt Collectors £360 fees. My question is where do I stand on the amount of the fees charged? £180 per letter seems ridiculous. I've offered £90 to cover any expenses incurred which has been refused. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
  6. Sandbrook's US residence confirmed today... https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04771589/filing-history
  7. Companies House today 12/06/18 confirmed that Claire Louise Sandbrook, High Court Enforcement Officer and owner of Shergroup Ltd is officially a resident in the USA, as per her completed form for Persons with Significant Control dated last year on 02/06/2017 (but filed today). 12 Jun 2018 - Change of details for Mrs Claire Louise Sandbrook as a person with significant control on 2 June 2017 - New Country /State usually resident: United States https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04771589/filing-history Given that aside from Shergroup, Sandbrook sells her authority as an HCEO to the likes of DCBL and many other HCEO "franchises" does she really have control of the writs issued in her name? With the recent DCBL case it would appear not - DCBL Ordered to pay £20k Maybe it's finally time for a review into the HCEO system...
  8. The process has never been very clear but I think the HCEOA's complaint goes to the Senior Master. What I would say is that to be an HCEO you have to be a member of the HCEOA. I can't remember the exact reason but there are issues with the HCEOAs own membership regs that make it difficult to kick someone out. I know of two HCEOs that had their authorisations removed. One for theft of client monies and on the other it was never really clear to me but it was the brother of two other HCEOs. On the former even though the HCEO admitted the crime it still took significant effort to get their authorisation removed.
  9. It's my understanding that Sandbrook claims to remain a UK resident to the HCEOA for the purposes retaining her HCEO authorisation. I don't know if this is true and wonder if an FOI request may confirm this. I'm sure Master Fontaine would be less than impressed if it was proved that Sandbrook lived in the US. Whether this would lead to any formal action is anybody's guess but as far as I can see some of the rogue HCEOs seem pretty untouchable, even by their own Association, who unfortunately are pretty toothless in such matters. Section 2 of the below is certainly of interest to any complainant. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/400/regulation/12/made Termination of authorisation or assignment 12.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may at any time terminate— (a)the authorisation of an individual to act as an enforcement officer; or (b)the assignment of an enforcement officer to any one or more of the districts to which he is assigned, on any of the grounds in paragraph (2). (2) The grounds are that— (a)it would be in the public interest to do so; (b)any of the— (i)information provided in the application for authorisation; or (ii)documentation supplied,under regulation 5 is found to be incomplete or untrue; ©the enforcement officer or any person acting on his behalf who assists with his work as an enforcement officer has behaved in a manner which the Lord Chancellor reasonably considers to be unprofessional or unacceptable; or (d)the enforcement officer has failed to satisfy one or more of the conditions of regulation 8. (3) Where practicable, the Lord Chancellor when considering whether to terminate the authorisation or assignment of an enforcement officer shall firstly notify the enforcement officer of the reasons and provide the enforcement officer with a reasonable opportunity to— (a)make representations about the Lord Chancellor’s reasons for proposing to terminate his authorisation or assignment; and (b)remedy the circumstances giving rise to the Lord Chancellor’s proposal to terminate his authorisation or assignment.
  10. I am aware of several writs being deemed invalid by a Master at the RCJ through not obtaining them correctly and know that considerable damages have been paid by a few firms over the years. Some have been a blatant abuse of process and others have been genuine mistakes due to what was an unclear process. i would add that the courts used to transfer up a judgment to a HC writ have been at fault also.
  11. No, I talk of the actual procedure for obtaining a 'writ of possession' which for many years has been confusing to say the least (different courts wanting different things) and it was only recently that the process was officially detailed and clarified by the current Senior Master. However, prior to this different HCEO firms used different procedures and from what I understand the route DCBL took, approved by Claire Sandbrook, was not the right one. There is also further argument the the solicitor that signed the form N293A or other (in these cases Sandbrook), is not technically the solicitor of the claimant albeit this is an argument that has run and run for many years. I personally think that the legal procedure is flawed and unnecessary but the rules state that the 'transfer up' forms (Praecipe) can only be signed by the claimant or the claimants solicitor.
  12. DCBL may have other problems anyway. I spoke to somebody last week that claims most of the High Court writs used to evict people in the first few years of the show were obtained incorrectly essentially making them invalid. If true, that could see some fairly hefty claims being made, although given the type of people evicted I personally doubt it. Interesting nonetheless.
  13. Maybe it's time the press understood the farce of the authorised HCEO system and just how much it's been abused by the well known few. I guess this story could spark that interest.
  14. No mention of the fact that their HCEO, Claire Sandbrook (Shergroup) appears to have little to no control over the EAs from her rented house in Florida either...
  15. In the judgment I see Bohill's behaviour is pretty disgusting and that the Judge essentially says that his statements are dubious. No surprise really.
  16. High Court Solutions are a tin pot outfit that originally starred in Can't Pay We'll Take It Away. Most of their staff left and went to DCBL. The owner, David Brasen is an Insolvency Practitioner by trade. I'd suggest you contact him as it's clear they still understand little of the HCEO process. To be honest, I thought they'd ceased trading.
  17. ....after being caught prowling trains to film up commuters’ skirts. Oh dear, oh dear https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3133778/british-parking-association-quits-film-up-skirts-patrick-troy/
  18. Until the Senior Master takes action against their US based Estate Agent and authorised HCEO Claire Sandbrook (most will know her from her companies Shergroup / Sherforce) it is difficult to imagine anything being done to deter any abuse of the law.
  19. It is disappointing that this firm continually appears to breach regulation. They're even stupid enough to film it and show it on Channel 5 regularly. The HCEO that gives them their authority seems to care little and is an Estate Agent living in the USA now, purportedly creaming a commission on each case - Claire Sandbrook. Until the MoJ takes these continual breaches seriously, little will change. In the first instance it would be prudent to apply for a 'stay of execution' on the writ. You can Google that for info although others on here can also give guidance. It may also be possible to apply to set aside the CCJ too.
  20. If a law firm closes down the cases are usually picked up by another law firm via the SRA, in this case Turner Parkinson. It might be that they are not aware of the fees charged by the HCEO which is why the amount they quote is lower. It may be that they are not aware the HCEO is involved at all. However don't be fooled into thinking all the fees can now be disregarded. Under the writ the HCEO is entitled to his fees and if a client disregards this then they would usually become liable. As already said, in the first instance you need the details of the visit(s) and what, if anything, was seized. Once you know that it is easier to advise what fees can be challenged, if any. You should also ask if the writ of fieri facias that was issued has been renewed. Once these details are given this forum will be better placed to advise.
  21. It's a shame that so much of the advice given by BankFodder is incorrect. She will be required to pay more than the judgment sum as it is stated on the writ that the debt due will include the fees of the HCEO. The admin fee may be challengeable but is not unreasonable and I have seen higher fees allowed by the Masters. And even if the judgment made no reference to interest, it can be applied upon the issue of the writ (at 8% per annum) which is what has happened here. The interest for debts over £5k runs from the date of judgment and below £5k it runs from the date of certificate (the sealed N293A). Firstly, the comments by other posters are correct in that this writ falls under the old HCEO Regulations of 2004. It is very unlikely the Notice of Seizure was sent through the post and it was almost certainly out through the door by an Enforcement Agent. There has been much argument as to whether some of the fees can be charged where no seizure is made and I have seen this go either way when challenged. However, in this matter it would be of use if you asked AW&Co for the inventory of goods seized. Once you have that you can then look at the fees charged and challenge those that you think are unlawful. This is best done to AW&Co in the first instance as the costs associated with a detailed assessment can be onerous. In my experience most HCEOs will take a sensible view on the fees charged and reduce those that may be arguable to get the matter resolved.
  22. Just to add that the OP and BA are correct that Credit Union loans do not usually fall under the Consumer Credit Act so can be enforced by an HCEO.
  • Create New...