Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Serfarce Fraud/ deception lets get them!!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4631 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I do enjoy my life my life is peaceful, and full of love.

 

In fact I do want to take my money back and forget about the whole epsiode,however if you were to read my post above you will see that hiperthetical HCEO have enjoyed my money for over 3 months now despite a high court order to charge less and no sign of the money yet.

 

I also want a change by this hiperthetical company as they do not admit any mistakes and ofcourse they will not improve until such a time they start to step up to standards of the high office has bestowed on them

 

May be an appeal would be better and let a new judge decide whether the fact that no evidnce put for forward to justify fees and visits,

 

I am more than prepared to meet you or any other representative of hiperthetical bailiffs I want to change/improve the way they operate not gain revenge.

 

ohitsonlymeagain

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails

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.

 

I would argue the HCEO should have Professional Indemnity insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails
I know that you've already approached the Police but I personally and honestly believe that Sherforce have NOT commited fraud.

 

If a fee is charged as reasonable costs, but the officer refuses to show how it is reasonable costs saying its personal information under the DPA, then that is fraud by false representation. I cannot see £900 being reasonable, considering its the current business class airfare from London to New York.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For somebody that wants to put this whole episode behind them you spend an awful lot of time on here posting about it.

Clearly you cannot read or may be not understand, take another look at this thread or you would see that I am trying to help others and as for wasting time why are you here anyway??

Prior to my discussions with you I really thought that it was arithmatic that was a bailiff weakness now I see it is reading and comprehension

 

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.

I dont think so No Levy was made nor 2nd visit!!nor valuation

Any levy would have shown on the subject access report and did not

Also the valuation would have details of what is valued and did not show and unless a bailiff drives an invisble car or has an invisble cloak to hide under it any visit would show on my cctv system

 

Therefore a fraud took place and it took a high court hearing to get the HCEO to start to understand this and even now no money has been returned

 

And again, thanks, but I am not prepared to meet in person.

 

Now theres a surprise!!

I am prepared to meet in a without prejudice meeting to help your industry and my offer of service is refused WHY?? what are you scared of

I have no axe to grind

Customers who complain are heralded as champions the real world as they will help you improve your business

Then again HCEO do not live in the real world or I wouldnt have been arguing in the high court (twice) that £1000 of fees are unacceptable for 2 telephone calls made by myself!!

Edited by ohitsonlyme
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The HCEO released our goods but when we was to collect them they had been smashed up and things stolen.

 

the HCEO has caused three hearings in order to gain protection by way of Order 17.5 i think, because we had a huge damages claim.

 

when i said you i meant the HCEO because i have informed the chief exec that there employee had and was breaking the law, and the responce i recieved was email me again and i will have you back in court (i have only ever sent one email)

 

The creditor has sent me a copy of there email to withdraw that was sent to the HCEO and when i had the HCEO's legal boff in front of the master they had to admit that they had misled him over six months since and therfore he gave an order for me to have there protection overturned.

 

What would you say the outcome of that would be.

 

LFB

Link to post
Share on other sites

only me, why would any enforcement officer/HCEO want to meet you or anybody else for that reason regarding fees.

 

This is what they make their living from, and of course they wouldnt want it things changed would they!

 

Read the letter I PM'd you, its quite amazing is'nt it? there is currently NO limit to what a enforcement officer can initially charge. It is up to the person that paid the crazy fees in the first place to squash the ****** officer in the high court. (as you did in getting a refund)

 

Lobby the MOJ and your MP, and of course, great idea to kick up a stink at the local nick, as the more and more people that complain about the system, the quicker the **** in the industry will be forced to crawl back to the rock they were born under.

 

And theres only one way to cook a badger and that is removal of Rule 12.

 

db

Edited by danboy381

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the hearing the defendant( onlyme again) was uneasy as he had never even been to court previously and the HCEO had a scary solicitor character representing him,it came out some time later that in fact this scary character was not in fact a solicitor but he did not tell the defendant nor the hearing judge.

He did however put forward a costs schedule that showed a fee scale that his company charged him out at and those fees were at the same rate as tho he were a solicitor

 

Are you saying that this company were represented in Court by someone purporting to be a Solicitor. Have you checked their name against the official list at the Law Society

The Law Society - Find a solicitor

If not on the list then a report may be made to Solicitors Regulation Authority

Solicitors Regulation Authority - For consumers

From what I understand this is a very serious offence if proven.

 

ohitsonlymeagain

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

LFB & Onlyme

If your going to be hung for a lamb you might as well be hung for the sheep.. ;)Publish and be damned!:D

WD

 

I am not going to be hung for anything!!

 

 

I have decided to appeal the case even tho I won!! and will get the whole thing investigated I will not be bullied by hiperthetical nor any other bailiff company.

 

Onlymeagain

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that this company were represented in Court by someone purporting to be a Solicitor. Have you checked their name against the official list at the Law Society

The Law Society - Find a solicitor

If not on the list then a report may be made to Solicitors Regulation Authority

Solicitors Regulation Authority - For consumers

From what I understand this is a very serious offence if prove

 

And if you dont get any joy, you can report him to police under section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

The next generation Nintendo Wii - the Nintendo Puu

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you dont get any joy, you can report him to police under section 21 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

 

WOW thats very interesting!!!

I cant find any one in the solictors search with the name of the person that represented the claimants at the high court mmmmm

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wont because as far as i can see they use the old litigaition exec.

 

however if you have had letters from Sherwins Or Sherforce it states we are solicitors for bla bla bla and that alsways comes from a Mr Badger who is not a solicitor so if acts that are unlawful have been made the owner/Director/chief exec is liable for the actions of that non solicitor.

 

Maybe PU would like to confirm this or not

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello:

 

Not sure how many you have now, but please count me in.

 

We have had bailiffs from Shereforce and the Indian call centre are the worse people to deal with.

 

Can you post a break down of what they are trying to charge you for so that we can help you in your cause

onlyme

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had two cases with creditors taken to the High Court and Sherforce was the debtor service team hired by the High Court.

 

 

  • First Creditor balance was

 

Amount Owed: £7766.26

Judgement Costs £225.00

Cost of Execution £101.75

Charges of the Authorised High Court Enforcement Office £1479.56

 

It jumped to £9651.32

 

The last time we were presented a bill, we had already paid £5,000.00

We still owed £6330.36

 

 

Sherforce charges and please note that these were only faxed to us when we inquired about the extortionate charges.

 

Attending with a view to remove goods for sale £875.00 - This was one person in a car. We had already called the Sherforce call centre, regarding the debt, but they still sent someone to the site and charged the above amount.

 

Valuation Fee £427.63 = There was no valuation.

 

Officer 1st Visit Fee (1st Address) £150.00 = This was the first visit plus the £875.00 charge was added on top.

 

Officer 2nd Visit Fee (1st Address) £150.00

 

Officer 3rd Visit Fee (1st Address) £150.00= Did not occur

 

The High Court is for the business address. There were no visits to home address and if there were visits. It would be illegal.

Officer 1st Visit Fee (2nd Address) £150.00

Officer 2nd Visit Fee (2nd Address) £150.00

 

DVLA and HPI Charges £20.00

Debtor Services Admin Fee £50.00

Debit Card processing fee £0.40p

 

Subtotal of Sherforce Fees = £2668.31

VAT on Fees = £400.25

Grand Total £3068.56

 

 

 

2nd creditor.

 

Original balance to creditor was £1690.24

After Sherforce got hold of the account it now stands at £2930.92

 

There will also be a further charge of £625.00 + VAT for each time a Sherforce Enforcement Officer visits. We were already disputing the charges when this visit occurred and have had two visits already. The second time, we had three officers attending the site, which probably meant £150.00+VAT for each of them.

 

 

They have not sent us a bill for the latest visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have had two cases with creditors taken to the High Court and Sherforce was the debtor service team hired by the High Court.

 

 

  • First Creditor balance was

Amount Owed: £7766.26

Judgement Costs £225.00

Cost of Execution £101.75

Charges of the Authorised High Court Enforcement Office £1479.56

 

It jumped to £9651.32

 

The last time we were presented a bill, we had already paid £5,000.00

We still owed £6330.36

 

 

Sherforce charges and please note that these were only faxed to us when we inquired about the extortionate charges.

 

Attending with a view to remove goods for sale £875.00 - This was one person in a car. We had already called the Sherforce call centre, regarding the debt, but they still sent someone to the site and charged the above amount.

 

Valuation Fee £427.63 = There was no valuation.

Did they issue a walking possesion agreement and did they gain entry or levey against anything ??

 

Officer 1st Visit Fee (1st Address) £150.00 = This was the first visit plus the £875.00 charge was added on top.

 

Officer 2nd Visit Fee (1st Address) £150.00

 

Officer 3rd Visit Fee (1st Address) £150.00= Did not occur

 

The High Court is for the business address. There were no visits to home address and if there were visits. It would be illegal.

Officer 1st Visit Fee (2nd Address) £150.00

Officer 2nd Visit Fee (2nd Address) £150.00

 

DVLA and HPI Charges £20.00

Debtor Services Admin Fee £50.00

Debit Card processing fee £0.40p

 

Subtotal of Sherforce Fees = £2668.31

VAT on Fees = £400.25

Grand Total £3068.56

 

 

 

2nd creditor.

 

Original balance to creditor was £1690.24

After Sherforce got hold of the account it now stands at £2930.92

 

There will also be a further charge of £625.00 + VAT for each time a Sherforce Enforcement Officer visits. We were already disputing the charges when this visit occurred and have had two visits already. The second time, we had three officers attending the site, which probably meant £150.00+VAT for each of them.

 

 

They have not sent us a bill for the latest visit.

 

Rakehell this is exactly what we are looking for to take things further with the police

The aim now is to get them to the high court and police action,

 

You need to send a subject access request with £10 , once you have this pull all of the information to pieces

In my case it ws full of actions that didnt take place and inconsistencies that showed fees that were not set out by regulation and also for things they hadnt done, such as levys valuations and visits.

You will then get to the position of pushing them to the hiogh court for an interpleader hearing and with them paying for it, you can then go on to win and I will help you through the process.

I went on to win againts them in the high court and my fees were reduced to only £500 and I am now even disputing this, because they had not proof of what their costs are.

 

Keep on posting and follow the advice given and we will get this followed up

Look up the fees that they are allowed to charge in the HCEo regulations adn you will be surprised by how little it is

They try to hide behind regulation 13 that says plus any other fees taht would be allowed by a master at the high court and as in my case you can get the fees reduced

 

Onlyme (and 14 others)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...