Sherforce throwing down the gauntlet????

[wonkeydonkey]

http://www.shergroup.net/blog/?p=827

 

I have dried my eyes rung out my tissue hanky but I still can't stop laughing.....

[Thegreenpimpernel]

They seem to be asking for comments on their site.

 

Anyone got the time to collate all the threads where their charges have been successfully challenged?

 

Then we can leave some 'nice' comments, backed up by facts.

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Quote from the article.

 

"Some people out there may think that it is part of the job of a High Court Enforcement Officer to allow themselves to be harangued by debtors,"

 

I do Claire. What are you going to do about it?

[ploddertom]

What a good find, I wonder how many will respond or now the secret is out will they cease to brag and it will dry up? Should make decent reading over the next few days.

 

PT

[fork-it]

I think she used to post on this forum as sherbrook. Always making excuses for sherforce high fees.

 

Bottom line is she disnt cheat debtors of thousands of pounds in fees theres no need to make statements like that.

[lets fight bailiffs]

http://www.shergroup.net/blog/?p=827

 

I have dried my eyes rung out my tissue hanky but I still can't stop laughing.....

 

Thanks for your PM,

 

I find it very hard to believe the little love herself finds

time to write posts like this, when she has avoided talking to me for 2 years.

 

With all due respect I have dealt with a small number of HCEO over the past few years and bailiffs who do stick to the rules, however the mass of the trade rip off debtors and lie through there teeth.

 

With regards to the part where it states advises are giving out the wrong advice is well out off order, in other words if she was to say it like she meant it, it would read, please advise all your clients to bend over so we can shaft them.

[Deadwood]

Wish I could laugh, but she just isn't funny. She seems remarkably unaware of how her ridiculous posturing appears to the rest of us little people, unfortunately the system has allowed her and her type to be far too powerful. Basically however I think all she's doing is trying her best to take the pi** out of us all.

[wonkeydonkey]

Some people out there may think that it is part of the job of a High Court Enforcement Officer to allow themselves to be harangued by debtors, debt advisors and others over the way they go about carrying out their legal duties. perhaps it is the way in which the High Court Officer carries out these duties that is at the root of the problem? Indeed, from some of the calls my TEAM and I receive, it would appear that there are certain people out there who think it is all we should do, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year – never mind enforcing the writs we are sent and collecting monies rightfully owed to creditors, our job is clearly just to sit by the phone and await the latest rant.could it be that people would not have any need to "rant" if they were treated fairly and honestlyThese days barely a day seems to go by without certain advisers phoning to moan at inordinate length about the fact that we are merely doing our jobs and enforcing the writs that we are sent and legally charged with enforcing.urmmmm they are advisers and professionally (and often morally) they are there to protect people from sharp practice

It would seem that the Ministry of Justice are getting similarly fed up with their officials having to spend vast amounts of their time dealing with similar calls, as though they are in some sort of position to direct HCEOs what writs they can or cannot enforce, or how to enforce them, and never mind that the law says you can do this, you ashould actually do that, or charge for this but not that. MP's will be very interested to hear the the staff at the MOJ are having to spend vast amount time steering people in the right direction as a result of a High Court Enforcement Officer failing in their legal duties?That is clearly not the role of departmental officials and to be quite honest it is most unfair on them to put them in that position.I would agree with that, MOJ staff should not have to mop up after a blunder by a High Court Enforcement Officer All they can do is say – if you’ve got an issue, this is the remedy available, and we suggest you use it. To expect them to intervene in the particulars of an individual case is wrong.

It would appear that the root causes of many of the calls are the fees that HCEOs charge for carrying out their functions.

As I pointed out to an advisor the other day what HCEOs can and cannot charge is a matter of law and is clearly laid down in the fee structure laid out at Schedule 3 of the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004. And how those charges can be challenged if the debtor or their advisor disagrees with the amount charged is similarly laid out at paragraph 13(4) of the same regulations. Its not legitimate charges that cause concern to debtors or their advisers now is it Claire?

No HCEO should go above and beyond what is allowed for in the regulations, then why do they?and if they do, they should expect to be challenged and have to prove to the court that the fees charged are reasonable. We at Shergroup are more than happy to put the fees we charge before a judge and let him or her decide whether what we charge is reasonable or not. Some we’ll win, some we’ll lose – yet another admission to adding unfair charges and hope no one will be any the wiser, logic tells me if all the fees were absolutely above board there would be no need to waste the courts valuable time in having to challenge "unreasonable" charges but we will always abide by the decision of the court, and are more than happy for judges to set precedents over what can and cannot be charged and what is or is not to be regarded as ‘reasonable’gosh thats good of them!!

After all, these are orders of the court that we are enforcing, and it is the courts who should adjudicate in any dispute over how those orders are enforced and the fees charged for doing so – that is only right and proper.wake up woman..you have little respect for the Court decisions and thats a fact that can be proven

What particularly concerns me is the failure of the well meaning advisors to come to court and support their client. Time and time again the judgment debtor is on his or her own with no support at all. I think that is frankly a poor show.so are they advocating that unless the judgment debtor can afford a solicitor they should not even bother to seek justice? I know it costs money to come to court – just as it costs money to run an enforcement office to a proper standard.surely if they did things correctly all the staff they supposedly need to handle all the "rant" calls and the trips to court to have their costs challenged, would disappear and they would save a fortune? Things do cost money. But like me sometimes you have to forego some profit to support the things you believe in. no comment

I don’t like to see members of the public left high and dry by their advisors. It seeks to raise expectations to unreasonable levels only to see hopes dashed when the court makes an order based on its view of reasonable fees. or agrees the fees were indeed "unreasonable" and disallows them!!

Come to court, argue your point and see justice done one way or the other. Or better still advise your client much earlier in the process to pay what they owe and avoid enforcement altogether.and if we lived in a perfect world they would be out of job! This is the best result for all concerned and for me there is always another judgment to enforce around the corner. such an offensive and arrogant comment ...and they wonder why they are held in such disdain........................just thinking out loud

Edited February 23, 2011 by wonkeydonkey

[Thegreenpimpernel]

The entire second half of her 'argument' is basically gloating at the fact that by virtue of their financial circumstances, her victims cannot afford representation in court.

 

Where as, by defrauding those who don't know better of upto £2000 a time for knocking on a door twice, they can afford barristers (otherwise known as the judges protege / golf buddy).

 

She fails to mention how many complaints never reach court because they (sherforce) wouldn't dare turn up.

 

Laugh while you can Claire, the makeup of the judiciary, and the power of the masses is changing faster than you (or a north African dictator) can ever imagine.

 

Question: How many bailiffs careers could you end with a laptop, some cheap wireless cctv and a coordinated group on the internet?

[wonkeydonkey]

costs hearings, summary assessments, interpleaders,..... all brought about through an inability to carry out their legal duties correctly,..... its a wonder they have time to answer the phones to advisers and debtors wanting to "rant"

 

WD

Edited February 23, 2011 by wonkeydonkey

[elsinore]

and for me there is always another judgment to enforce around the corner

 

or

 

'I couldn't screw you because you knew the ropes but, not to worry, there'll be another uninformed mug along in a minute'

[wonkeydonkey]

or

 

'I couldn't screw you because you knew the ropes but, not to worry, there'll be another uninformed mug along in a minute'

 

I see rattlywelshboy caught them out....send them them the badge "you've been cagged":whoo:

[ohitsonlyme]

I commented on her blog with the following lets see if it gets published

 

onlyme

 

Claire Maybe if your company charged the correct fees in the first place debtors such as myself would not have to fight you in court and ofcourse this costs the debtor too

 

I had to fight you tooth and nail all the way to a 2nd appeal in order to get justice I was a litigant in person at the high court and my fees were massively reduced by the master

 

Come on Claire get into the real world some people in this recession are cant pays not wont pays and inflated fees not set out by law that you charge should be taken out of your business or you will continually be harangued by people that know their rights

 

I know of several cases where you simply charge incorrect fees and because debtors are not capable of paying for barristers in the high court as you do, you get away with it but this will not happen for ever.

Your operations must change its method of operating Masters in the high court will see though you sooner or later as more people with tenacity follow your misguided approach to debt enforcement

 

I will continue to follow with interest

[Deadwood]

Her stance is unusual for an officer of the Crown, two statements say it all:

 

"Some we’ll win, some we’ll lose........"

 

"..................and for me there is always another judgment to enforce around the corner."

 

A couple of throw away lines there and a great insight into how her mind and company works.

 

I would advise caution to anyone posting views on her and her company as she would probably be only too delighted to close the forum down with a libel action.

[ohitsonlyme]

Other people and myself have been threatened by sherfarce with libel action and my opinion is that truth is not libelous I have proof of fees that were incorrectly charged and of visits that did not take place and of levy's that were charged for and did not happen This was decided by a Master in the High Court

 

Cag has nothing to fear

Without the help of this forum I would have ended up taking it where the sun dont shine and thinking aah well they are Sheriffs and they are obviously right.

Cag shows us the way to fight back and hopefully and other despot regime will topple from the little people fighting back

Edited February 24, 2011 by ohitsonlyme
typo

[brassnecked]

Her stance is unusual for an officer of the Crown, two statements say it all:

 

"Some we’ll win, some we’ll lose........"

 

"..................and for me there is always another judgment to enforce around the corner."

 

A couple of throw away lines there and a great insight into how her mind and company works.

 

I would advise caution to anyone posting views on her and her company as she would probably be only too delighted to close the forum down with a libel action.

 

 

Her problem, if she went down that route would be that there would be evidence in the bills and letters sent to the poster/victims by Sherforce and their ilk showing in the listed charges prima facie evidence of overcharging, to back up the assertions on the forum as to Sherforces misdeeds, nullifying any claims that posts on the forum are publication of libellous material imho.

 

The whole debt collection system (to call it an industry is disingenuous) needs a re-think, as adding more debt to an already intolerable burden helps neither creditor or debtor

[Thegreenpimpernel]

Deadwood.

 

Yes libel threats are very hard to defend.

 

But in this case, the subject of our accusations has taken the unusual step of distributing written proof of her overcharging to her victims.

 

Furthermore, it was the House of Lords that defined repeated, deliberate overcharging by bailiffs as fraud.

 

So i think we might just be alright on this one!!!!

[Dodgy Geezer]

[wonkeydonkey]

 

your'e a pacifist then dodgy?

[ploddertom]

It's the pinstickers guide to enforcement!

 

PT

[Deadwood]

Great! A virtual Voodoo doll!

 

The Greenpimpernel or anyone else that can answer

 

What matter has gone to the Lords?

[ohitsonlyme]

[

 

What matter has gone to the Lords?

 

 

On 20 April 2007, Lord Lucas in the House of Lords asked HM Government (inter-alia) "whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter"? Baroness Scotland of Asthal, The Minister of State, Home Office replied: (inter-alia) "A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006".

 

I had a serious investigation into my case by the local fraud squad and a report was sent to the MOJ

It is upto more of us to continue to fight these rogues

Onlyme and many more

After my little sebatical

(no I havent been away at her majesties pleasure)

I have the pleasure of being a dad for the first time at the grand old age of 56

[hallowitch]

I have the pleasure of being a dad for the first time at the grand old age of 56

congratulations ohitsonlyme on becoming a dad

 

Crime: Fraud

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94

 

 

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and by doing so obtains a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2744]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA95

 

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2745]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether bailiffs who illegally obtain entry to a debtor’s premises with the intent of obtaining payment from a debtor, or of taking possession of goods, commit a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2746]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for bailiffs is that there is a right of entry that may be exercised into any relevant premises. In circumstances where a bailiff illegally obtains entry to a debtor’s premises, their conduct will amount to fraud only if they dishonestly, and with the intent to make a gain or to cause a loss, make a false representation, fail to disclose information or abuse their position. While an illegal entry may be made with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss, it may well not involve the other elements necessary to commit a fraud.

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases

[brassnecked]

[

 

What matter has gone to the Lords?

 

 

On 20 April 2007, Lord Lucas in the House of Lords asked HM Government (inter-alia) "whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter"? Baroness Scotland of Asthal, The Minister of State, Home Office replied: (inter-alia) "A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006".

 

I had a serious investigation into my case by the local fraud squad and a report was sent to the MOJ

It is upto more of us to continue to fight these rogues

Onlyme and many more

After my little sebatical

(no I havent been away at her majesties pleasure)

I have the pleasure of being a dad for the first time at the grand old age of 56

 

Congratulations on your "Nappy Event", and thanks to hallo for posting the text of the HOL on bailiff fraud, these people need tighter regulation, and there is a very strong case for the abolition of bailiffs as they currently operate. The police will argue that their resources are better utilised investigating other crime than a bailiff acting as a legalised burglar, and extortionist; speeding motorists for example exceeding a ludicrous 30 mph on a rural dual carriageway.

[Deadwood]

It's not a case taken to the Lords so no legal force unfortunately or is it the supreme court these days?

 

I have unfortunately some experience of trying to get the Police to do something about a (non bailiff) fraud. It was pretty clear cut but the level of proof required for a criminal case is extremely high. The CPS will avoid prosecuting anything with the slightest doubt and/or more "trivial" matters. Trivial might mean as much as five or ten thousand for which the Police often use cautions. There is the option of a private prosecution but be aware the CPS can take the case out of your hands and drop it.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Deadwood