Need some advice please - Sherforce again!

[Guest DebtWeary]

Thanks PT, I am on the case so will report as soon as I get any replies.

 

DW

[Guest DebtWeary]

Having just received a reply to my SAR from Sherforce, I thought I would share some very interesting comments that were made in their system notes. One thing that is clarified is how come my car, which was towed away at 9am, was returned to me at 2pm.

 

First, though, from the Field Officer's Report (the first time I was visited).

"The Officer levied on 2 vehicles seen at the address and a request has been made to DVLA..."

 

"WPA signed by: Not signed"

 

He never mentioned my car, never mentioned that he was going to levy on it, no WPA was mentioned then nor during the subsequent visit when the car was towed away.

 

I thought they were legally obliged to inform the debtor is a levy has been made and a WPA completed. No copy of any WPA was included in the SAR documents.

 

On the 2nd visit, when I was told my car was about to be taken, I argued forcefully that it was essential to my work, but it fell on deaf ears (the best he could offer was that I should use public transport!). However, one note from Sherforce.

 

"Call out to speak to C at SW. She will seek instruction as to whether we hold vehicle at agents or return in view of likely claim"

 

Then the next note:

 

"Call back from K at SW. As we were placed on hold for 14 days from 20th but details not on SDT until 26th she feels that debtor should collect car and be advised that SW mean business and Sherforce can remove again if his debt is not paid. K is happy to keep charges against debtor but would be concerned if SW were later billed to include"

 

Because of Sherforce's stupidity in not updating their system, the whole episode happened when it shouldn't have. The client had instructed them to stop and they hadn't.

 

The highlighted bit is interesting. I take it to mean that the creditor went along with the charges added for taking my car! This was £625 plus another "Removal Contractor" fee of £160. But they would be upset if Sherforce tried to pass this cost onto them! Which begs the question: Did Sherforce deliberately ignore the client's instruction to put things on hold because the car removal process was underway and they just wanted to do it anyway?

 

Also, this implies that fees and who pays them must have been discussed, presumably in the event of non-collection by Sherforce. Yet the creditor, in one of their emails to me, stated pompously that they would not be responsible for paying any fees raised against me.

 

All this makes me particularly bitter and angry as it could all have been avoided. At that time, I was dealing with a repossession threat on my home which I narrowly avoided, my mother-in-law was seriously ill and was admitted to hospital a few days after the day my car was taken (she died 5 weeks later). The last thing I needed was this joker taking my car.

 

There are other stupid things in the notes and when (or if) I get further responses back to my questions to SF, I will post again.

 

DW

[ploddertom]

Certainly puts "Once upon a time" into the shade.

 

PT

[ohitsonlyme]

Having just received a reply to my SAR from Sherforce, I thought I would share some very interesting comments that were made in their system notes. One thing that is clarified is how come my car, which was towed away at 9am, was returned to me at 2pm.

 

First, though, from the Field Officer's Report (the first time I was visited).

"The Officer levied on 2 vehicles seen at the address and a request has been made to DVLA..."

 

"WPA signed by: Not signed"

 

He never mentioned my car, never mentioned that he was going to levy on it, no WPA was mentioned then nor during the subsequent visit when the car was towed away.

 

I thought they were legally obliged to inform the debtor is a levy has been made and a WPA completed. No copy of any WPA was included in the SAR documents.

 

On the 2nd visit, when I was told my car was about to be taken, I argued forcefully that it was essential to my work, but it fell on deaf ears (the best he could offer was that I should use public transport!). However, one note from Sherforce.

 

"Call out to speak to C at SW. She will seek instruction as to whether we hold vehicle at agents or return in view of likely claim"

 

Then the next note:

 

"Call back from K at SW. As we were placed on hold for 14 days from 20th but details not on SDT until 26th she feels that debtor should collect car and be advised that SW mean business and Sherforce can remove again if his debt is not paid. K is happy to keep charges against debtor but would be concerned if SW were later billed to include"

 

Because of Sherforce's stupidity in not updating their system, the whole episode happened when it shouldn't have. The client had instructed them to stop and they hadn't.

 

The highlighted bit is interesting. I take it to mean that the creditor went along with the charges added for taking my car! This was £625 plus another "Removal Contractor" fee of £160. But they would be upset if Sherforce tried to pass this cost onto them! Which begs the question: Did Sherforce deliberately ignore the client's instruction to put things on hold because the car removal process was underway and they just wanted to do it anyway?

 

Also, this implies that fees and who pays them must have been discussed, presumably in the event of non-collection by Sherforce. Yet the creditor, in one of their emails to me, stated pompously that they would not be responsible for paying any fees raised against me.

 

All this makes me particularly bitter and angry as it could all have been avoided. At that time, I was dealing with a repossession threat on my home which I narrowly avoided, my mother-in-law was seriously ill and was admitted to hospital a few days after the day my car was taken (she died 5 weeks later). The last thing I needed was this joker taking my car.

 

There are other stupid things in the notes and when (or if) I get further responses back to my questions to SF, I will post again.

 

DW

 

Oh the magic of the SAR "the truth will out"

 

DW did you pay SW while the account was on hold?? if so game set and match

As for the charges clearly they are incorrect may be an application by you to the high court for a detailed fee assessment would be in order before SF apply for a summary assessment

 

It would be interesting if we could ever find out if SF charge SW for the removal for the car even though it was returned ie if they dont get it off us do they get it of the utility companyor some other entity that have less of a stake in the money owed than we do.

 

Keep up the good work I am sure the police would be interested in this!!!!Not only could you fight against SF but also Southern water

so also get a letter off to them(SW) about the illegal levy and that K authorised the charges to remain in place clearly K doesnt know the law

also send an SAR to SW in particular asking about the cahrges agreed and telephone calls form K to SF

 

Head the letter as Letter before action I think you have a claim against them for harrasment and illegal charges and could get you bill paid for you in costs!!!

Ask both for clarification of abreviations

 

onlyme and many more

[ohitsonlyme]

Having just received a reply to my SAR from Sherforce, I thought I would share some very interesting comments that were made in their system notes. One thing that is clarified is how come my car, which was towed away at 9am, was returned to me at 2pm.

 

First, though, from the Field Officer's Report (the first time I was visited).

"The Officer levied on 2 vehicles seen at the address and a request has been made to DVLA..."

 

"WPA signed by: Not signed"

 

He never mentioned my car, never mentioned that he was going to levy on it, no WPA was mentioned then nor during the subsequent visit when the car was towed away.

 

I thought they were legally obliged to inform the debtor is a levy has been made and a WPA completed. No copy of any WPA was included in the SAR documents.

 

On the 2nd visit, when I was told my car was about to be taken, I argued forcefully that it was essential to my work, but it fell on deaf ears (the best he could offer was that I should use public transport!). However, one note from Sherforce.

 

"Call out to speak to C at SW. She will seek instruction as to whether we hold vehicle at agents or return in view of likely claim"

 

Then the next note:

 

"Call back from K at SW. As we were placed on hold for 14 days from 20th but details not on SDT until 26th she feels that debtor should collect car and be advised that SW mean business and Sherforce can remove again if his debt is not paid. K is happy to keep charges against debtor but would be concerned if SW were later billed to include"

 

Because of Sherforce's stupidity in not updating their system, the whole episode happened when it shouldn't have. The client had instructed them to stop and they hadn't.

 

The highlighted bit is interesting. I take it to mean that the creditor went along with the charges added for taking my car! This was £625 plus another "Removal Contractor" fee of £160. But they would be upset if Sherforce tried to pass this cost onto them! Which begs the question: Did Sherforce deliberately ignore the client's instruction to put things on hold because the car removal process was underway and they just wanted to do it anyway?

 

Also, this implies that fees and who pays them must have been discussed, presumably in the event of non-collection by Sherforce. Yet the creditor, in one of their emails to me, stated pompously that they would not be responsible for paying any fees raised against me.

 

All this makes me particularly bitter and angry as it could all have been avoided. At that time, I was dealing with a repossession threat on my home which I narrowly avoided, my mother-in-law was seriously ill and was admitted to hospital a few days after the day my car was taken (she died 5 weeks later). The last thing I needed was this joker taking my car.

 

There are other stupid things in the notes and when (or if) I get further responses back to my questions to SF, I will post again.

 

DW

 

Oh the magic of the SAR "the truth will out"

 

DW did you pay SW while the account was on hold?? if so game set and match

As for the charges clearly they are incorrect may be an application by you to the high court for a detailed fee assessment would be in order before SF apply for a summary assessment

 

It would be interesting if we could ever find out if SF charge SW for the removal for the car even though it was returned ie if they dont get it off us do they get it of the utility companyor some other entity that have less of a stake in the money owed than we do.

 

Keep up the good work I am sure the police would be interested in this!!!!Not only could you fight against SF but also Southern water

so also get a letter off to them(SW) about the illegal levy and that K authorised the charges to remain in place clearly K doesnt know the law

also send an SAR to SW in particular asking about the cahrges agreed and telephone calls form K to SF

 

Head the letter as Letter before action I think you have a claim against them for harrasment and illegal charges and could get you bill paid for you in costs!!!

Ask both for clarification of abreviations

 

onlyme and many more

[Guest DebtWeary]

Hi Onlyme, no I didn't pay SW while the account was on hold, unfortunately. Thing is, I had requested the 14 days to sort out a payment plan over a week before my car was taken so they had no excuse. The copy of the email I sent requesting this was in their notes.

 

I have lodged a SAR with SW, so am awaiting a reply. They provide a special PDF form to complete for the purpose so clearly they get a lot of such requests. They even have their own Data Protection officer! I will see what their SAR has to say before planning the next move.

 

DW

[ohitsonlyme]

hi DW,any update from sf/sw

onlyme

[Guest DebtWeary]

Hi Onlyme, the situation is still ongoing, after waiting many weeks I finally got the additional SAR information I requested from the HCEO, plus an updated statement. About half the original fees have been "written off", there is still a sizeable amount left under Rule 12. I am considering my response which I will probably send over this weekend.

 

I'll PM you wth the details as soon as I have done this.

 

Thanks,

 

DW