Naughty naughty Sherforce

[cerberusalert]

A POPULAR seaside restaurant may be forced to close after it was gutted by debt collectors in a case of mistaken identity.

 

Bailiffs broke down the door of Naked Fish in Bridlington.

 

Ovens were ripped out, furniture was removed and even frozen fish and alcohol were confiscated.

 

A cooker was ripped out with such force, it caused a gas leak.

 

Kent-based debt collectors Sherforce claimed Naked Fish had unpaid debts and they had a High Court writ ordering the money be recouped from the business.

 

 

But, within a couple of hours Sherforce apparently admitted there had been "a terrible mistake".

The Naked Fish restuarant in Bridlington was gutted by debt collectors in an apparent case of mistaken identity.

[Guest wino]

Oopps a daisy:p

[High Court Enforcer]

If they've been directed to the property by the cliamant or claimants solicitors then it will be them that are liable for this action.

 

That could be why SF are looking protection...

[kiptower]

breaking and entering

 

stealing goods

 

criminal damage

 

unlawfull removal of goods

 

SF are responsible for their actions, its their duty to ensure they are acting correctly , and any premises they attend they have the lawfull right, not just someones word the address is correct

 

they have already been quoted saying "we made a mistake" which is not excuse for a criminal act's they carried out

 

lets hope the guy screws them for every penny he has lost

 

but them a troll will try to protect his mates ,, oh dear i forgot that

[High Court Enforcer]

Yes, Kiptower.... bet you forget a lot of things...

[kiptower]

the point is you will never know posters real background , or qualifications

 

and to avoid confusion this is what was posted above before being edited " Yes, Kiptower, didnt realise you were a lawyer"

Edited March 11, 2010 by kiptower
missed out "know"

[High Court Enforcer]

the point is you will never posters real background , or qualifications

 

and to avoid confusion this is what was posted above before being edited " Yes, Kiptower, didnt realise you were a lawyer"

 

Yes Kiptower....

[tomtubby]

Many people are unaware of the High Court Enforcement Officers Association (HCEOA). The following link is to their (new ) website which has a lot of information concerning High Court Enforcement.

 

There are also details on the site on how to register a Complaint about a High Court Enforcement Officer.

 

HCE...The site was down at one time..is this a new site?

 

.

http://www.hceoa.org.uk/

[seanamarts]

If they've been directed to the property by the cliamant or claimants solicitors then it will be them that are liable for this action.

 

That could be why SF are looking protection...

 

Protection!!??? What about the 'protection' of the owners property. which after they admitted there had been a mistake they still went ahead and took his property and he had to go to court to get it back, what about protection from the near by buildings from a potential gas leak that could have caused more damages, because they did not take care in uninstalling a gas appliance, which Im sure they had a qualified engineer to do:rolleyes:.

So lets not blame the bailiffs here shall we they were 'just doing a job'

Makes me sick that bailiffs always claim they are blameless in matters like this as they were under instruction from a third party. I hope that guy wins and gets every penny he is asking for. Just goes to show that 'mistakes' ARE made and its the Joe public who end up paying for it in the long run and bailiffs yet again get off scott free.

[ploddertom]

Would be interesting if one of the "Nationals" picked this up.

 

PT

[hallowitch]

pass

Edited March 12, 2010 by hallowitch

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Tomtubby

 

In the true spirit of impartiality (sarcasm) - the chair of the HCEOA is Claire Sandbrook - the CEO of Sherforce!!!

 

Don't you just love it....

[High Court Enforcer]

Yes, 'protection' seanamarts....

 

In all seriousness, if it is a mistake by SF then yes, a claim should be made and the innocent party should get everything he's owed, which will be substantial no doubt.

 

I'm just aware that many solicitors authorise these kind of removals on the facts they have which whilst usually spot on, there is always the chance of error. If the writ was issued at that address and the solicitor has demanded a removal then SF have acted correctly and will be protected from prosecution. As I said before, it could well be the solicitor or claimant that is facing a huge bill.

 

However, we dont know the full the story. Did Mr Goucher own the shop personally and their debt was against his limited co? There could be so many reasons why the solicitor/creditor/SF has reason to believe they were acting correctly.

 

But again it could be an awful mistake. Who knows...???

Edited March 12, 2010 by High Court Enforcer
typo

[lets fight bailiffs]

Tomtubby

 

In the true spirit of impartiality (sarcasm) - the chair of the HCEOA is Claire Sandbrook - the CEO of Sherforce!!!

 

Don't you just love it....

 

Not any more she isn't.

 

the other thing is that a gas cooker has been removed and has caused a leak, now as i understand it under the gas safty law is that you must be Corgi registured therefore have unlawfuly caused danger to lives.

 

They have said that they are trying to claim protection, However this can only be given within interpleader proceeding where there are more than one claim to the same goods there is no need in this case for any such proceedings.

 

this is not good and must stop.

 

LFB

[lets fight bailiffs]

Does this not sound much of the same,

 

It is also claimed that while the vans have been in the hands of Sherforce they have been broken into and left damaged and water-logged, with the estimated cost of repairs to both vehicles running into many thousands of pounds.

The three have since taken the matter to the High Court in April in a bid to solve the dispute, but so far the only offer of compensation has been for £2,000, which they say will not cover the cost of repairing or replacing the vans or covering the loss of earnings.

Shergroup, the enforcement agency’s parent company, responded to the allegations, saying the enforcement action had been carried out in accordance with Order 17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

“A High Court enforcement officer is obliged to act upon any writ that is issued, it is not for (them) to look behind the writ to determine whether it is correct.

“The vehicles did contain personal possessions and both parties were invited to collect those belongings but chose not to do so,” said a company spokesman.

“Allegations of damage to the vehicles have been raised. Those allegations are being dealt with in accordance with our complaints procedure.”

As the Weekly News went to press the procedures were still ongoing, with both vehicles still in storage.

[F_DCAs]

Would anyone like to make sure that the nationals DO pick this up?

[lets fight bailiffs]

Oops,

 

I think i may have forward it to a news preducer at the BBC by mistake.

 

LFB

[kiptower]

ooops I did it also , or its it "oops i did it again"

 

err "its not their place to check it the paperwork is valid"

[seanamarts]

If it does get to the nationals, you can bet that the 'full' story will come out, be an interesting read

[F_DCAs]

Oh dear, LFB - what a shame!

 

It'd be even more of a shame if it were sent to ITV, Sky, Channel 4 and others as well - especially about the gas leak and disregard to public safety.

[kiptower]

whats that saying "if a jobs worth doing"

 

lets hope the exposure curbs the "i was only doing my job guv honest" think that was kicked out @ nurenberg

[F_DCAs]

Oops! I appear to accidentally sent that news link to all 10 of the top syndicated national newspapers. Dearie me...

[regan11]

Good. Everyone should know the excuses these people hide behind.

[lets fight bailiffs]

Say no more,

 

Colwyn Bay traders outraged after vans are repossessed from ...

[kiptower]

needs to be forwarded to the nationals like the other

 

still trying to hide behind "17" again

 

and the old story of damage rearing its head yet again , how strange