Latest twist in ongoing Sherforce nonsense - need some advice please.

[Guest DebtWeary]

Hi, I posted a while back about a situation that arose regarding a debt I had with DSG Retail that ended up with Sherforce.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/221845-help-sherforce-hceo-trying.html

 

I applied to have the original judgement set aside but it was dismissed. My reason for applying was that the judgement had entered my name and company name incorrectly. That apparently was insufficient grounds to have the judgement set aside, according to the District Judge I saw.

 

Since then, I have been in the position of being able to pay off the original Judgement Debt of £742 direct to DSG Retail. I paid this by bank transfer on 23rd December.

 

Meanwhile, I have had several phone calls from Sherforce demanding I speak to them. I emailed them to advise them that I had paid off DSG on 23rd, and requested they inform their client. I also emailed them on 30th requesting a breakdown of their costs - around £1000 - and asking that they stop pestering me with phone calls.

 

Today in the post, I have received an extremely unpleasant letter from them dated 29th December. The name and company name on it are still wrong. In bold letters it states that unless payment of the full amount (£1775) is made within 48 hours, they will attend to remove all available goods. The first sentence says "Sherforce has been instructed to take legal control of goods belonging to the above named Judgement Debtor". Well since the "above named" does not exist, I think they might find it rather hard to seize goods!

 

As a final threat, the last paragraph says "Failure to co-operate with Sherforce may result in our client pursuing a bankruptcy petition against you without further notice". Charming! Since the original debt was below £750, that is not possible. Besides, I have already taken issue with DSG over a similar threat made in one of their letters, and I have it in writing that they do not apply for bankruptcy petitions.

 

So, I am debating whether I should send them a Subject Access Request if they fail to respond to my request for a breakdown of costs. Further, in the light of these false threats, I wonder what kind of counter threat I can issue against them!

 

I've read Ohitsonlyme's thread and I just wanted to say that you have all my support and well done for getting the police involved in looking into the behaviour of these crooks.

 

Any advice would be most welcome.

 

Thanks.

[Nintendo Pü]

You can have police involved if the HCEO is trying to charge you for work not done and ask for a crime number. Template below.

 

If you have paid any unlawful fees to an HCEO then you should commence litigation quickly by filing an N1. You DO NOT have to let them into your house, keep them out and they will soon move on. but ve sure you have evidence the debt has been wholy paid off.

 

No point doing a SAR because a breakdown of costs is not classed as personal information as it is defined in the data protection Act 1998.

 

The Chief Constable

Name of Police Authority

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Postcode

DATE

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Reporting a crime committed under the Fraud Act 2006

I enclose a document given to me by a man saying he is a High Court Enforcement Officer (the suspect). He charged fees [£AMOUNT]. The law prescribing HCEO fees is Schedule 3 of Regulation 13 of The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004 and only provides fees of [£AMOUNT]. The law does not provide for the suspect to charge me any fees where no goods have been transported or sold by them. The suspect did not move any goods in a van and I did not sign any documents for him. I have been defrauded by the suspect who is cheating with his fees and I have asked for a refund without success.

I appreciate the police have a propensity to dismiss bailiff crime to be a civil matter, but the official legal position is the suspect commits an arrestable offence under the 2006 Fraud Act. Lord Lucas at the House of Lords on 20 April 2007 when he asked HM Government whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) replied with, inter-alia (quote) 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 (unquote).

Section 1 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 law can provide reasonable costs in respect of bailiffs transporting goods in a van (attending to remove fee) however no goods have been levied and no document has been signed by me. District Judge Advent on the 9th & 24th September 2008 presiding over Case 8CL51015 Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). The court ruled that (quote) because the bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable (unquote).

Any offence committed under the 2006 Fraud Act is an arrestable offence under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Please assign a crime reference number and I request the crime is investigated professionally and objectively and I am happy to help you in your enquiries and stand as a prosecution witness at trial. I respectfully ask that police do not look for reasons for not investigating a crime or try to conceal it in some way to avoid passing the case to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Yours Sincerely

YOUR NAME

Enc: copy of HCEO document giving contact details

If the police fob you off with excuses or tries a delay tactic, write down the name and rank of the police officer and contact the IPCC and your MP with a written complaint of 'Perverting the Course of Justice'. It is an offence under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to conceal a crime under false pretences. You will then find the police will start cooperating soon enough!

[Guest DebtWeary]

Thanks Nintendo, I haven't paid any of their fees, only the original Judgement Debt.

 

Do you think I should respond to their letter and say that I might get the police involved?

[lets fight bailiffs]

i would call the police NOW because they are also trying to collect the original debt that has already been paid, and that my friend is, FRAUD. and let the police find out who is trying to charge you twice.

 

LFB

[ohitsonlyme]

Thanks Nintendo, I haven't paid any of their fees, only the original Judgement Debt.

 

Do you think I should respond to their letter and say that I might get the police involved?

 

It is well documented that SF charge for things they havent done, so you need to get your paperwork in place once youve got it all in order then you can attack them not the other way round, until this time they will continue to harrass you

 

Telling SF that the police are involved will not help you in any way they will simply ignore it and continue to chase you for the money.

 

You could try to get the OC to stop SF by telling them that they have recieved their money, unfortunately its not that easy as Sf will then try to get their fees from the OC ,so this wont happen and they come back to you.

 

You do need to send a SAR although this route is slower the police action will not stop anything and you are also likely to be fobbed off by them anyway.

 

You cannot complain to th police unless you have a valid proof of fraud and this again starts from the SAr.

 

In your case it is likely to show visits, levies and valuations that didnt take place,it is at this point you can get the police to investigate under the fraud act 2006 and follow nintendos letters.

 

Until you either get SF back to court with an interpleader or they pay for it over their fees (and I can help you with this) you will still be harrassed by them chasing their fees so you need to keep them out of the house and any cars you own away.

one saving grace is that they dont have your name on the paperwork, but am not sure how much this will help

Is your name and address varied greatly or just a spelling mistake

 

If you can prove fraud I will add you to the growing list of disputes to give to the police

 

Keep on posting

onlyme

[ohitsonlyme]

Just a thought if you can get the OC to give you a statement showing that you dont owe them anything and relating this to the CCJ/writ fifa this could get SF off your back

Try this but be careful in the way you ask for it,ie ask for a letter saying it has been paid in full and that you now owe them nothing, if you get a little clerk in the office you might get this through the back door without them realising that they will have to pay SF's fees!!

onlyme

[Guest DebtWeary]

Thanks for that, the incorrect name is only a spelling mistake; I still don't see how they could attempt to levy on goods for someone who doesn't exist.

 

I will email them a SAR. I already have another arrangement with them over a previous run-in (Southern Water) so I can transfer the fee to them. I still have a breakdown of costs from that incident. The thread is below

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/186171-help-high-court-enforcement.html

 

I simply haven't had time to go into those particular costs in recent months but now would seem a good time to do so.

 

I would be glad to offer any evidence.

[Guest DebtWeary]

Thanks onlyme, good idea, my experience of this creditor suggests that their administration is pretty crap, so I will give it a go and let you know!

[wonkeydonkey]

You can apply for a stay of execution until you get all the info you have requested.

 

WD

[Guest DebtWeary]

Thanks WD, I think in the first instance I will get in touch with the creditor direct and get them to confirm in writing that I have paid them off.

 

BTW, I like your idea about a complaints register. I'm sure there are many out there who have fallen foul of these b^%$rds!

 

DW

[lookinforinfo]

The other point of course is that the original warrant is only for £742. The bailiff charges are not included so they cannot take goods for their costs.

 

I know it would be distressing for you were it to happen, but you could really

stick it up them were they to come and remove goods for £1700 odd. Theft, fraud etc etc.................

[Guest DebtWeary]

Thanks lookinforinfo, that is a good point. As they are only involved in the first place to recover the original debt, it makes sense that trying to levy on my goods to recover their own costs wouldn't stand up. I don't know what exactly the law says on this.

 

I decided to email them pointing out the mistakes in their letter, asking AGAIN for a breakdown of costs and ending by saying that failure to provide this will result in my taking further action. I will write to the creditor to get confirmation that they have received the payment. I expect Sherforce at even more peed off with me as I paid the debt to the creditor rather than to them, so they cannot really take the credit for getting the money back.

[High Court Enforcer]

You didnt pay the creditor and have now only paid because of HCEO action.

 

Pay the HCEO their fees or have your good removed.

[andydd]

You didnt pay the creditor and have now only paid because of HCEO action.

 

Pay the HCEO their fees or have your good removed.

 

Another (un)helpful post !

[postggj]

High Court Enforcer

 

Can You Post A Link To The Fees A Hceo Can Charge

The Levy Of Fees Etc

 

Many Thanks

[RaeUK]

Another (un)helpful post !

 

but - a small 'but' mind you - he does at least have the good grace of using a name which lets us know where he's coming from.

 

That said, I would have preferred a post with details of how he sees the argument which, I think, is now onto the legality of fees...

 

Rae.

 

EDIT: [lol postggi you beat me to it!]

Edited January 3, 2010 by RaeUK
as above

[Dodgy Geezer]

 

Can You Post A Link To The Fees A Hceo Can Charge

The Levy Of Fees Etc

 

Many Thanks

 

Now let me see.

 

What day is it? Ah yes thats £237.

Im cold, thats £100.

I guess i had better send a letter. £ 200.

Pretend van £ 200.

Phone call £ 99

 

 

Lets see

 

237.00

100.00

200.00

200.00

99.00

 

Total £ 836.00.

 

Damn, i dont like that figure. Lets make it £ 1,000 just for the fun of it.

 

They are **** people. Dont pay them a penny.

[spamheed]

You didnt pay the creditor and have now only paid because of HCEO action.

 

Pay the HCEO their fees or have your good removed.

 

 

High School Musical strikes again with clear, constructive and helpful advice. LOL, what a muppet!

[lets fight bailiffs]

I had the council chasing me for £3500, they handed it over to Exell i made sure they came out 5 times. and then i sent a letter to the council and it was then found that i only owed around £400 so i told the council i would pay monthly and they agreed and called off the bailiff's.

 

My point is that the creditor agreed to take a payment going over the head of Sherforce, it is now up to the creditor to sort out the Fee's as they may have breached there contract with sherforce.

 

you have to remember Sherforce are only an agent for the creditor and if the creditor takes payment from you then they must also agree to stop action against you, i would contact the creditor and try and get them to send you an up to date invoice or satisfaction of payment then if Sherforce re-attend call the police because there is no debt to add fee's to.

 

The likes of High court enforcer wont like it because you have just releaved another HCEO of there fee's.

 

Can i take this time to wish all HCEO and bailiffs a happy new year:rolleyes:.Ha Ha

 

LFB

[Guest DebtWeary]

Just for the record, I paid the original debt off because for the first time in years I have had enough money to do so, not because of Sherforce.

 

Were they not so greedy, then they would not have achieved the reputation they have. They are exploititive and intimidating and basically bullies - if there is one thing in life I can't stomach it's a bully. They obtain most of their inflated fees through people's ignorance of their rights.

 

I have no objection to paying reasonable fees. I hardly think a visit from an HCEO who gave me 3 bits of paper and charged £815 for the privilege is reasonable. I have asked in my request to Sherforce for them to justify this amount, it will be interesting to see their reply.

 

Yes I have requested a statement from the creditor to show the outstanding balance is cleared. I made the payment by bank transfer, so I know that it was credited to their account. They have no excuse for claiming they haven't received it.

 

I think High Court Enforcer is trying to justify the existence of HCEOs. If these people operated in a fair and reasonable way, then I would not object to them. My experience of them has been exactly the opposite.

[spamheed]

I think High Court Enforcer is trying to justify the existence of HCEOs.

 

 

High School Musical needs to try an awful lot harder.

 

Their only purpose in life is self promotion and lining their own pockets.

 

If you owe a debt to someone then you should pay it, However, if the creditor chooses to employ a third party to collect the outstanding amount, then the creditor should be responsible for their fees. there is no contract which states that you have agreed to be extorted by a thieving, intimidating bailiff, whether it be the common or garden variety of bloodsucking parasite, or the new improved kind with the detachable flak jacket

[Nintendo Pü]

Ive never understood the mentality of bailiffs.

 

How can it reasonable costs or sending a van to an address costs £300? He can fly to New York and back for less.

 

In other areas of law, there is prescribed mileage 40p a mile for tax reclaim purposes, and for HCEO maileage, the law provides 29.2 per mile limited to £25 per case for his costs. - So 29.2p per mile from the town hall to the debtors address equates a distance of 1027 miles travelled, the same distance from Central London to Krakow Poland.

 

I wouldnt call that reasonable at all.

[spamheed]

There is nothing "reasonable" about the behaviour of bailiffs and I have stated previously, it shouldn't be about what is "reasonable" to a bailiff, it should be what is reasonable to a normal person who is not trying to squeeze every penny out of you

[mashmallow]

I am sorry for intruding, but I am so angry and distraught with these people.

I cannot believe this can be allowed to happen to people. They are total **** all I know is if anyone comes to my partners house he will be doing time. We have got to get these people away from society.

 

Sorry for the intrusion

 

Mashmallow

[wonkeydonkey]

MM can you check your mailbox Need to find out if you got my last PM

 

WD