Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


yozdagger

HCEO - Pinned WPA to my front door listing every car in the car park.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3986 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

This site has been an invaluable source of info for me in my county court battle (that is still ongoing - at appeal stage atm).

 

Anyway, because the creditor won the first hearing they have employed the services of HCE Group to enforce the judgement (it was "elevated" to the High Court as a 'Fi Fa'). The date for my appeal hearing is still pending from the court but they have given permission for enforcement as the claimant is a large corporation and in the judges's words are "good for the money".

 

I would like to make clear that if I lose my appeal I will pay up (rather grudgingly :mad:) but am refusing upto that hearing - so the claimant are sending in the "heavies".

 

I have received the standard "threat" letters from HCE (claiming they can remove stuff when I'm out etc.. i.e. infer a forced entry) which I have replied in writing to with the CAG line of 'no peaceful entry will be granted' etc...

 

Today I arrived home to find pinned to the communal front door of my apartment block (I do have a letter box) an unsealed envelope addressed to me with a WPA enclosed listing all the cars that were parked in the residents car park.

 

Trouble (for them) is I dont own a car and have previously sent them a letter informing them of the same - to which they replied with an apology saying the file was closed (a ruse?).

 

The 'WPA' lists almost £700 of 'judgement fees' + 40p per day interest and 29p per day 'walking possesion charge'

 

From what I have read here previously I believe the following:

 

1) The WPA is invalid because it is not signed by me, and it lists goods that are not mine (and no HCEO could reasonably believe I own EVERY car in the car park :confused:)

 

2) Since they have never had peaceful entry to the address (never actually seen them) again no go on the WPA.

 

3) If the WPA is invalid then they have not 'executed' the warrant to so their fees relating to enforcement are out?

 

4) By leaving an unsigned WPA with goods of a 3rd party listed - and added fees as a result they are trying to defraud me?

 

 

Not sure where to go next - my instinct is to fire off letters to the HCE Group, the court and the HCEO Association.

 

Really what I am trying to avoid is them trying their luck and clamp (or even tow) my neighbours cars - I don't need that aggro.

 

Also should I alert the police so that if they try to lift them I can get an officer to stop them?

 

Pointers anyone? Some legal ones would be useful for my letter.

 

Thx

Edited by yozdagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an illegal levy yes

 

as for the rest you will have to wait for someone else with more knowledge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoz

 

Why should you protect your neighbours assets and ultimately the HEO?

 

I would let them get on with it then watch the cr*p and fan.

GK EX bailiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fees are illegal. Levy is illegal. WPA isnt valid cos no one signed it.

letter pinned to door is illegal (breach of discreston, breach of data protection)

 

The bailiff is a meathead who is totally stupid. He needs taking off the streets.

 

Dont answer the door, or go on holiday for a few weeks.

 

Seriously though, it looks to me like you may have no assets to levy on?, so the meathead has realised this and will just walk the streets levying (or at least thinking his levying on your property. What a dick.

 

No assets = no levy = nil result for bailiff.

 

God I hate these idiots.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well letter fired off....I dont suppose the court or HCEO will take much notice - but I at least expect the "WPA" to be recinded....watch this space.

 

GK - Although I would dearly love to see this "meathead" (thx danboy381 - I like that analogy) make a prat of himself - this situation should not cause my neighbours any aggro. I get on well with them and don't want that to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thx. Yes, that's entirely the point Yozdagger, the meathead did this cos 9 out of 10 times it would probably cause more hassle for the debtor.

 

but looking at it seriously the rapport with the neighbours could potentially dissolve to dust if the car park was suddenly cleared of their vehicles.

Not the best way to carry on.

 

Let us know how you get on. That WPA should be quashed immediately.

 

And remember, tell them you own nothing of value.

 

Good luck


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a slightly different track...

 

I have read a lot of posts here about how if a bailiff collecting on a council tax bill misbehaves then the council is ultimately liable for that - but what about HCEO's?

 

Is the claimant (as the ones who instructed them) also liable for the illegal actions of their chosen bailiffs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may seem ignorant but it works. If you live in such building you just take P.. off them and deal with the councill. This way you get them headache, not yourself. Go to "Holiday", rent the flat to a foreign friend, not speaking any english and so on. I know how it sounds but it actually works and gives you time to deal with the real debt instead of some honks:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I got a response from HCEO (very quick).....only not the response I was expecting.

 

Apparently I am to telephone the bailiff (zero chance) and make and immediate full payment or they will "enforce" the writ (can I assume that to mean the illegal WPA???).

 

I think stage 2 (aka official complaint to police re: Fraud Act 2006) is my next step.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they cant enforce the writ. there is nothing to levy on!

 

love to see them try though


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of an update on this one.

 

The police finally responded to my fraud complaint.... but they say it's a "civil matter" and they "cannot be involved".

 

Nice eh? Bailiffs adds almost £800 of illegal fees (the fraud in my opinion) but police think it's a civil matter.

 

However, one positive. They confirm in the letter what I already know - the vehicles are not mine - and if HCE remove them they will look at it as "Theft of Motor Vehicle" and it would be a "recordable crime".

 

Now I am hoping HCE come back to enforce.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

form 4 complaint to the court - have you checked the bailiff is actually certified as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have a read of this if you haven't already

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94

 

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

    Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and by doing so obtains a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2744]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA95

 

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

    Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2745]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

    Whether bailiffs who illegally obtain entry to a debtor’s premises with the intent of obtaining payment from a debtor, or of taking possession of goods, commit a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2746]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for bailiffs is that there is a right of entry that may be exercised into any relevant premises. In circumstances where a bailiff illegally obtains entry to a debtor’s premises, their conduct will amount to fraud only if they dishonestly, and with the intent to make a gain or to cause a loss, make a false representation, fail to disclose information or abuse their position. While an illegal entry may be made with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss, it may well not involve the other elements necessary to commit a fraud.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a HCEO - so no form 4. It would be a "detailed assesment".

 

A HCEO can use "Joe the plumber" to enforce if he/she likes. I've never seen the writ so dont know the HCEO name anyway.

 

That's why I went the full police complaint route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh i see - apologies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hallowitch - thanks, this is exactly what I needed. The police asked me to let them know if the vehicles are untouched (which they are) anyway.

 

I think I'll peg that onto the end - see if I can get them to reconsider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

andie 303 - just re-read my previous post to you - sounded a bit off - sorry about that - I typed it a bit quick while also putting together my next letter to the police.

 

Didn't mean to sound picky - all input is appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the police not realised that they could have a given here.

If they agree it is a crime they know who perpetrated it and they have solved the crime - there you are 100% clear up rate at a cost of a few quid so even the budget benefits.

 

GK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...