baliffs overcharging ...

[westgarth]

I have recently had a problem because I vacated a building and then was taken to court at the vacated address for a sum of £500 ( ish ). I never received the summons and court summons turned into a judgement which turned into a high court writ after which a Sheriffs enforcement officer ( posh name for a baliff ) turned up at the premises.

 

The new tennant was able to get in touch with me and I met the baliff who demanded £1100 (ish). I asked how the costs has shot up from the £500 debt and he said it was down to the court and I should apply to them if I had a problem..... He said that if I didnt pay then they would put a trace on me and come to my home and serve the writ etc . I paid the money and have since challenged the Sheriffs office ( not the court ) about the excessive costs and received a cheque from them for £400 and an apology for the overcharge. They had in fact charged me for siezing and removing goods, walk in possession etc which they had not done. The baliff had full knowledge as to what he was charging me for and handed me his office paperwork with the amount he wanted to collect which included the costs for work he had not carried out.

 

If I had not taken the Sheriffs/Baliffs Office to task they would have pocketed the money and lived happily ever after. The paperwork he handed me was on their official paper and looked like it was something they do as standard procedure.

 

I am sure that the scare tactic are used in every case and that they must get away with pocketing the extra cash most of the time ......

 

I am interested to find out if anyone else has been a victim to this type of scenario where they have paid in full what was asked and have either challenged and got money back or accepted that what was asked for was correct and legal ?

 

I am considering taking the matter further with this baliff as I am sure that I am not the only one who his firm has performed these misleading tactics on .

 

Any comments ?

 

Cheers

[fork-it]

If the fees are not genuine then dont pay it.

 

I would have thought legal process should have been served at your present address before any fee liability arises. You need to be able to defend the claim.

 

Are you in scotland - you say sherriff officer and is the debt from a biz renting a biz property? in Scotland a LLP may protect you from liability.

[westgarth]

I paid it direct to the sheriffs office within a couple of days, then slept on it and thought nuts to that i am gonna challenge it, spoke to the director and emailed over to him what happened, he emailed back accepting that i had been overcharged and sent a refund, my beef is that how many people pay up and dont challenge what they have paid, the enforcement officer who i met knew that the charges were for levying, walk in possession order, sending a van to remove etc, and he knew that non of this had taken place, so as far as I am concerned he and his company are negligent and acted outside of the law etc etc he demanded money from me knowing full well he was not entitled to it. there is a legal schedule of charges that baliffs/sheriffs should apply and they had knowingly loaded all the charges up front on the first visit.

 

I am sure that this is common practice and they get away with it most of the time...

 

No not in scotland in england

[fork-it]

looking thru these threads, charging fees like these is common practice because they know they will get away with it, most debt cases are gone aways and deadbeats and become a lost cause, so I think bailiffs make up for all these bad cases with the occasional pearl, a debtor who has money and vulnerable assets, and not likely to question the fees and milk it for everything they can.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

You're thinking something must be done about this. It's not good enough just giving the more savvy people their money back, then moving onto the next victim.

 

Join the club.

 

I'm thinking of placeing adds in the local papers to find other 'victims'. The courts, councils and trading standards just seem view these things one case at a time - never putting the true picture together.

 

Someone needs to spell it out for them...

 

Looks like its going to have to be me!

 

Westgarth could go to the police, it's a blatant fraud, but in isolation they will view it as an 'error' or oversight by the bailiffs.

 

 

 

I think like minded people should find a way to pool resources and avoid duplication of effort.

 

I think this forum is the ideal starting point. Look what they achieved with bank charges.

 

The problem with the bailiff issue, despite the efforts of some very selfless dedicated people, the forum amounts to little more than 'fire fighting' - worthwhile and noble, but i feel the need to be more pro-active.

[seanamarts]

Who was the bailiff company?

[fork-it]

It could be the authorities know of the problem and dont want to do anything about it. Lord Lucas asked questions about bailiffs fees and the fraud act several years ago and the officil position it is a crime. But the problem is still there and police still say its not a crime.

[westgarth]

You're thinking something must be done about this. It's not good enough just giving the more savvy people their money back, then moving onto the next victim.

 

Join the club.

 

I'm thinking of placeing adds in the local papers to find other 'victims'. The courts, councils and trading standards just seem view these things one case at a time - never putting the true picture together.

 

Someone needs to spell it out for them...

 

Looks like its going to have to be me!

 

Westgarth could go to the police, it's a blatant fraud, but in isolation they will view it as an 'error' or oversight by the bailiffs.

 

 

 

I think like minded people should find a way to pool resources and avoid duplication of effort.

 

I think this forum is the ideal starting point. Look what they achieved with bank charges.

 

The problem with the bailiff issue, despite the efforts of some very selfless dedicated people, the forum amounts to little more than 'fire fighting' - worthwhile and noble, but i feel the need to be more pro-active.

 

The main reason I posted this thread on here is to see if there are many people who have been defrauded like I was and if so then maybe we can bring together a class action where we get it out in the open, bring in the newspapers, tv etc....

 

I asked the Enforcement Office for a breakdown of the charges that the £1100 covered, which they sent over to me, then I challenged each charge and the reason for each charge. I received my refund cq from the baliffs and an apology in writing, once I spoke to one of the directors and he could see that I knew exactly what they had done and that I was not going to go away.

 

They charged for seizure of goods that they didnt do and even if they did the goods wern't mine and I proved it to the Enforcement Officer

 

They charged a walk in possession fee even though there was no seizure or walk in possession notice signed

 

They charged an ENFORCEMENT Fee under the Regulation Fee's section 5.3 which is for removal of goods (even though the goods were never seized or removed) In the Fee regulations, section 5.3 is for :- removal of goods or storage of goods or upkeep of animals seized, but the Enforcement Officer has described it simply as Enforcements to disguise the above fact and mislead me ( and probably others ) into paying.

 

They charged a no sale inventory fee for an inventory that never took place

 

They charged VAT on the above.

 

The Enforcement Officer, when I met him in a car park, gave me the paperwork from his company that says that goods listed are seized and now in the custody of the Enforcement Officer - the seizure list was blank along with a blank unsigned walking possession agreement ?????.

 

The paperwork has the HCEO fee's as one total and includes all of the above even though non of the above took place, and even the percentage fee and milage fee that they are allowed to charged is questionable because they went to an address that isnt mine.

 

The paperwork passed to me is from the Enforcement Officers office and states that the full payment must be made. Even if a seizure list had been made and a walking possession agreement had been signed then that does not allow them to charge for Fee's under section 5.3.

 

This is obviously a normal tactic that is used to obtain money by deception.

 

Its a major [problem] when the baliffs collecting the payment for a debt where the debtor might be ripping off the supplier are actually doing the ripping off themselves !!!!!

[welsh1]

The main reason I posted this thread on here is to see if there are many people who have been defrauded like I was and if so then maybe we can bring together a class action where we get it out in the open, bring in the newspapers, tv etc....

 

I asked the Enforcement Office for a breakdown of the charges that the £1100 covered, which they sent over to me, then I challenged each charge and the reason for each charge. I received my refund cq from the baliffs and an apology in writing, once I spoke to one of the directors and he could see that I knew exactly what they had done and that I was not going to go away.

 

They charged for seizure of goods that they didnt do and even if they did the goods wern't mine and I proved it to the Enforcement Officer

 

They charged a walk in possession fee even though there was no seizure or walk in possession notice signed

 

They charged an ENFORCEMENT Fee under the Regulation Fee's section 5.3 which is for removal of goods (even though the goods were never seized or removed) In the Fee regulations, section 5.3 is for :- removal of goods or storage of goods or upkeep of animals seized, but the Enforcement Officer has described it simply as Enforcements to disguise the above fact and mislead me ( and probably others ) into paying.

 

They charged a no sale inventory fee for an inventory that never took place

 

They charged VAT on the above.

 

The Enforcement Officer, when I met him in a car park, gave me the paperwork from his company that says that goods listed are seized and now in the custody of the Enforcement Officer - the seizure list was blank along with a blank unsigned walking possession agreement ?????.

 

The paperwork has the HCEO fee's as one total and includes all of the above even though non of the above took place, and even the percentage fee and milage fee that they are allowed to charged is questionable because they went to an address that isnt mine.

 

The paperwork passed to me is from the Enforcement Officers office and states that the full payment must be made. Even if a seizure list had been made and a walking possession agreement had been signed then that does not allow them to charge for Fee's under section 5.3.

 

This is obviously a normal tactic that is used to obtain money by deception.

 

Its a major [problem] when the baliffs collecting the payment for a debt where the debtor might be ripping off the supplier are actually doing the ripping off themselves !!!!!

 

 

Slightly confused by the highlighted sentence,you are saying they did not do a seizure,and then you proved the goods they seized were not yours.

[westgarth]

Slightly confused by the highlighted sentence,you are saying they did not do a seizure,and then you proved the goods they seized were not yours.

 

I had to prove to him that i wasnt the tennant and that the goods held at the property are not mine, a baliff can walk in and levy on anything that is in the premises basicaly unless it is excluded under the regs and it is up to the owner of the goods to prove ownership so the new tenant would have had to prove to the muppet that the goods were theirs. I proved to him that i was not the tennant and that i did not own any of the goods as well - that is what i was trying to get across.

[High Court Enforcer]

They charged VAT on the above.

 

The fees are VAT qualifying.

[welsh1]

Could you clarify if this was bailiffs or hceo's as you said the debt was £500 ish,but to move to the high court,i am sure the debt has to be £600.

 

Who were the company?could you post up a copy of the break down of the charges?so we could see exactly what they tried to charge you.

[ploddertom]

Could you clarify if this was bailiffs or hceo's as you said the debt was £500 ish,but to move to the high court,i am sure the debt has to be £600.

 

It would be including debt+costs

 

Who were the company?could you post up a copy of the break down of the charges?so we could see exactly what they tried to charge you.

 

 

I would imagine if they readily refunded there are more charges they are hiding. This needs to go further. If as you say you never received the original CCJ then you should have applied for Set Aside. If won ALL the HCEO fees would have been refunded.

 

PT

[High Court Enforcer]

If won ALL the HCEO fees would have been refunded.PT

 

Not if the funds have already been paid to the creditor.

[High Court Enforcer]

Could you clarify if this was bailiffs or hceo's as you said the debt was £500 ish,but to move to the high court,i am sure the debt has to be £600.

 

To transfer a judgment to the High Court for the purposes of enforcement, the judgment debt and court costs must be £600 or over.

 

To explain: If the judgment is £510 and the court costs are £90 then this would qualify.

[welsh1]

Thank you HCE and Ploddertom for the information about the fees:)

[westgarth]

The fees are VAT qualifying.

 

course they are but it added to the ripp of charge they made... so are you a high court officer then or is that just your name on here ?

[westgarth]

Could you clarify if this was bailiffs or hceo's as you said the debt was £500 ish,but to move to the high court,i am sure the debt has to be £600.

 

Who were the company?could you post up a copy of the break down of the charges?so we could see exactly what they tried to charge you.

 

I am trying to find out exactly what high court they used to issue the writ as I think that they might have blagged that as well, spoke to the court but they didnt have a clue what i was talking about, emailed the baliff and asked but got no answer as yet, emailed the solicitor used by the creditor but no reply from them as yet,, the debt was £500 plus judgement costs of £125 totaling £625, trying to fond out from the courts if the £600 is including costs but the idiot who I spoke to said there was no minimum limit for a high court writ, I said that as far as I was aware if the debt was between £600 - £5000 then a high court writ could be applied, she didnt have a clue ....... so does anyone in here know, what about you mr high court enforcer, maybe you can inform me please.

[ploddertom]

I am trying to find out exactly what high court they used to issue the writ as I think that they might have blagged that as well, spoke to the court

 

If you have spoken to your local County Court then this is the reply you will get as they will not know.

 

but they didnt have a clue what i was talking about, emailed the baliff and asked but got no answer as yet, emailed the solicitor used by the creditor but no reply from them as yet,, the debt was £500 plus judgement costs of £125 totaling £625,

 

That is correct and a Writ may be applied for

 

trying to fond out from the courts if the £600 is including costs but the idiot who I spoke to said there was no minimum limit for a high court writ, I said that as far as I was aware if the debt was between £600 - £5000 then a high court writ could be applied, she didnt have a clue ....... so does anyone in here know, what about you mr high court enforcer, maybe you can inform me please.

 

In what capacity were you done for the CCJ - business or personal?

 

PT

[westgarth]

I would imagine if they readily refunded there are more charges they are hiding. This needs to go further. If as you say you never received the original CCJ then you should have applied for Set Aside. If won ALL the HCEO fees would have been refunded.

 

PT

 

cost to apply for set aside is £75 and then its up to the judge to decide, and because it was my last known address to the creditor they served it at the correct address, so not sure its worth going down that rd to be honest

 

what I am up for is exposing scenarios like this because what I am reading on some of these threads is that no one actualy knows there rights,they panic and thank god the baliff doesnt take their goods and its all over, thats where baliffs make there money from,

 

I just types out a long paragraph explaining certain other things and giving some more info regarding this matter but deleted it cos I just thought anyone can be reading this forum and if I was a HCSO I would be on here having a look round

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Just out of interest...

 

If he had sent £26 to the creditor shortly after judgment - would that preclude the use of a HCEO ?

[westgarth]

In what capacity were you done for the CCJ - business or personal?

 

PT

 

Business, didnt pay a supplier, moved premises 6 month ago and forgot to pay the bill, they issued a summons at the old address then a judgement, then transfered to high court writ then baliff at old premises

[westgarth]

To transfer a judgment to the High Court for the purposes of enforcement, the judgment debt and court costs must be £600 or over.

 

To explain: If the judgment is £510 and the court costs are £90 then this would qualify.

 

Just read your post so that answered my first question to you, thank you,,, my second question is are you an actual HCSO ?

[westgarth]

Just out of interest...

 

If he had sent £26 to the creditor shortly after judgment - would that preclude the use of a HCEO ?

 

wouldnt think so

[High Court Enforcer]

Westgarth, nothing you say on here will be anything new I can assure you.

 

With regard to the County Court, unfortunatley they have little to no knowledge of HCEO procedures. The county court used by the company I work for regularly advise debtors that all High Court writs are issued at the RCJ, completely unaware that they are issued by their own colleagues in the same office! (District Registry)