Series 2 - The Sheriffs are Coming

[ploddertom]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q0jrc

[seanamarts]

The Sheriff's??

 

This will be interesting. Are they trying to show that these will be the good guys??? working for the poor against the rich??

[brassnecked]

The Sheriff's??

 

This will be interesting. Are they trying to show that these will be the good guys??? working for the poor against the rich??

Hope they show them enforcing a water debt from a vulnerable debtor, to show them up for what they are, but sadly it most likely won't happen.

[seanamarts]

The Sheriff's??

 

This will be interesting. Are they trying to show that these will be the good guys??? working for the poor against the rich??

 

oops my bad, it was robin hood Hmm Robin could be mistaken as Robbing though

[ploddertom]

From memory one that is being shown is http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?364185-A-Lemon%281-Viewing%29-nbsp

[seanamarts]

This will be interesting, but has GuidoT heard anything back, last I heard was in November.

[ploddertom]

Then there was also this one http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?368452-Easyjet-County-Court-Judgment-Enforcement-**-SUCCESS-**

[letsmakeamark]

What is marc newton doing on it ? He is ex jbw and now is working for sherforce ?

[Sparks_]

Oh are they not such nice pleasant helpful good guys? Wonder if the BBC would do a program Bailiffs are coming.... don't believe a word they say!

[brassnecked]

Oh are they not such nice pleasant helpful good guys? Wonder if the BBC would do a program Bailiffs are coming.... don't believe a word they say!

Don't think so, But I would.

[Deadwood]

I caught the first 15 minutes but unfortunately had to go out. From what I saw of it it seemed to be siding with "The Sheriffs", the emphasis appeared to be on unfortunate claimants including one who had sued Airbus for hearing loss, extraordinary that they hadn't settled the claim. There was one factual error which was the statement that elevating the judgement in the High Court was the only way of enforcing the debt if it wasn't paid. Quite a serious error because there are multitude ways of enforcing debts other than Fi Fa, eg charging property, garnishee orders etc. There was nothing in the program about the serious overcharging that goes on. All in all it appeared to be a promotional video for High Court Enforcement.

[Fulhamboy]

For them to appear in the programme they were probably allowed to pick what cases were to

be filmed , if not they wouldn' t take part. Yes of course you wont see the seedy side of their

activities ie holding a granny in a headlock whilst they rifle through her handbag for her cash card.

[Deadwood]

I've seen a full episode today. The Police are called as the debtor threatened the enforcers, the Police ask for a warrant when they arrive, one of the enforcers replies that they don't need a warrant, which is surely incorrect? The Police allow them to carry on regardless. How long will it be before various **** take to the roads in their transits with made up paperwork and loot people's homes?

 

What isn't made clear by the program is that the enforcers aren't actually sheriffs but are in fact instructed by a sheriff, possibly splitting hairs but possibly not.

 

The amount they ask for on the first visit seems to be about £700-£800. I haven't worked out if they are going for the £800 a phone call £800 a visit drill after that.

 

I really don't know why the BBC is broadcasting such unquestioning carp, it's obvious that the more indefensible abuses and practises are not featured or commented on. It's also obvious that the more contentious type of claimants such as utility, government etc are being avoided. It's not journalism or factual it's shameful.

[brassnecked]

"the Police ask for a warrant when they arrive, one of the enforcers replies that they don't need a warrant, which is surely incorrect? The Police allow them to carry on regardless."

 

Send a complaint to the BBC Trust and the BBC indicating where they have screened and condoned the police breaking the law, if we all do this maybe someone will take notice.

[ploddertom]

I've seen a full episode today. The Police are called as the debtor threatened the enforcers, the Police ask for a warrant when they arrive, one of the enforcers replies that they don't need a warrant, which is surely incorrect?

 

That is actually correct, they do not need a Warrant, they have a Writ of Fi Fa instead.

[Fulhamboy]

I have watched two episodes. The police did ask to see the warrant ,well thats progress and took

half hour to turn up. They did not cart the man away for daring to threaten the bailiffs . Maybe

this was because the presence of the cameras . This program is not a documentry it is more

like hey hey were the bailiffs ( the theme tune to the Monkees ) Definitely portrayed as the

good guys righting wrongs, helping the little man out. They are only dealing with writs not the

nitty gritty stuff. More to this program than meets the eye.More like a PR exercise Oh I forgoto mention

they were collecting £19000 for someone but when they got to the door the sum increased to £22000

[Deadwood]

That is actually correct, they do not need a Warrant, they have a Writ of Fi Fa instead.

 

I assumed that the Police were confused and meant to say, a writ, a warrant being something that gave authority to that person to do what he was doing. I was confused between the two myself when I posted before. The enforcers I've across didn't carry a copy of the writ although Ihave seen premises being attended by an enforcer that was carring a sealed copy of the writ. It doesn't change my opinion of the program or the HCEO enforcement industry/[problem].

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01q0qdn/The_Sheriffs_Are_Coming_Series_2_Episode_5/ see at about 17:00

[ploddertom]

Your spot on with your thoughts. It gets to be a bit of a joke when the "enforcement agent" has to explain to the Police what he is doing. Part of the problems is them using the knowledge that the Police don't have a clue to their own advantage. We have seen Bailiffs who will have the boys in blue accept them for something they are not, when in actual fact they are only in attendance to prevent a Breach of the Peace. With HCEO's it is a little different as the Courts Act 2003, Section 99, Schedule 7, Para 5 has this little gem:

Constable’s duty to assist enforcement officers

5.

It is the duty of every constable, at the request of—

a.

an enforcement officer, or

b.

a person acting under the officer’s authority, to assist the officer or that person in the execution of a writ.

[Deadwood]

It was Nu Labour that brought in the High Court enforcement procedures, was it Bliars idea? Is this system in any way modelled on the the American system?

[sgtbush]

"the Police ask for a warrant when they arrive, one of the enforcers replies that they don't need a warrant, which is surely incorrect? The Police allow them to carry on regardless."

 

Send a complaint to the BBC Trust and the BBC indicating where they have screened and condoned the police breaking the law, if we all do this maybe someone will take notice.

 

they have a writ of Fieri Facias

 

how silly do you look now with your complaint:oops:

 

[brassnecked]

they have a writ of Fieri Facias

 

how silly do you look now with your complaint:oops:

 

I hold my hands up sgt, confused a HCEO with a bailiff:oops: that'll teach me.... However, HCEO's need tighter regulation, and I still feel distress as a remedy is repugnant to modern day thinking. However we have to work with the system in place, until they decide to change it

[sgtbush]

I hold my hands up sgt, confused a HCEO with a bailiff:oops: that'll teach me.... However, HCEO's need tighter regulation, and I still feel distress as a remedy is repugnant to modern day thinking. However we have to work with the system in place, until they decide to change it

 

 

its easy to do, the bailiff laws and laws of distress/distraint are the most confusing in the world, coz of layers and layers of different legislation going back to saxon times

 

however the person that never made a mistake, never made anything, so my mum used to say!!

[Deadwood]

they have a writ of Fieri Facias

 

how silly do you look now with your complaint:oops:

 

 

A pleasant day to you too sgtbush. My guess is you are in the debt collection industry from the tenor of your posts, lots of urging to "take it on the chin" and "pay up".

 

I still don't see how it's possible for an HCEO representative to collect without a sealed copy of the writ.

 

you could have teams of crooks, dressed in black and shaven headed touring round taking people's possessions without a challenge from the Police.

How can they tell who the legalised crooks are?

 

The HCEO enforcers are not bailiffs,

they are authorised by an HCEO,

they could literally be anybody,

they are possibly untrained,

they could have criminal connections,

in short they could be very dangerous people indeed.

 

In the event of any problems it's highly unlikely that anyone would obtain redress from the courts or that an HCEO would have their enforcement authority withdrawn.

 

After all it's well known in the High Court that many HCEO companies charge massively more than they should and little seems to be done about it.

[brassnecked]

its easy to do, the bailiff laws and laws of distress/distraint are the most confusing in the world, coz of layers and layers of different legislation going back to saxon times

 

however the person that never made a mistake, never made anything, Oh so true so my mum used to say!!

 

I think that Bailiffs and HCEO, sjhouyld carry ID and they MUST be required to show it on request by a debtor, or the police. As it would seem that nightclub bouncers are more professional and better regulated than Bailiff/HCEOs

[sgtbush]

I think that Bailiffs and HCEO, sjhouyld carry ID and they MUST be required to show it on request by a debtor, or the police. As it would seem that nightclub bouncers are more professional and better regulated than Bailiff/HCEOs

 

 

they do carry 2 forms of id, one for the company and the other being the actual bailiff certificate issued by the courts, and they have to produce both on request, to a defendent/debtor and the police