Rip-Off Britain - BBC1 9/2/2010

[Dragonlaird]

Visited this site many times for some useful tips. Living in Scotland, we don't have Bailiffs, we have Sheriff Enforcement Officers and having had the misfortune of having them pay me a visit for something they should never have appeared for, I can sympathise with the couple from Otterburn highlighted in the above episode.

 

Question: Just how 'robust' can Bailiffs and Sherriff Enforcement Officers be? If the one who visited the couple was anything like the 2 that appeared at my door, they must have been quaking in their shoes.

 

Does 'robust' mean they can bully and intimidate you? Attempt to force entry?

 

Advice I've read on here in the past suggests otherwise (thanks to all who posted on this topic - very useful for me) and well done to the couple for sticking up for themselves and tackling it all the way. Sadly I have found in my own experience that when you win, they don't always want to let it go and hate being proven wrong so please be wary of any come-backs they might have up their sleeve.

 

Stick to your guns you 2, you're showing the rest of us that sometimes the little man can win!

[hallowitch]

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Naked-Fish-restaurant-gutted-bailiffs/article-1902157-detail/article.html

[Dragonlaird]

Thank's for that link Hallowitch. It's the same company that tried to rip-off the Otterburn couple... Are these people regulated? They seem to be a law unto themselves with a principle of 'guilty until proven innocent'.

 

How can they get away with such things? Surely moral decency would force them to admit their own fault and make good on the damages caused, without having to take *them* to court to claim compensation. Have these people got not morals?

[wonkeydonkey]

subbing with great interest to hear all the caggers comments on this

[Dragonlaird]

I found the episode to contain some good advice by both the couple concerned and the post-story interviewee and also highlighted how unscrupulous some of these companies are.

 

In the interview with the CEO of Sherforce, she mentioned that it was their choice to take the matter to the high-court, thereby allowing them to use the 'robust' enforcement officers. I stifled a laugh when she mention how they were regulated by the judiciary. Surely she meant 'protected by'? After all, who in the judiciary is going to reprimand someone when they themselves have told that person to do their dirty work? It's akin to the Police policing the Police.

 

When she mentioned how 'robust' these officers were I immediately thought of the poor buggers on the receiving end and suddenly it wasn't so funny. The number of cases on this site alone who have had the misfortune of dealing with the judiciary's pitbulls can attest to how many of these individuals are intimidating, bullying and unrelenting, often employing lying and deceitful tactics and misdirection to give credence to them over-stepping their boundaries and strong-arming unwary and vulnerable individuals into paying for fictitious and unsubstantiated fees.

 

It's about time they were taken to task for their behaviour. Whilst I admit there is a need for strong-minded people to enforce a court order, surely when they screw up, ignore or over-step the mark they should be treated exactly the same as someone else commiting common assault (or worse) and the judiciary should be seen to regulate them instead of allowing them to hide behind a court-given licence to print money?

 

Thankfully, advice given on here on how to deal with these people is invaluable but sadly those affected find this site after they have already had a visit, after which many of their actions have already been 'justified' in law, such as gaining entry to premises under false pretences, forcing entry, having the individual arrested so they can gain unrestricted entry etc.

 

Similarly, those presented with large (often double the original debt) bills for their 'services' often just pay up instead of taking legal and/or financial advice themselves. There should be caps on how much can be charged for services, admin, processing etc. I think the episode could have highlighted more of these unscrupulous tactics and how to deal with these visitors. It would have been interesting to see actual receipts produced for such fees as 'locksmiths', 'van hire' etc to prove these costs were genuinely incurred. I suspect they simply pile on these charges using a standard template, regardless of if the service was ordered/used or not.

 

Shame there are no readily-available guidelines on what these people can/can't do and what your rights are regarding their visit (apart from searching sites like this - often after the event has occurred). This sort of information should be sent to anyone the courts serve to at least allow them to prepare a defence or deal with them appropriately.

[ploddertom]

Some good points above. One thing I found that stuck out was the "adviser" later in the slot saying they should have gone back to the High Court for approval of the Fees they charged, if this is the case then why didn't the CEO make an issue about that or was that something that the Court refused to do. Found it more interesting in what wasn't said.

 

PT

[Dragonlaird]

Good points PT, another point the CEO glossed over/ignored... In the interview, the reporter mentioned the court order Sherforce to re-imbursed the couple. I can't recall if it was all funds or just the fees charged.

 

The CEO was also heard to say at the end of their interview that they would always be seen in a bad light with these types of cases - Surely that should ring alarm bells for her? Doesn't her own words indicate they know they are doing some things wrong? Shouldn't that prompt them to review their own practices and ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again?

 

Time they woke up and smell whatever they're peddling.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Dragonlaird
Minor typo's - Hey, I try to be precise so shoot me

[hallowitch]

Living in Scotland, we don't have Bailiffs, we have Sheriff Enforcement Officers and having had the misfortune of having them pay me a visit for something they should never have appeared for

 

years back in Scotland (i think it stopped in the 70s) sale of warrants always took place in the debtor home the sale was advertised in the local paper giving the debtors name ,address ,date and time of the sale

[Dragonlaird]

I suspect that would contravene a huge number of laws if it was used today hallowitch, even more-so in Scotland since we not only have British and European laws to adhere to but Scottish laws too. The courts would be overrun with complaints. Imagine the embarassment. I wonder if the papers also had to print retractions when warrants were issued in error since I doubt this practice is a recent trend.

[mashmallow]

Hi everyone a newbie here but have met the nasty,bullying, lying s*ds from Sherforce very recently' and thanks to this site have them back in their cages for the time being.

 

Did anyone see the short film this morning on Rip off Britain? Well done to those people who took them to task and well done the BBC for bringing

Sherforce into focus. IMO the charges they try to get away with should see them in Court for fraud but, they appear to walk all over the legal system and get away with it.

BBC asked them to justify the charges but all we got was a gabbled load of b******* which did not answer the question, they gave nothing to show how they reached the figures for those fees and never mentioned if the court had allowed them to make all these charges, it seems they just set out to cause misery and work on a tall story if they get caught. My ears pricked up when that women from Sherforce said that they are "heavily regulated " she went on to described her officers as being "robust" with enforcement, is this perhaps the nearest anyone will ever get to an admission that they do act outside the guidelines set down but hey, what the hell and why should they worry, after all the legal system seems to be ok about them overstepping the mark judging by what I read on cag.

I hope the MOJ get feedback on this BBC show and start to ask the right questions about their High Court Enforcement Officers.

[wonkeydonkey]

Living in Scotland, we don't have Bailiffs, we have Sheriff Enforcement Officers and having had the misfortune of having them pay me a visit for something they should never have appeared for

 

years back in Scotland (i think it stopped in the 70s) sale of warrants always took place in the debtor home the sale was advertised in the local paper giving the debtors name ,address ,date and time of the sale

 

We are reaching a stage whereby debtors prison seems a better option than what we have today lol! other than the initial shame debtors faced when locked up, they were not hit with the questionable fees debtors face today that put them on a roundabout to hell that they can never get to stop, at least you did your time and the debt was spent.

 

wd

[wonkeydonkey]

Hi everyone a newbie here but have met the nasty,bullying, lying s*ds from Sherforce very recently' and thanks to this site have them back in their cages for the time being.

 

Did anyone see the short film this morning on Rip off Britain? Well done to those people who took them to task and well done the BBC for bringing

Sherforce into focus. IMO the charges they try to get away with should see them in Court for fraud but, they appear to walk all over the legal system and get away with it.

BBC asked them to justify the charges but all we got was a gabbled load of b******* which did not answer the question, they gave nothing to show how they reached the figures for those fees and never mentioned if the court had allowed them to make all these charges, it seems they just set out to cause misery and work on a tall story if they get caught. My ears pricked up when that women from Sherforce said that they are "heavily regulated " she went on to described her officers as being "robust" with enforcement, is this perhaps the nearest anyone will ever get to an admission that they do act outside the guidelines set down but hey, what the hell and why should they worry, after all the legal system seems to be ok about them overstepping the mark judging by what I read on cag.

I hope the MOJ get feedback on this BBC show and start to ask the right questions about their High Court Enforcement Officers.

 

The fees mentioned more than doubled the debt and were over £2,000+ even if the two people the hard faced CEO mentioned worked 8hrs that day, thats a staggering hourly rate of approx £125 ph for an office worker? Why was locksmith called the shop was apparantly open surely there was no problem getting in?

[Dragonlaird]

The CEO mentioned she had 2 people working full time on that specific case (very doubtful given the number of cases they deal with) and that the costs incurred were as a result of this. Since the amount for the charges had already been told to the couple upon their first arrival at the premises, does this mean Sherforce automatically assign 2 highly-paid people to every case, full time for every case they deal with? If this is so, they must have a very large, highly qualified and skilled workforce. After all, this case was like any other they handle until the couple fought back.

 

So my question is, how many staff do Sherforce actually have? How many are legal or financial professionals? How many cases do they typically handle at any given time? If their claim is true then these simple figures alone would justify their cost structure. So come on Sherforce, save me digging into your annual returns and visiting Dunn & Bradstreet etc. Turnover, staff size and searches on legal/financial institution sites would provide the figures to investigate this but here's your chance to tell me I'm wrong.

[Dragonlaird]

A little light-hearted look at a serious hypothetical situation - A little long since it is a short story but wouldn't it be nice if something like this actually happened?

 

Mr Smith owed a debt and as so often happens, things seemed to get away from him and before long they began to spiral out of control. His creditors had a policy for such debts which was automated by their accounts system. As soon as X payments were missed or the figure rose above a certain amount the debt was passed off to a debt collection agency to recoup their losses. Not an uncommon practice in business these days.

Bear in mind, by this time the credit agency knew Mr Smith had already been contacted regarding this debt by the creditor and there is little point in following the same practice of constantly chasing Mr Smith for the money as he has already proven he is unwilling to pay. That said, a threatening letter demanding full payment should be sufficient to introduce themselves as the new owner of this debt and sometimes it's sufficient to achieve the desired result.

So, the usual 'pay now or else' letter was sent out, fully expecting it to be ignored. To their surprise however, Mr Smith did actually phone them but as always seems to happen, these debtors phone at the most inconvenient of times so let's just tell him we'll phone him back later.

Another hour or day goes by and Mr Smith is on the phone again about this letter he's received. Fair enough I suppose, he's making an effort but there's a bit of a panic on with another case right now. More promises of a call back should keep him quiet for a while, someone remember to phone this guy later.

OK, so let's be honest, maybe Mr. Smith wasn't so persistent. After all, is he likely to respond to threatening letters? Maybe he has called, possibly even called many times but the outcome is always the same. Some bleeding heart story about how they can't afford it all at once or some friend of their sister has just been diagnosed with a rare illness and they've been too distraught/distracted/disgruntled to deal with this. Or more likely they just ignored the letter completely, after all they didn't bother to settle the original debt with the creditor before it was passed over, why should they make an effort now?

So the deadline for the demanded payment passes and to everyone's surprise, the debt is still outstanding. Time to bring out the big guns. Let's get on the phone to the court and make this legal so we can chase our money. The court gave us the go-ahead huh? Yeah, they always do. It's just a formality to them these days. Now, let's send in our friend Mr P. Bailiff, he'll get our money for us. Make sure he has all the paperwork and remember to add on a nice bonus for his efforts.

Oh yes, he might need a locksmith, better add on that cost to. Van hire? Good point, add it to the list. Oh yes, storage costs, I nearly forgot about those. Put it on there too. Don't forget to add a little something for yourself, oops I meant costs for your time Miss Secretary. Yeah, that figure is looking a little more profitable. Give it to Mr Bailiff so he knows what he's meant to 'ask' for when he pays Mr Smith a visit.

Mr Bailiff phoned? Did he get our money? Great, he never lets us down. What a guy he is.

After a few days, a letter arrives. Oh, it seems Mr. Smith isn't too happy with us. Boo hoo, well he should have paid his debts. It's our money now so he can whistle for it. Another court letter arrived too? Is it approval for Mr Bailiff to do some more work? Oh, it's a court date. Regarding Mr. Smith? Hah, these fools never learn, he's throwing good money after bad. Pass it on to Mr Legal, he'll tear him up in court and make us even more money. In fact what's the date on that letter? Next week? Great, I fancy a day out from the office, put me down as attending court too. It all adds to the costs we can charge and I get a day-break and a nice hotel stay.

After a comfortable flight with the usual in-flight bonuses, food, nice view, maybe a movie, the pair land and grab a taxi from the airport. A mental note made to ensure next time there's a limo waiting. Taxi's are great on the expense sheet but so annoying that they have to be paid for by cash/card.

And so the court session begins. Is that Judge Lapdog or Judge Griller? I can't quite tell from here, wish I'd remembered my glasses. Oh well, never mind, it's all the same anyway. Let's get the customary stuff out of the way. You know, protection for Mr P. Bailiff and the like, we have to keep him on our side and show we look after our friends. It's an automatic thing anyway, I mean the courts aren't likely to say no since he's effectively employed by the Judge.

Judge: How does the defendant plead?

Mr. Smith: Me? I'm not guilty Sir, I want Ms. CEO over there to give me back the money they took.

Judge: Quite right Mr Smith, in this court room you are innocent until proven guilty.

Ah, it's Judge Griller, I remember that line from his last case. No problem, he gave us a bit of a hard time then but I suppose he has to make an effort to show justice is being done. We might not make the lunchtime flight back though, Miss Secretary had better of made reservations at a decent hotel with standby return tickets in case we're done by 3 p.m.

Judge: Does the prosecution have all the relevant paperwork?

Mr. Legal: Yes Your Honour, it's all here.

Judge: Pass me the top-sheet please, let me see what sort of figure we're looking at here.

Here's where that course in Microsoft Excel pays off, took me ages to make that look fancy and it never fails to impress.

The Judge looks down the list of items, there's the original debt, the usual admin charges, money for bailiff, costs for the locksmith, van hire etc Yep, it's all here as expected. Looks quite pretty too and at least it doesn't smell of perfume like the last lot we saw in here. Strange how most of the figures seem to be round numbers but it makes for easier reading. Should probably make a show of 'examining' the facts though, wouldn't want Mr. Smith thinking he's been ripped off by the court.

Judge: Very well presented Mr. Legal, you must have a good finance package back at the office?

Mr. Legal: Yes Your Honour, it cost a small fortune but it was well worth it, it's the SumSeempleExpense package.

Judge: I've heard of that application and I agree, you should compliment your Financial Controller on your return. I see you're based in London correct?

Mr. Legal: Yes Your Honour

Judge: That explains a few things. Might I suggest when dealing with companies a little further away, like near here, you don't just accept the first quote your receive? Some of the local companies here know that you Londoners expect to pay higher prices and tend to modify their quotes accordingly.

Mr. Legal: We'll take that on-board Your Honour.

Now that we've skimmed over the figures, the document is set aside to hear the stories of both parties, a boring duty but I suppose it's required to show we're paying attention and acting in the best inter... Hang on a minute, they paid how much for a locksmith? Hmmm, I suppose it's possible with these guys being Londoners and all but I suppose I should show a bit of investigative process to keep Mr. Smith happy.

Judge: I'm thinking of having some work done at my house in a few weeks Mr Legal and I saw the figure you paid for the locksmith, do you happen to recall who they were? I wouldn't want them working on my home at those prices.

Mr. Legal: Erm, not off-hand Your Honour, I didn't bring that sort of information with us.

Judge: Fair enough Mr Legal, perhaps Ms CEO can recall?

Ms. CEO: I'm sorry Judge, I don't. Those sort of details are usually handled by Miss Secretary back at the office.

Judge: Do you have your mobile with you Ms. CEO? Perhaps you could give her a call?

Ms. CEO: I will phone her later for you Judge and see if she remembers.

Seems a little cagey this Ms CEO. Her eyes are a little too close together for my liking and Mr Smith is still over there looking like a lost sheep. Maybe I should exert my authority to impress him and make him feel like someone has listened to his side.

Judge: Phone her now if you would Ms CEO, I'd like to get this case resolved as quickly as possible.

Hmmm, maybe I could have worded that a bit better, now it looks like I'm wanting to close the case and head off to the golf course. Now there's an idea, hit a few balls and head back to the clubh... Oh damn that Ms CEO interrupting my thoughts, what does she want?

Ms. CEO: I'm afraid Miss Secretary can't remember exactly which firm she booked Judge, maybe I'm working her too hard, she sounds like she needs a break.

Now I *am* getting suspicious, those eyes seem to be getting closer together and I never really liked the look of her anyway, let's make her squirm for a bit. After all, Mr Smith hasn't had much chance to say anything yet and if I put on the old 'pit bull' act, maybe we can shorten his version of events and get this over with quickly.

Judge: I see Ms CEO, in that case phone your Financial Controller and have him fax or email me over the Invoice/VAT Receipt/Pro-Forma Invoice or cigarette packet with the locksmith's company stamp.

I knew my night-school course in basic accounting would come in handy one day, I bet Ms CEO wasn't expecting me to know what a Pro-Forma Invoice was, let alone a cigarette packet. I wonder if I should call a recess and go have a cigarette, no that would only delay my golf, let's make this as quick as we can so I can get off. Oh there's that shifty-eyed woman again, I wonder what she wants now.

Ms. CEO: I'm sorry Your Honour, our Financial Controller is on holiday/away for lunch/can't find it/dead at the moment. Perhaps I could ask him to send you the details after the hearing is over?

Judge: You run a company who deals solely with finances and legal matters and you expect me to believe you only have one person in your office with access to your accounting package Ms CEO? I want that invoice!

That should show her who's the boss in this court room, Mr. Smith looks a little happier now. I think I've done my bit to show justice has been done. Tee-time is looking closer by the minute.

Mr. Legal: I'm sorry Your Honour, I'm afraid we just can't put our hands on the invoice right this minute, I think it's been sent off to the accountants for book-keeping. Perhaps we could ask for an ajournment to present it at a later date?

That Mr. Legal, telling me what I should do. I'll show him.

Judge: Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Legal, I think you misunderstood my intentions here. You're obviously thinking I want to see that invoice to justify your costs listed on this nicely formatted piece of paper? Let me correct my mistake. I want to see ALL the invoices for this case. I want statements, accounts, invoices, in fact the whole package. Next time I ask you if you have all the paperwork ready for this case, do not lie to me in my own court room! I want those invoices on my desk today.

Mr. Legal: But Your Honour, that could take ages to procure, not to mention the disruption it would cause to business.

Judge: Since you mentioned the finance package you use earlier Mr Legal, I happen to know it quite well. My own accountant uses it and it's relatively easy to find all the invoices associated with a statement. Since you produced this list of charges levied against the defendant from it, it would take a couple of minutes to retrieve them all and send a report to me by fax or email. I want that report Mr Legal, find it now or tell your Miss Secretary she has just lost your company thousands of pounds! If it isn't on my desk within one hour, I will order a full audit of your accounts and have every statement your company has produced, checked against the vendors invoices and confirm with the vendor they issued that specific invoice!

Ms. CEO: Oh f**k

[Dragonlaird]

Incidently, whilst the above story is purely fictional, it still raises a couple of salient points. Such as why aren't these companies made to produce evidence of their costs? Shouldn't our solicitors/lawyers/barristers be asking for this to make these people justify/earn their money? Why do they always seem to attend court heavy-handed? Is it to incur more court-costs to hopefully pass on to the individual?

[sillygirl1]

I have heard of cases where the above is being implemented, particularly in recent mortgage shortfalls... in my own case its been asked about the £4,500 asset management fee which bumped up the alleged £500 shortfall tenfold, but no paperwork or person has emerged, similarly with bailiff fees on the account....

 

I think Ms Claire Sandiford. CEO of Sherforce was featured on a rant at a Credit Today award ceremony, perhaps somebody remembers where the link is?

 

Bailiffs should NOT be used as general debt collectors and should not be used at all in the collection of court debts where the original creditor could be made to return to court and have other options instigated, including mediation and formal examination of means.

[Dragonlaird]

I agree fully sillygirl1, I still have no idea how much I'm supposed to owe for my CSA debt, despite many calls to the CSA asking for statements and asking for confirmation that their 'accidental' court action has been fully expunged and the 2 court orders lifted.

 

If they had to produce this sort of information to the courts when applying for the order or had been instructed to seek alternate methods of re-imbursement, they may have actually checked their own records and found the debt was actually being paid in a timely, agreed manner and that they had made a mistake even considering legal action when none was required.

 

I would be interested in finding that link concerning another Sherforce (should that be pronounced 'sheer farce?') bashing.

[Tawnyowl]

 

I think Ms Claire Sandiford. CEO of Sherforce was featured on a rant at a Credit Today award ceremony, perhaps somebody remembers where the link is? Hi sillygirl 1 i believe her rant begins about 60% in http://www.creditsummit.co.uk/video/podcast-Credit_Today_Summit_2010_Debate.php Tawnyowl

[Dragonlaird]

Thank you tawnyowl, I'll watch that now.

[ploddertom]

For anyone interested in the Rip Off Britain program about this it is on iPlayer Rip Off Britain Program 14.

 

PT

[sillygirl1]

Thanks Tawnyowl, I will watch this later to remind myself of the horrible woman.

[Dragonlaird]

I've tried watching it *yawn* and I can't seem to find her, I confess I've left it playing so I could hear it when I was making a coffee (several actually to keep me awake, the old-boys network really do drone on) but apart from an independant called June, I didn't hear another woman speaking - any tips to narrow down where the snippet is? 60% is a little vague and I'm sure I've gone over that area a few times now.