Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your statement requires work...unless you wish to send it as is. The court has not directed you submit a further statement they already have your initial statement within your N244 application.   You can send the consent order if you wish but don't expect a reply.
    • I have posted it and explained in reply to the new  defence counterclaim I adopted from you. Its nightmare getting through to the court. the lady at the court office  told me that,  to submit N224 for extension will cost me £175.00, may be I didn't hear her well as I believe that, it might be more than that. Can anyone help on this. I have been on to the phone to the court house just to make the payment, cant get through and still on the phone as at this moment. I have however sent a cheque in the phone to the court. 
    • Hi Andyorch isn't a good idea if i send them via email now instead 7 days prior to hearing also is it worth sending consent order form to hx parking to see if they agree to set the case aside?
    • Hi, I've had a quick look for similar threads, but haven't found any - so apologies in advance if the issue has been raised elsewhere.   So, long story short: > Peoples Energy go bust in September, > Account assigned to British Gas - not at all happy with this as BG is probably at the top of my Energy Supplier sh* list! > Advised to hang fire with them (by them, no surprise) until my account is migrated from People's Energy (PE), so as to ensure my credit, circa £700 is transferred from the administrators and direct debits are kept setup with PE as these will also be moved. > Final meter reading provided to BG September. > Zero comms from BG, until, you guessed it, early Jan demanding my bill was paid within 3 days (what bill, I hadn't even had one), for the price of £400 odd. The irony in this is that way back in September, I actually predicted BG would do something like this, hold back bills until it was at such a level that you would have to pay it in order for them to let you move account. Now I know what you are thinking, hadn't you been putting the uncollected DD amount away in prep for your bill. The simple answer is... Yes. BUT, as a matter of principle, BG are due to receive my £700 credit from PE and haven't managed to transfer the DD's across. Do you really think I am going to part with £400 when I am actually owed £700. For me its a matter of principle, yes I am stubborn, but I've seen this BG movie before. > Called BG, was on hold for an hour before putting thru to the most un-knowledgeable customer service agent. I'm not having a go at them, I'm having a go at BG for basically just throwing bodies at the problem as a deflection tactic. She did say my bill would be put on hold and I would receive a telephone call by the end of the week (last week) to discuss my complaint. I had asked to be put thru to complaints, but for some reason, this wasnt possible or the poor lady wasnt shown how to do this. Guess what, no call from BG to discuss the complaint. I did however receive a chaser to pay my bill.   So really what I am asking is that: > Is anyone else in the same situation with their account being migrated, DD to be setup and receiving your credit? > Should I just stop being stubborn, pay the bill and move my account elsewhere - what will happen to my credit from PE, we have been advised by BG not to cancel DD's and bear with them until everything is transferred. Great advice, what they really meant was, don't do anything until we ramp up your bill that much (in the hope you cant pay), so we can hold your face to the fire and you can never leave.   I cannot stand BG, their service has always been absolutely shocking and tactics questionable. We have previous with them (to which I won, but that's another story).   Anyway, a bit of a rant but does make me feel slightly better. Just wondering what the options I have are. 
    • This is a spectacular story. We normally advise people to sue Hermes because generally speaking the contract has been made through Packlink which is domiciled in Spain and too difficult to reach with a county court action. In this case you have a choice of suing Hermes or P2G. Generally speaking we have tended anyway to find that Hermes are easier to go up against.    As you are dealing with the loss of 38 parcels here, I would suggest that the way forward is to sue in respect of them individually or just a couple at a time. This will be much cheaper for you – which means less risk and you can see how the claim goes. 95% certain that Hermes will put their hands up after having come up with the usual arguments. They will force you to mediation and then at mediation you will have to stand your ground and insist on every last penny. Once you have done that, then we can communicate with Hermes and tell them that either they sort out the rest of them although are more court cases coming and it will be the death of a thousand cuts. Also, the amber stories interesting and I suppose it is probably true but I want to know the crime number from Hermes whereas P2G are not the victims of crime and they wouldn't be obliged to provide you with this information. Personally I can't imagine that Hermes isn't insured against theft and if this is the case, then it would be quite a scandal if they put in a claim for the value of the parcels et cetera and then they pay you are on the basis that you had no insurance. I think this is a point worth leverage in. And of course we could have a bit of fun and sue Hermes for one parcel and at the same time sue P2G for one of the others and see how both cases went along . I suppose a lot depends on how much of a hurry you are into get reimbursement and whether taking the small claims in the County Court actually interests you or you simply just want to get them out of the way. I would certainly counsel against suing for all in one go. It reduces the risk factor to Hermes if they lose the case because they will only have to pay one claim fee and one hearing fee whereas if we deliver the claims separately, then the sum total of the claim fees and hearing fees which they will eventually pay out to you would be far greater – by a considerable factor. We would make this clear to them after they had settled the first case. You would not be able to run more than one case against Hermes at any one time because there is a risk that the cases would be joined. They would have to be done separately and the second one would only be started once you had your victory in the first one
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

Sherforce lost the plot and the case:

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4143 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts


In brief, this is a very recent appeal to the High Court by Claire Sandbrook (Sherforce) following the refusal last October by Deputy Master Hoffman to restrain the Interpleader claimant (DSI Foods Ltd) from bringing an action against her. By way of background, DSI Foods is a company that provides in flight foods for various airlines. You will see that she LOST the case!!

You will note from the Judgment that Sherforce were heavily criticised by the Master for failing to abide by the Directions of the court etc and the Judge seemed to consider that our good “friend” Chris Badger was being less that truthful in his Witness Statement. Oh Bless him!!!

The case has been picked up by many legal firms and simple Google searches using Huntress Search Ltd v Canapeum Ltd will reveal many references. The following text if from one legal firm: is an interesting one:

A judgment creditor may enforce its judgment by seizing and selling at auction a debtor’s goods. In the High Court, a judgment creditor applies to an enforcement officer (formerly called a sheriff) to attend at the debtor’s premises to seize goods. In the county court a bailiff is instructed.

Proceedings were brought by DSI Foods Limited (DSI) against the enforcement officer who had attended at their premises. DSI were not the judgment debtor, but the enforcement officer had refused to read documents offered by DSI. The financial controller of DSI had only been able to bring the execution to an end by permitting a payment to be made against his personal debit card. The enforcement officer applied for an order restraining these proceedings, but the Master refused to grant the enforcement officer the relief claimed. The enforcement officer appealed.

As the court noted, there is relatively little authority giving guidance as to when relief should be granted. Previous case law acknowledged that a sheriff is entitled to protection where the claimant had not suffered a real and substantial grievance. So the question was, whether in the light of the limited case law available, had DSI incurred a real and substantial grievance?

On the facts of this case, the court held that the Master was entitled to conclude that DSI had suffered a real and substantial grievance in respect of the attitude and conduct of the enforcement officers. The enforcement officers refused to consider any of the oral and documentary evidence that they were not the judgment debtors, that the premises did not belong to the judgment debtor and that there were no assets belonging to the judgment debtor on the premises. DSI also suffered financial loss as a result of the interruption to business and the need to destroy food which was being processed at the material time and which had become contaminated as a result of the enforcement officer’s attendance at the premises.

In addition, as the enforcement officers attended at an address which was not on the appropriate form, a question arose as to whether the enforcement officer only had authority to carry out execution at that address. The court held that the duty of enforcement was to be defined in terms of a specific address or addresses rather than by reference merely to a wide geographical jurisdiction although it was not determinative of the appeal itself.

This case is of note as there has been very case law on the ability of an enforcement officer to apply for relief. This case confirms that a court will explore whether a claimant has suffered a real and substantial grievance when considering relief. In addition, as a practical point, judgment creditors should make clear which address or addresses the enforcement officer is to attend rather than relying on an enforcement officer’s general jurisdiction for the area so as to avoid any confusion.

Huntress Search Limited (Claimant) v Canapeum Limited (Defendant) and DSI Foods Limited (Interpleader Claimant) [2010] EWHC 1270

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a stunning Judgment and I will read it in full later today and respond more tomorrow.


It is CLEAR however that the Judge was most critical of Sherforce and frankly, from the small amount that I have read so far.... he is justified in what he has said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting article to read and makes one wonder what is happening in Essex. There used to be 5 HCEOS listed by their website - one left to go to Rossendales - now I note another appears to have left leaving only 3. Is the good ship Sherforce floundering? If so serves them right due to their attitude and actions - let's hope things get even worse.



Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running




Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi postggj


TT hopefully will be able to comment on the impact this judgement will have for the poor s*ds who have no idea they are being fleeced and simply pay up without argument.

If you read the posts by some of those who lost their livelihoods (at worst) such as "letsfightbailiffs" who found that Sherforce sneaked in the back door and got protection so the HCEO could not to be held accountable for her actions, by using High Court Interpleaders, which for the lay person and those unable to afford legal representation appeared formidible.

I was visited by Sherforce and everything that happened in this case happened to me...I offered written proof the premises they were attending were the wrong premises, they ignored me and refused to speak with me, as I was not the person they wanted the money from but, nevertheless they were prepared to remove all the stock from the premises even though I was not the debtor, they threatened my staff with violence...they neither showed or gave any paperwork to substantiate reason for attending...they added a multitude of fraudulent costs for work they never did...etc etc etc.... and my personal account had to pay them upfront to protect my business and I then had to fight to get that back, when I challenged THEY entered an Interpleader which I assumed was a hearing to raise my concerns over the whole senario but in reality was merely an exercise to get the HCEO protected from the private action I was going to take against her. I never understood this Interpleader so naturally they walked in and trampled any hopes of getting justice for all the wrongs they had committed.

They obviously make it a regular thing to enforce in this way and this time they came unstuck and have been exposed as unscrupulous liars and shysters. I will follow this with great interest and hope they are now made to pay thousands of pounds in compensation to this company.



Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...