Jump to content


Serfarce Fraud/ deception lets get them!!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3713 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

 

Which legislation would I need to quote in any LBA to creditor

 

Unless there is a cost order showing the amount of costs you must pay, there is no legislation obligating debtor to pay any High Court Enforcement fees.

 

If a creditor unilaterally transfers up to the High Court then he enters into a contract with a firm any fees raised from that contract are the creditors responsibility until he applies for a costs order for the debtor to pay them.

 

If you have a costs order made against you then you can ask to have it set aside.

 

High Court Enforcers can only collect the judgment amount, they cannot force a debtor to pay his fees because the law does not provide for debtors to pay the fees.

 

Its the same when a creditor seeks legal advice from a solicitor – the client is liable for fees unless a court orders a debtor to pay them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

There is no contract between you and the bailiff requiring you to pay him his fees. Any fees are a matter between the bailiff and his client. The legislation only provides for a fee schedule for High Court Enforcers but it doesnt say the debtor must pay them.

 

You only pay fees if the creditor has applied for a costs order, and that can only happen if you have been summonsed to appear before the court for give your defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently won a fee assessment hearing in the high court that showed my fees were incorrect and fraudulent events also took place.

I am now pursuing Sherforce for fraud and have got an investigation under way with a Detective Inspector from the economic crime unit (fraud squad) at my county police headquarter

In order to guarantee a prosecution I need more cases showing the fees they have charged incorrectly particularly if it involves a levy that didn’t take place or for visits that didn’t take place.

Please help if you can

These people have got away with this for far too long and will continue to do so unless together we stop them now.

Ohitsonlyme

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails

Under Section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998, data handling exemption for the purpose of investigating Crime & Taxation, the police can obtain name and addresses of all persons the Firm has bailiffed in the last six years and a detective can approach them for what they paid as fees.

 

This should find plenty of silenced victims willing to cooperate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998, data handling exemption for the purpose of investigating Crime & Taxation, the police can obtain name and addresses of all persons the Firm has bailiffed in the last six years and a detective can approach them for what they paid as fees.

 

This should find plenty of silenced victims willing to cooperate.

 

My main issue is trying to persuade them that I am not an isolated case but you are quite right

If I can get even 3 or 4 more victims of theirs together than it will become a full investigation.

 

onlyme

Link to post
Share on other sites

My main issue is trying to persuade them that I am not an isolated case but you are quite right

If I can get even 3 or 4 more victims of theirs together than it will become a full investigation.

 

onlyme

 

Does anyone else remember when they had the Sherfoce nightmare? being Nervous, Scared and Intimitated? I was and do not want to think I sat back and did nothing to stop others losing a goodnights sleep. So here is one more person for you and yes I will stand up and be counted so you can count on my full support mate.

 

wd

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly not one for me, but did want to wish you the best. It is so good to read the success stories on the forum - and it must give heart to so many going through this lopsided performance...

Rae

Link to post
Share on other sites

any news on this?

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

any news on this?

 

Funnily enough I was just looking at the hceo regs again as your message came up

I havent yet started to pursue the judgement creditor as i dont know the best route or even if he is liable

Do you have any opinion on the way to proceed

I am about to fire off a simple letter to them and see what falls out from it

At least I will cause them some grief for not being patient with me

 

onlyme

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry just saw the dates on your post so you are obviously still fighting the case..

 

Hi Oneapenny

 

May pay you to list your own thread, use this link

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=168

Plenty of help and advice given freely here.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Please count me in, anything you need/require please let me know, my particular story with this company is, with hindsight, even more unbelievable than it seemed at the time.

 

Keep me informed.....

 

Be very interested in an update.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Please count me in, anything you need/require please let me know, my particular story with this company is, with hindsight, even more unbelievable than it seemed at the time.

 

Keep me informed.....

 

Yipee!!!!!! another one prepared to stand up and be counted,

Thank Y:)u.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I have not been thinking about these matters for a while but judging by what you are saying, no levy by the HCEO took place. Therefore no levy fees could be charged. When you say you went to the High Court on an interpleader, was it the HCEO fees that were reduced or the original amount claimed? If it was the fees they must have been taxed by a High Court Judge. Is this the case? Sorry to ask so many questions but it is not clear what has happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Levy took place

 

 

I paid the full amount calimed by sherforce after only 10 days and not having even been issued or shown a writ

 

after many complaints by me sherforce entered the interpleader between myself and the judgement creditor, I went to the high court twice and won on both occassions having both the levy fees removed and the other fees reduced plus winning costs against the HCEO

on looking into this further I ahve now writtne to the judgement creditor with a letter before action and asked him for all of my costs and fees back as I believe he is the one liable to pay the HCEO fees as nothing was levied I have never disputed the origianl ccj claim

 

onlyme

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you have seen this so i thought i would post it

Friday 20 April 2007

 

Crime: Fraud

 

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

  • Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done 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. [HL2743]

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

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA96

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure if i can help my case was dropped after getting them to admit that they were chasing me for a county court judgement in my name from a utility company but my name never appeared on the ccj in the first place think they just linked me to ex and tried it on . that said i have all the paperwork that was sent to me at the time listing the extortionate charges . if you can let me know exactly what would help i will help if i can .

Edited by dazzaessexuk
name removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...