Serfarce Fraud/ deception lets get them!!!!

[rakehell247]

They did issue walking possession and levy. They are hiding behind article 13, which seems to give them a license to mug people.

 

We got our Lawyer involved, but the letter sent has not been answered.

 

They are ignoring it and we are still getting hassles over the phone.

[High Court Enforcer]

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.

[ohitsonlyme]

They did issue walking possession and levy. They are hiding behind article 13, which seems to give them a license to mug people.

 

We got our Lawyer involved, but the letter sent has not been answered.

 

They are ignoring it and we are still getting hassles over the phone.

 

Issuing a walking possesion is not the same as having an agreement did they list any goods or levy against a vehicle or furniture - No levy means no valuation etc.

Did they charge for visits and vans etc that did not happen

have you got your SAR?

If you issue an interpleader against them they have to jsutify their costs before a master

have you had a full break down of costs?

£475 seems very high for a valuation what have they valued??

[rakehell247]

Nothing was valued.

 

There was nothing to value.

 

Then they came up with visiting a second address, when we only have one business address. THey claimed that they had visited the home address, which is illegal. We have a fax from them claiming to have visited twice.

 

We don't keep stock and only have the showroom.

Computers/electronic equipment are owned by the I.T. company.

 

Basically we are owed in the region of £200,000.00, from several different people and owe our creditors about £24,000.00.

 

We just need to keep everyone happy till the money is paid to us. Unfortunately, the Lawyers we hired, to recover the money, were more interested in charging us as much as possible, for the least amount of work.

 

It really angers me, when I think about it too much.

 

Sherforce do not help matters, when they are so happy in legally robbing us.

[Nintendo Pü]

Nothing was valued.

 

There was nothing to value.

 

Then there are no reasonable costs for valuing goods.

 

Then they came up with visiting a second address, when we only have one business address. THey claimed that they had visited the home address, which is illegal. We have a fax from them claiming to have visited twice.

 

Depending on what route you use to recover unlawful fees, the burden of proof may lie with the debtor, if you recover in the small claim track, the burden proof passes to the defendant.

 

We don't keep stock and only have the showroom.

Computers/electronic equipment are owned by the I.T. company.

 

Cannot be used as levy, no fees are due if the bailiff is charging fees for interfering woth somebody elses goods - Section 1 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

 

Basically we are owed in the region of £200,000.00, from several different people and owe our creditors about £24,000.00.

 

We just need to keep everyone happy till the money is paid to us. Unfortunately, the Lawyers we hired, to recover the money, were more interested in charging us as much as possible, for the least amount of work.

 

Why are you using lawyers? just file a claim on a Form N1 at your local counrty court and ask the court the bailiff to pay you an amount by a deadline.

[High Court Enforcer]

THey claimed that they had visited the home address, which is illegal.

 

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.

[ohitsonlyme]

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.

 

HoHo Ho and a merry xmas to you HCE why do you have to be the bearer of bad tidings or the prophet of doom

Can you not just help someone at this time of year

 

merry xmas from your adoring fan club

 

onlyme and 15 others

[High Court Enforcer]

HoHo Ho and a merry xmas to you HCE why do you have to be the bearer of bad tidings or the prophet of doom

Can you not just help someone at this time of year

 

merry xmas from your adoring fan club

 

onlyme and 15 others

 

Many thanks ohitsonlyme, your heartfelt wishes have truly made my Christmas.

 

My post above is true, whether you like it or not.

 

Merry christmas, hope you have a lovely time..

[ohitsonlyme]

At last Sherforce have coughed up!!!

 

£783 cheque recieved and cleared into my account!!

 

The police investigation is still ongoing and I expect to hear more in the next few days

I am not letting this go

I have requested an appeal of the interpleader even though I won and expect an answer to this next week.

 

Onlyme and many more

[seanamarts]

well done you .. drinks on you then

[ohitsonlyme]

Most importantly I forgot to thank CAG(suitable donations already made) and all who contributed at a time when I felt vulnerable.

 

You can win against these people the law is on our side!!!!

 

Onlyme

[hallowitch]

congratulations:)

[RaeUK]

ohitsonlyhim with onlygoodnews!

Well done, a pleasure to read.

 

Rae.

[ploddertom]

Well done, just goes to show "nil carborundum illegitimi" does work as long as you persevere.

 

PT

[RaeUK]

Thanks plodder, I had to go google that! [thought it was a soft beverage favoured by the illuminati... ]

 

Rae.

Edited January 15, 2010 by RaeUK
typoo

[seanamarts]

Thanks plodder, I had to go google that! [thought it was a soft beverage favoured by the illuminati... ]

 

Rae.

make mine A DOUBLE:p

[ohitsonlyme]

Onlyme recently attended and won an interpleader hearing at the high court against Sherforce, however I have since found out that an interpleader hearing is not relevent to fee assesment only for and

 

I quote

 

In this Part of this order ‘the interpleader claimant’ means any person making a claim to or in respect of goods seized in execution or the proceeds or value thereof and ‘the interpleader claim’ means that claim.te

 

An interpleader is relevant to goods or value of goods seized not to fee assesment

 

Has anybody else attended an interpleader for fee assesment or has any body got experience of an interpleader

Effectivley at an interpleaser the HCEO can and did in onlyme's case claim immunity from from further action and doesnt have to report back to the MOJ wheras at a fee assesment hearing no protection is available to the Hceo further action could be taken via small calims court which is where I wanted it to go

Why am I still following this thro?

I am still unhappy with the fees charged and the bullish attitude of SF

I have applied for an appeal not for the money but so that we can stop this from happening again

 

any positive input welcome

 

Onlyme and many others

[ploddertom]

Will have to dwell on this before replying - brain now scrambled.

 

PT

[ploddertom]

Have been trying to get my head round this. Are you saying that a HCEO company has been deliberately applying for the wrong hearing to get what they want and are working on the principle that the Defendants will not have a clue what they are doing.

 

If this is proved then it would have serious ramifications for all involved and may need some cases to be reinvestigated or reopened. Sounds like a case for SFO. Will do some digging.

 

PT

[alias barneyrubble]

Have been trying to get my head round this. Are you saying that a HCEO company has been deliberately applying for the wrong hearing to get what they want and are working on the principle that the Defendants will not have a clue what they are doing.

 

If this is proved then it would have serious ramifications for all involved and may need some cases to be reinvestigated or reopened. Sounds like a case for SFO. Will do some digging.

 

PT

I am saying that in my case and at least one more Sf applied for an interpleader rather than a fee assesment, there were no goods in dispute only money charged and paid in full for fees

Clearly as A litigant in person I didnt have a clue to the workings of a high court hearing,fortunately there was cag and help there and SF made a mistake taking me on

 

Browne family did attend a fee assesment hearing and they subsequently won with SF backing out completely, see my thread Sherforce fraud/ deception WON will copyon the nextpost from that thread

 

interesting or not?

 

Perhaps a blf or HCE could help and tell us what the procedure is

 

onlyme and many more

[ohitsonlyme]

re: Sherfarce Fraud/ deception **WON*

 

The following is a Browne family posting 30.10.09

 

Post 1

 

I have sent a pm about this but I have attended two fees assessment hearings against HCEOs at the Strand (High Court) Offices and won one and in the other, after they were asked to provide more evidence by the Master, the HCEO (Sherforce) withdrew and paid me costs etc. So I reckon I'm close to 100% and Sherforce know I would have won, so yes I am 100%!

 

Unfortunately, by withdrawing, Sherforce avoided a Master's verdict.

 

There is nothing to be feared at such a Hearing

 

It is informal, seated around a table in my case with the Master often leading the way as far as questioning goes

 

I had every opportunity to say what I wanted and the Master quickly got to the matters in hand

 

In short, you put your case, they put theirs, then you can ask questions but it can be 'looser' than this with the Mater interrupting with his questions and he may ask you to repeat or clarify so that he can make notes

 

'The truth will out'. I went into both assessments knowing I was in the right. I was obviously worried the law would not agree but common sense and truth prevailed in both cases.

 

If charges are being incorrectly charged (as I know they were and, in many cases, are) this cannot continue and the sooner more people attend these Hearings the better!

 

I didn't pay the £175 attendance charges and no-one else should either. It does not cost Sherforce £175, so they can't charge it. They can charge mileage and poundage but I would always question payting £175 for someone to post a letter through a door.

 

HCEOs are, I'm afraid, needed because lots of people won't pay their debts and people should. However, Sherforce slapping on hundreds of pounds is all about their profits and nothing about helping recover the debt. Other HCEOs don't charge at such levels so there is no reason why they should do. It's their greed that's the problem. HCEOs have a job to do (unfortunately) and they can't do it for free but no HCEO should use it as an opportunity to intimidate and rip off debtors. If they do, then they are abusing their position and the powers given to them. This must not be allowed to happen

 

 

POST 2

 

 

In my case, I paid £40 in order to request a Fees Assessment with a CPR 8 Form and then attended a 'Hearing' with Sherforce where they, I belive, actually, I believe, formally requested a Hearing (and paid £300, which, had I lost, could have meant I had to pay them that)

 

At that first 'meeting' Chris Badger plus a Costs Draughtsman attended (I believe Chris Badger is a qualified solicitor as well as an HJCEO) and the same two attended the later Hearing

 

At the first one, Sherforce produced a 'Bill of Costs' setting out all their charges (I already had another list that I'd requested when they first contacted me) and the Master said this would form the basis of the case

 

He then said I had to send in my comments on this bill of costs, with reasons why I was querying each or any fee and then Sherforce had 14 days to respond and then we would (effectively) debate this at the Hearing

 

This happened and when I turned up for the Hearing Sherfocre gave me a bundle they had prepared which included new documents (of course they claimed to have posted it to me already) but this didn't throw me although I immediately noticed some errors and contradictions thrown up by their new evidence

 

We then attended the Hearing and without me even saying anything, the Master started to question them on something (so you can be sure the Master will read things through and know what he's fdoing). Anyway, as said above, I knew I was in the right and they really had made a mess of my case in many ways. The Master, however, gave them the opportunity to fill in gaps and clarify things (including proof that they paid £175 to the officer who visited each time) and gave them a month to provide the answers. They then requested another month (so they could consult Counsel) then they 'vacated the hearing' withdrawing their bill of costs

 

This meant they avoided a verdict and I then sent them my costs invoice which they paid

 

You should take details of your costs with you as (as in my first case against a different HCEO who tried to rip me off) the Master will normally ask about these when he announces his verdict. Obviously if you lose, it may be them that give the Master their costs to be paid!

 

I was obviously delighted to win (and relieved as there's always the worry that the right person will not win) in the sense of getting my costs and not having to pay their charges. I was however frustrated Sherforce had not formally lost and therefore had a Costs Judge rule against them.

 

Sherforce had the chance in my case to justify their fees and thus end arguments about whether or not they can charge £175 per visit. Instead they chose to avoid a verdict. What does that tell you about their charges and what does that tell you about their belief in what they're doing being right?

 

Challenge their fees and don't let them get another penny

 

 

 

 

 

By the time of the later Hearing, Sherforce had provided a bundle, with evidence from their computer records and a sworn Statement from Chris Badger. I didn't have to provide a sworn statement

 

Browne family posting 30 10.09

[lets fight bailiffs]

Can you explain what you are getting at with this, as i read it you seem to be saying the following.

 

When a debtor is un-happy with the fees of a HCEO the debtor requests a detailed assesment from the HCEO.

 

However the said HCEO files wrongfuly to the court for a interpleader.

 

this could be said that the HCEO is doing so in order for the following,

 

1, The debtor remains the Defendent therefore it is for the debtor to prove to the court that the fees are incorect but if it was the other way round then the Debtor will become the claiment and the HCEO becomes the Defendent therefore will be for the HCEO to prove that there fees are correct and from how i read this post what you are saying is that the onus of proof lies with the HCEO and not the debtor.

 

2, the other point i think you are saying is that if the HCEO was to apply for a detailed assesment and may I say is the correct way to go, the HCEO would not gain the protection set out in RSC Order Rule 17.8 (3) and that is that, there be no action brought against the HCEO who has acted in good faith.

 

My word how clever you are. i would have never have seen this.

 

But i would like to see just how many peaple have asked for a Detailed assesment and have Very Wrongly been misled and actualy attended an interpleader. and lost there case as these would be the ones of interest.

 

LFB

[wonkeydonkey]

Hi

I would love to post on this subject for I believe I have damning evidence that these Interpleaders are being used as a means to give protection to the HCEO and not as the defendants are given to understand hearings to determine the fees they have contested.

 

Unfortunately, I am embroiled in further action as a direct result of these Interpleaders and think it would serve no purpose at this stage to go into detail..but I promise caggers that as soon as this is matter reaches a conclusion I will post in full.

 

WD

[ploddertom]

Can you explain what you are getting at with this, as i read it you seem to be saying the following.

 

When a debtor is un-happy with the fees of a HCEO the debtor requests a detailed assesment from the HCEO.

 

However the said HCEO files wrongfuly to the court for a interpleader.

 

this could be said that the HCEO is doing so in order for the following,

 

1, The debtor remains the Defendent therefore it is for the debtor to prove to the court that the fees are incorect but if it was the other way round then the Debtor will become the claiment and the HCEO becomes the Defendent therefore will be for the HCEO to prove that there fees are correct and from how i read this post what you are saying is that the onus of proof lies with the HCEO and not the debtor.

 

2, the other point i think you are saying is that if the HCEO was to apply for a detailed assesment and may I say is the correct way to go, the HCEO would not gain the protection set out in RSC Order Rule 17.8 (3) and that is that, there be no action brought against the HCEO who has acted in good faith.

 

My word how clever you are. i would have never have seen this.

 

But i would like to see just how many peaple have asked for a Detailed assesment and have Very Wrongly been misled and actualy attended an interpleader. and lost there case as these would be the ones of interest.

 

LFB

 

Thanks LFB, that is my take on the situation as well - but knowing where to go and what to do next needs some thought as you just can't swan along waving a bit of paper or someone will end up in hot water pretty sharpish.

 

PT

[ploddertom]

Hi

I would love to post on this subject for I believe I have damning evidence that these Interpleaders are being used as a means to give protection to the HCEO and not as the defendants are given to understand hearings to determine the fees they have contested.

 

Unfortunately, I am embroiled in further action as a direct result of these Interpleaders and think it would serve no purpose at this stage to go into detail..but I promise caggers that as soon as this is matter reaches a conclusion I will post in full.

 

WD

 

Hi WD

 

From what you say it would appear that you are in the same boat but as you have matters outstanding I would settle for being an onlooker at present.

 

PT