Need some advice please - Sherforce again!

[Guest DebtWeary]

Hello I recently posted about my ongoing dispute regarding me paying off a Judgement debt direct to the creditor.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/243002-sherforce-fees-heres-interesting.html

 

Yesterday I emailed the creditor and pointed out that, as they had already accepted full payment from me to cover the entire Judgement Debt, it really was now a matter for them to sort out remaining fees with Sherforce. I cited information from HCEO sources that state that, should the debtor pay the creditor direct, then it becomes the responsibility of the creditor to deal with fees. They had previously told me that they were passing my payment onto Sherforce.

 

Today I get another reply saying that, as I paid by bank transfer, it was difficult for them to refuse my payment, and that they will now return the money to me! Can you believe these people? They accuse me of seeking to avoid the enforcement costs, well, duh, yes, as these costs are at best highly questionable or at worst illegal.

 

You would think, wouldn't you, that a creditor would just be glad to get paid off. Not this lot. They are being particularly bloody-minded about this. It's not like they will have to pay the full costs as were charged to me; all the information I have found suggests that they just pay a percentage of the amount of the debt that I paid to them direct.

 

If they are worried about me setting some sort of precedent here, by bypassing the enforcement process, so what? They still get their money. Sherforce will want to continue to work for them so in my case will still get a percentage. There will be plenty of others out there they will try to extract their stupid fees from.

 

I am unclear now what the best way forward is. I could resend the payment, and we could go on batting this to and fro indefinitely.

 

I'd really appreciate any advice. Thanks.

[Guest DebtWeary]

Update - the creditor has now changed their mind and is going to forward my payment to Sherforce who will continue with their enforcement! What are they going to enforce?? They have told me to address all future correspondence to Sherforce. I replied saying that if they choose to send the money to them, that is their affair and that as far as I am concerned, I have paid off the original CCJ, direct to them as I am supposed to.

 

I have also emailed Sherforce and requested full justification for their £1700 charges, telling them that if they can't or won't provide this, then I shall be lodging a formal complaint with the HCEO Association.

 

I can find no rule or piece of legislation that says I must make payments to the HCEO. If anyone knows different, then I'd be glad to hear about it!

[ohitsonlyme]

Subbing with interest cant help on this one but will help with SF fight

onlyme

[Guest DebtWeary]

Thanks Onlyme!

[Guest DebtWeary]

Hi, I have received yet another communication from the creditor in this case telling me that they have instructed Sherforce to continue with enforcement.

 

I would really appreciate a definitive answer here - I have paid the Judgement debt to the creditor therefore on what possible legal basis could any further enforcement action be taken?

 

All the evidence I have found suggests that there is no legal obligation to pay the HCEO rather than the creditor in this situation.

 

Please can someone help??

[hardworking_harddoneby]

Hi, I have received yet another communication from the creditor in this case telling me that they have instructed Sherforce to continue with enforcement.

 

I would really appreciate a definitive answer here - I have paid the Judgement debt to the creditor therefore on what possible legal basis could any further enforcement action be taken?

 

All the evidence I have found suggests that there is no legal obligation to pay the HCEO rather than the creditor in this situation.

 

Please can someone help??

 

Hi Debtweary,

I really sympathise with you, it's so frustrating to get that far and have them mess you about,

If you have a statement showing you have paid the ccj, and the bailiffs only legal fees are around the £42.00 mark I've seen for 2 visits, can you not just send a cheque for that amount with a letter quoting from the Act that stated those fees, and make it very clear you know your rights and will pursue them in the county court and report to police for fraud? I've seen that info somewhere, some of it is on my Thread,

Obviously I am not an expert, I'm still fighting my own case... but that is what I would do in your position, how can sherforce enforce a judgement that doesn't exist???

Good luck, and sorry I can't be more useful,

 

HH XX

[hallowitch]

If you have a statement showing you have paid the ccj, and the bailiffs only legal fees are around the £42.00 mark I've seen for 2 visits,

 

Hardworking HCEO charge different fees these fees are only for council tax debt

[ohitsonlyme]

DW, If you have a good contact at the Original Creditors, ask them (plead if necessary )for some help, it works sometimes.

Tell them you are prepared can pay them the abortive fees for sherforce.

 

This is considerably less than, the fees SF will try to extract from you.

 

Be quick tho you dont want them sending your money to SF as Sf will only set it against their fees, at this time I dont know where you would stand if they do.

perhaps a PM to tom tubby or Lets fight bailiffs or wonkey donkey or ploddertom will help as all of these are very exerienced in the SF game

 

Onlyme

[ploddertom]

DW, If you have a good contact at the Original Creditors, ask them (plead if necessary )for some help, it works sometimes.

Tell them you are prepared can pay them the abortive fees for sherforce.

 

This is considerably less than, the fees SF will try to extract from you.

 

Be quick tho you dont want them sending your money to SF as Sf will only set it against their fees, at this time I dont know where you would stand if they do.

perhaps a PM to tom tubby or Lets fight bailiffs or wonkey donkey or ploddertom will help as all of these are very exerienced in the SF game

 

Onlyme

 

A quick one as I'm off to work but will try to look up this afternoon if quiet. This may be what you don't want to hear but believe the Claimants are within their rights to do as they have done. If it had been done by cheque - which could have been returned or by phone to a person then it may have been a different story. It should still be worth trying Onlyme's suggestion.

 

Have you received a full breakdown previously from the HCEO and if so did this include a screenshot/activity report? If so post it up and we'll have a look to see if there is anything extraordinary on there. If posting the docs please remove all personal data.

 

PT

[Guest DebtWeary]

Thanks everyone for all the info, I appreciate it.

 

Onlyme, the creditor has been less than helpful, I might even say pig-headed so I don't think I'll get far there. They appear to be less than clear as to what to do, as they started by saying they would send the money to Sherforce, then to me, then back to Sherforce again! Yes the abortive fee might be a good compromise, only £60 I believe, better than £1700!

 

Ploddertom, I have previously received a statement of charges, and I have emailed them requesting justification for, and proof of all these charges. Notably, most fall into the Rule 12 category and I have requested evidence tha they have applied to court to have these charges approved, as the rule states.

 

I have also asked the creditor to cite any legislation and/or regulations that state the debtor in my situation MUST pay the HCEO rather than the creditor. If they are able to do this, then I will reconsider the charges.

 

The bottom line is, I had a CCJ, I have paid off the CCJ direct to the creditor, as I am supposed to do. I have seen the following on the HCEO Group website FAQs:

 

“If you have seized the defendant’s goods and we accept a direct arrangement or payment in full, what are your likely charges?

We would ask that you do not accept any payments direct once the Writ has been issued, however should this occur there are 2 scenarios..

Secondly – We have attended and left a letter without a formal seizure taking place. In this scenario we would expect you to pay 2.5% plus VAT of what you have recovered, as the debt has now been paid under compulsion of the Writ”

The last paragraph applies to my situation. It doesn't say "The debtor MUST pay the HCEO". It is allowing for the fact that debtors can and DO pay creditors direct.

 

Another quote, from the HCEO Association website:

 

"What happens once the Writ of Fi Fa has been issued?

The HCEO named in the Writ will begin work on your behalf. You should ask the HCEO you have instructed on how long they intend to take to attend the address and report back to you. If the defendant sends you any payments after the Writ has been issued, you should inform the HCEO immediately so that he or she can take care of the fees payable by the debtor as a result of these payments.”

 

The bit I have underlined suggests that at the very least, paying the creditor direct changes the fees in some way, although it is cleverly worded - what does "take care of" mean here?? In any event, again, it does not say that the debtor MUST pay the HCEO.

 

I have spent a lot of time scouring the Internet. I have also consulted a solicitor who told me frankly that he didn't know the answer!

 

I shall be emailing Sherforce again later and if I don't get a satisfactory reply tomorrow, I'm going to the HCEO Association. I am also gathering all this info together as I am sure someone like the Mail On Sunday would be interested.

 

But thank you for the support!

 

DW

Edited January 27, 2010 by DebtWeary

[High Court Enforcer]

Hi, I have received yet another communication from the creditor in this case telling me that they have instructed Sherforce to continue with enforcement.

 

I would really appreciate a definitive answer here - I have paid the Judgement debt to the creditor therefore on what possible legal basis could any further enforcement action be taken?

 

All the evidence I have found suggests that there is no legal obligation to pay the HCEO rather than the creditor in this situation.

 

Please can someone help??

 

The writ of fi fa issued clearly states that the HCEO is commanded to raise the sums due together with their fees and charges.

 

Just because you have tried to bypass SF does not mean you do not owe their fees.

 

You have only paid the creditor because of the actions of the HCEO. Therefore, you owe the fees they have charged. If you disagree with the fees, you can apply for detailed assessment in front of a Master.

 

If you'd have paid the creditor, either before judgment or when it was issued, the HCEO would never have been instructed.

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[Guest DebtWeary]

HCE, thank you for your input but let me be clear on a few points:

 

1. I paid the creditor because I was in a position to, i.e. I finally had enough money to be able to, NOT because of Sherforce.

 

2. The Writ may "command" the HCEO to attempt to obtain the sums due. The fact is, Sherforce did not do this. They initally took my car - then brought it back 5 hours later. No Walking Possession was ever presented to me. Nothing was levied upon.

 

3. Had I been in a position to pay off the debt before Sherforce became involved, I would certainly have done so. I do not need to be told the obvious.

 

4. How do you explain the 2 quotes above? Clearly, debtors DO pay creditors.

 

5. I will ask you as I have asked the creditor - where does it CLEARLY state, either in law or regulations, that the debtor MUST pay the HCEO??

[Guest DebtWeary]

HCE, seeing as how you have weighed in, in typical fashion, I have another couple of questions for you:

 

1. HCEO Regulations Schedule 3, Rule 12 Miscellaneous - When and how does the HCEO apply "to a Master, district judge or costs judge" in order for the sums listed by Sherforce under this rule may be allowed "upon application." ??

 

2. Where is the Walking Possession Agreement the High Court Form 55 - Notice of Seizure I was given clearly states I should have signed and returned??

 

Your knowledgable response would be much appreciated.

[High Court Enforcer]

HCE, seeing as how you have weighed in, in typical fashion, I have another couple of questions for you:

 

1. HCEO Regulations Schedule 3, Rule 12 Miscellaneous - When and how does the HCEO apply "to a Master, district judge or costs judge" in order for the sums listed by Sherforce under this rule may be allowed "upon application." ??

 

2. Where is the Walking Possession Agreement the High Court Form 55 - Notice of Seizure I was given clearly states I should have signed and returned??

 

Your knowledgable response would be much appreciated.

 

The application to the Master is for the defendant to make, not the HCEO.

 

The Walking Possession agreement is a separate document. WP is not always offered if the defendant refuses to pay, refuses to sign the WP or the officer believes that the goods seized are in jeopardy.

[Guest DebtWeary]

The application to the Master is for the defendant to make, not the HCEO..

 

Excuse me? Do you even know the rules under which you supposedly operate? These are HCEO Rules, determining their actions and powers. This rule determines how an HCEO may raise a "Miscellaneous" charge not covered elsewhere in the regulations. Sherforce seem to add most of their charges under this rule - what does that have to do with the defendent??

 

The Walking Possession agreement is a separate document. WP is not always offered if the defendant refuses to pay, refuses to sign the WP or the officer believes that the goods seized are in jeopardy.

 

No WP was offered or even mentioned. I know it is a separate document and how it should be worded. NOTHING was levied upon. I am waiting with interest to see how Sherforce will prove their charges. If they have a WP, I expect to be able to see it.

 

You still haven't explained the quotes from the HCEO Association and the HCEO Group.

[ohitsonlyme]

DW, First of all IGNORE hce, his doom sayer approach will simply throw you off track and wind you up. He cant do that to you if you IGNORE him, he cant even have the decency to reply to any questions that I have asked as he knows I am right so leave well alone and he will go and try to wind someone else up

 

My police investigation of Sf is still ongoing I have recieved a mail today stating even they are having difficulty getting information!!!

 

Your case is so similiar to mine I am sure the charges would be reduced if not thrown out by an interpleader ,the best approach is to wait for them to make their mistakes as you say they have in the SAR and they will pay for the interpleader in order to wriggle out of it.

Send a letter to your local chief of police asking them to investigate the charges that you have outlined

From:

.......

Date

The Chief Constable

Your county headquarters

]Dear Sir Re: Reporting a crime committed under the Fraud Act 2006[/font]

I wish to notify you of a fraud carried out by ......... High court enforcement, Of ....... address

I enclose a document posted thro my letter box by ........High Court Enforcement Ltd. And another document received by post from.......... The fees they have asked me to pay amount to £..... when the law prescribes a fee of £....... (stat fees plus %) Following my Subject access data request from.......HCE I also have written proof of lies and deceit carried out in order to obtain my money by fraud

The Enforcement company commits an offence under the 2006 Fraud Act.

Lord Lucas sitting 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.

Yours Sincerely

You are likely to get a letterputting you off and when you dosend this letter

The Chief Constable

Re ........ High Court Enforcement

Following the inadequate reply from your officer......, I write again to ask you to investigate this complaint fully and to take action against the above company, your DC......... does not seem to grasp the serious nature of my complaint.

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.

This is not a matter for the OFT Trading Standards, nor any other governing body this company have committed a fraudulent act and as such should feel the full presence of the law.

I shall complain to the IPCC and ask them to investigate further should a satisfactory answer not be received within the next 7 days.

Failure to investigate fully could be seen as an attempt to pervert the course of justice, and as such action could be taken against the officers involved in any such action.

yours etc

 

Ofcourse none of this helps your present plight with the OC but I would send them a letter before action as a warning shot if they wont play ball and accept your payment and offer to pay the abortive fees, state that SF are their agent and you will hold them responsible for the actions of their agent and that you ahve proof of the wrong doings that you believe have been carried out, dont give up on forcing the OC to give in to your demands, warn them about suing them for the actions of their agent and they might start to listen

onlyme and many many more

Edited January 27, 2010 by ohitsonlyme
remove hyper text

[ohitsonlyme]

HCE opens his computer an all I hear is blah blah blah

 

Sherforce ran to the interpleader thinking that I wouldnt show and they got a bloody nose

NO WPA , no levy,no valuation - no second visit all charged for and disallowed by the master at an interpleader paid for by Sherforce

 

Say no more

 

onlyme

[ohitsonlyme]

Oh BTW would any one call this fraud????

[High Court Enforcer]

DW, you asked the questions, I gave you the answers. You tried to cheat the system and got caught. Pay what's due.

 

ohitsonlyme (aka Barney Rubble now) you do make me laugh

Edited January 27, 2010 by High Court Enforcer

[High Court Enforcer]

I know it is a separate document and how it should be worded.

 

If you know what it is why ask the stupid question?

[High Court Enforcer]

Oh BTW would any one call this fraud????

 

Not at all.

 

Even the Police understand it is not fraud.

[kiptower]

yet another Nurenberg type statement , from him

[ploddertom]

 

Ploddertom, I have previously received a statement of charges, and I have emailed them requesting justification for, and proof of all these charges. Notably, most fall into the Rule 12 category and I have requested evidence tha they have applied to court to have these charges approved, as the rule states.

 

You have the statement of charges but do you have the "activity report", this sheet(s) lists everything that happened from the time the Writ arrived at Sherforce, includes what charges and at what time they were applied. This is a MOST IMPORTANT document.

 

I shall be emailing Sherforce again later and if I don't get a satisfactory reply tomorrow, I'm going to the HCEO Association. I am also gathering all this info together as I am sure someone like the Mail On Sunday would be interested.

 

The HCEOA is only a trade organisation and will only deal with your complaint once you have exhausted Sherforce's complaints procedure. In reality a toothless organisation so don't get your hopes up of any result here.

DW

 

PT

[ploddertom]

1. HCEO Regulations Schedule 3, Rule 12 Miscellaneous - When and how does the HCEO apply "to a Master, district judge or costs judge" in order for the sums listed by Sherforce under this rule may be allowed "upon application." ??

 

The application to the Master is for the defendant to make, not the HCEO.

 

 

Sorry, but HCE is correct here. If there are any charges contained within this section that you disagree with then unfortunately it is up to you the Defendant to apply to have them struck out/altered. Some charges may be refused or lowered but please note you also run the risk of having some of them increased.

 

PT

[Guest DebtWeary]

Thanks Onlyme, for the letters and the moral support! I see what you mean about HCE trying to stir things up. It seems people like him are never wrong.

 

To answer his question directly, I think it reasonable, not stupid, to ask where the WPA is, when I was told I should have received one. All the answers I have seen you give seem to prove that you have very little grasp of the regulations that apparently govern your behaviour. Assuming, of course, that you are in fact what your name says you are. Besides, you haven't answered the questions (the 2 quotes?), or the interpretation of Rule 12. If anyone is cheating the system, it is Sherforce. And it's only a matter of time before they get caught.

 

Onlyme, like you, all I want to see is fairness and justice. I have no objection to paying for something that clearly relates to the work done. Sherforce and their ilk seem to thrive on exploiting people's ignorance and fear. Their charges cannot be construed as fair or just by anyone's criteria, yet they press on relentlessly trying to screw as much money out of those who have no money. They will continue to do this whilst their victims do not question their actions.

 

I think it's high time HCEO behaviour was put under the microscope by everyone who has had dealings with them. Maybe from that, a FAIR system could evolve.