Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all!   Thank you in advance for any help you can give me!!    I parked up (at 18:08) in a rush, entered my Reg and paid for an hour of parking. At 18:20 I got a ticket for not paying for parking.    I've just looked at my receipt and noticed why ... I put "22" instead of "21"  when i put in my Reg. yes... what a stupid mistake.    I seem to remember there being a court case or a rule change about entering the wrong reg but the company wasn't at a loss because i had paid for the parking just technically for the wrong car. Am i making that up?    Any advice would be gratefully received, even some key points i have to hit when doing the appeal      
    • You haven't returned to the thread to give us your views, but a couple of other things strike me which you should consider: 1. You say that at no time was your father's licence revoked by the DVLA. It didn't have to be revoked. It expired in September and his "entitlement to drive" (of which the licence provides proof) expired along with it. He could only continue driving whilst his application was being processed by virtue of s88, and it seems clear to me (based on what you have said) that he was not able to take advantage of the benefits provided by that section. 2. The letter he received threatening to revoke his licence was probably a template letter sent when any medical issues are brought to the attention of the DVLA. But it is clear that beyond September until it was eventually renewed, your father had no valid licence to be revoked. I believe a "not guilty" plea in court will fail. The basic facts are that your father's licence expired in September, it was not renewed until February because the DVLA were looking into his medical declaration and he could not take advantage of s88. So in December he had no licence and no entitlement to drive under s88. The facts that he believed he was fit to drive and that his licence was eventually renewed may mitigate the offence but they do not provide a defence. I also asked whether he had received a summons (very unusual these days) or whether he had received a "Single Justice Procedure Notice". The way to proceed from here differs slightly depending on what he has received so if you let me know, I'll advise further.  
    • Well, what I've read from various sources suggest if a CCJ is 6 years old that if becomes pretty much ineffective for enforcement purposes in its original form.  And that if it's about to expire then the claimant needs to apply to the court to extend the original CCJ within the final year.  Even if they do apply for an extension within the 6 years they have to have a very strong argument for doing so such as the person being out of the country or could not be traced, basically show they were actively still perusing the debt I guess. Now if a claimant ever does apply within the 6 years to extend the CCJ, would the person named on if be notified by the court that such an application has been made?.  In my case I've heard nothing from the court so assume no such application has been made.  The original CCJ in my own case is now a year beyond the 6 years of issue so must now make things even less likely again. So whilst the CCJ exists that they have not enforced it in that time must surely make it unlikely they can now take it back to court because as said it would be very rare for a judge to agree to such action now. That said, I guess they now can't use the CCJ to continue with any action for an attachment order to our mortgage either?
    • Donald Trump now banned from countries including Canada and UK as convicted felon WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK There are 37 countries that bar felons from entering, even to visit.  
    • Well, they trashed their last election manifesto pledges, so nothing new really is it? They just find weasel words to try to claim they haven't actually failed if you just look at it just a little squinted and in this particular way  - and are stupid.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Juzza / received a demand from Sherforce High Court Enforcement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4653 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My husband has today received a demand for £1959 from Sherforce High Court Enforcement, after many phone calls it would seem tat we do owe £901 in unpaid utility (water) bill. We were told that a chrging order had been made against our property, we have received no paperwork from any court.

 

The letter received today says an enforcement officer has visited our propprty and impounded goods - THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED. Sherforce won't provide us with any court details, ie court order or reference number just demanded payment £1000 in charges and if we don't pay a further £720 plus vat will be added.

 

Yorkshire Water have told us that they decided against a charging order and passed the debt on to Sherforce, we have received no prior warnings of any kind.

 

Can anyone help? this surely is not legal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and Welcome, juzza.

 

I've added a bit to the title of your thread, you should get help shortly.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

From memory this is now the 3rd of these within the last couple of weeks about Yorkshire Water. Did you receive the original Court documentation or is the first you have known about anything is when Sherforce have turned up.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember that if you prevent the HCEO gaining access to your home or otherwise seizing goods outside - most notably a motor vehicle - you can render him ineffectual. This company are renowned for adding fees before anyone even leaves the office. You should have been left a Form 55 which will detail some of the monies they are claiming.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry you are in safe hands with wonkydonkey and ploddertom, but don't post anything up that Sherfarce could read that may identify you.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the we are in the worst recession that the WORLD has ever witnessed, I am seriously worried at the way in which Yorkshire Water and OTHER WATER COMPANIES choose to enforce unpaid water bills by way of Sherforce.

 

It should be obvious to these water companies that non payment of a water bill is USUALLY because the debtor has got into financial difficulties!!

 

A CCJ has then been issued and if unpaid SHOULD be further evidence (if any were needed) that the debtor is unable to raise the money to pay the debt in full.

 

Therefore.....WHY do they pass the debt to a HIGH COURT ENFORCEMENT COMPANY !!! This course of action simply beggars belief and is certain to make the debtors financial position much worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the we are in the worst recession that the WORLD has ever witnessed, I am seriously worried at the way in which Yorkshire Water and OTHER WATER COMPANIES choose to enforce unpaid water bills by way of Sherforce.

 

It should be obvious to these water companies that non payment of a water bill is USUALLY because the debtor has got into financial difficulties!!

 

A CCJ has then been issued and if unpaid SHOULD be further evidence (if any were needed) that the debtor is unable to raise the money to pay the debt in full.

 

Therefore.....WHY do they pass the debt to a HIGH COURT ENFORCEMENT COMPANY !!! This course of action simply beggars belief and is certain to make the debtors financial position much worse.

 

Even more important in my view is that this is the 3rd case recently where the debtor knows nothing of any action until the HCEO turns up - makes me wonder how many more there are out there who don't have access to this site.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the we are in the worst recession that the WORLD has ever witnessed, I am seriously worried at the way in which Yorkshire Water and OTHER WATER COMPANIES choose to enforce unpaid water bills by way of Sherforce.

 

It should be obvious to these water companies that non payment of a water bill is USUALLY because the debtor has got into financial difficulties!!

 

A CCJ has then been issued and if unpaid SHOULD be further evidence (if any were needed) that the debtor is unable to raise the money to pay the debt in full.

 

Therefore.....WHY do they pass the debt to a HIGH COURT ENFORCEMENT COMPANY !!! This course of action simply beggars belief and is certain to make the debtors financial position much worse.

 

A few years ago, I recall the Water companies, using court action and bailiffs as a first resort, and then when the people couldn't pay the inflated fees on top of the debt, they then put in a fresh start card meter, which was condemned by the courts, as it terminated a water supply remotely without a court order, the debtor was then effectively rationed as to their water like a token meter for electric,. they then had the prospect of days without water, and bailiffs chasing for fees. Severn Trent were enthusiastic users of Fresh Start along with DWR Cymru in the 1990's until they were banned in 1999.

 

Agreed, tomtubby and ploddertom, the use of Sherfarce to collect water debt is extremely worrying, perhaps a few applications for set aside or variation as the debtor's income is too low for them to afford the fees.might change their tiny cash grasping minds, or maybe the HCEO turning on the utility for their fees when that family on benefits have nothing for Sherforce to take, and it would take them 50 years to pay their fees off if at all. One issue is that people on benefits will be hit hard by this as Sherforce will still load the fees onto such vulnerable debtors. sorry for the rant but this is something I had to help several people with in the past.

 

This pdf on water poverty from 2002 makes interesting reading especially page 24 where vulnerable situatuations are discussed.

 

Water Poverty in England and Wales

Edited by brassnecked
extra information

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone - we going to try and get some sleep now, definately rest easier following all your posts, will check back tomorrow

 

 

Sleep well and don't worry things can be sorted,

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...