Series 2 - The Sheriffs are Coming

[sgtbush]

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. Basically 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highly unlikely that anyone would obtain redress from the courts or that an HCEO would have their enforcement authority withdrawn.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.

 

im not in the industry of bailiffs,

however i do work in the court system,

obviously i cannot say where or what capacity,

 

but if you take time to read a lot of my posts you will see that im giving advice to make the best of a bad situation,

making sure vunrability is addressed,

under what guidelines the bailiffs must adhere to,

and what happens in the background

[brassnecked]

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

 

Problem is often they refuse to show any.

[Deadwood]

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

 

HCEO enforcers Do Not carry certificates, they will have company ID which normally seems to consist of a plastic photo ID card. Anyone can walk around with a plastic ID card round their neck and clipboard, there is no official enhancement from doing so.

[MSAR]

Better still - a customer who has been awarded a PPI refund, but has been refused payment by the bank:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-430129/Customer-sends-bailiffs-seize-banks-computers.html

 

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1596766_shopkeeper-sends-in-bailiff-to-collect-sons-money-from-lloyds-tsb-bank

[Squirrel Nutkin]

I suspect I am being very thick here but what is the difference between a sheriff and a bailiff? Apart from one works for the court and the other for a bailiff firm. So do bailiffs have the same powers, I'm guessing not? So if a bailiff appears with what he sais is a court order to remove goods for unpaid CT, can he then behave like these sheriffs are on this BBC programme?

[Deadwood]

I suspect I am being very thick here but what is the difference between a sheriff and a bailiff? Apart from one works for the court and the other for a bailiff firm. So do bailiffs have the same powers, I'm guessing not? So if a bailiff appears with what he sais is a court order to remove goods for unpaid CT, can he then behave like these sheriffs are on this BBC programme?

 

I'm not an authority, but there is no such thing as a sheriff any more. There are High Court Enforcement Officers who take writs from the High Court and enforce them. Generally they will never go out to their own enforcements but will send representatives on his/her behalf who will act with the same powers the HCEO has. HCEO and normal county court and CT tax bailiffs seem appear to have similar powers but I stand to be corrected. Any differences in working methods will be the result of creditor intervention notably with CT enforcement.

[Squirrel Nutkin]

I'm not an authority, but there is no such thing as a sheriff any more. There are High Court Enforcement Officers who take writs from the High Court and enforce them. Generally they will never go out to their own enforcements but will send representatives on his/her behalf who will act with the same powers the HCEO has. HCEO and normal county court and CT tax bailiffs seem appear to have similar powers but I stand to be corrected. Any differences in working methods will be the result of creditor intervention notably with CT enforcement.

 

 

Thank you Deadwood. So the Council can go to the court for a warrant which is given to the HCEO who passes it back to the bailiff firm who can act on it as if they were a HCEO?

[wonkeydonkey]

HCEO's don't usually a for councils..their meat is from civil actions and utility companies.

[Squirrel Nutkin]

HCEO's don't usually a for councils..their meat is from civil actions and utility companies.

 

 

Thank you WD So, having seen some of these sheriff programmes, I am still baffled how a Bailiff came to us saying he had a court order to remove goods. He behaved just like these thugs on the programme. When I'm thinking he really didnt have the powers he was expressing?

[ploddertom]

This may help

[1Loretta]

I think the ones on this programme are from a firm called The Sheriff's Office, a name thought up to mislead I presume

[sgtbush]

Thank you WD So, having seen some of these sheriff programmes, I am still baffled how a Bailiff came to us saying he had a court order to remove goods. He behaved just like these thugs on the programme. When I'm thinking he really didnt have the powers he was expressing?

 

it depends on what the original debt is for

dont get confused with a HCEO and a CEO

 

 

bailiffs can go as far, if they work for the court, execute arrest warrants

[stockport girl]

you all appear to be dead against these high court sheriffs

but what about us who actually need their help in recovering ccj judgement debts owed to us!!

 

if it wasnt for the likes of the marston group helping us in a dead end situation for the last 18 months we would never have been paid.

 

maybe tactics are underhand but if thats the only way to make these debtors pay up then so be it.

 

if you dont owe the debt then you have nothing to fear but in our case we were owed money

and are now getting paid what is due by using high court sherriffs and will use again if ever necessary.

[Deadwood]

I understand that, believe me.

 

I've been on both sides of the fence

 

but what I object to is the seriously overstated charges and very dishonest practises.

 

I've noticed that they seem to charge about £800 to £1000 for a first visit on this program.

 

I would believe the correct charges in the TV cases should be about half that, from the fees set out by the MOJ in the cases I've seen.

That's apart from the really sharp practises used by some HCEO's of charging for non existent visits and the like.

 

It's quite a extraordinary situation when High Court appointed officials can literally and legally rip people off.

 

It's very difficult for a lay person to understand but costs in court cases are subject to negotiation or ultimately, assessment by a costs judge.

 

The problem is that most people subject to HCEO enforcement cannot understand the position they're in or deal with it.

 

Legal representation is ridiculously expensive and the HCEO's know it.

 

It's a well known fact that solicitors routinely overcharge and the legal system thinks that's normal.

[Squirrel Nutkin]

Beautifully captured Deadwood!

I could not have put better myself!

Three cheers to you and a thousand more cheers on top

[dx100uk]

just a side joke..

 

i know one of the officers that went to the car compound very well.

 

even told me she was gonna be on telli last year when it was filmed.

 

she said it was rather a PR job.

 

both of them were PCSO's and couldn't of done anything anyway......

 

dx

[brassnecked]

Well there we go DX, propaganda to hide the inherent nastiness of the process of distress.

[ploddertom]

 

she said it was rather a PR job.

 

both of them were PCSO's and couldn't of done anything anyway......

 

dx

 

It's the appearance of the uniform to the uninitiated that has the calming effect.

[wonkeydonkey]

you all appear to be dead against these high court sheriffs

but what about us who actually need their help in recovering ccj judgement debts owed to us!!

 

if it wasnt for the likes of the marston group helping us in a dead end situation for the last 18 months we would never have been paid.

 

maybe tactics are underhand but if thats the only way to make these debtors pay up then so be it.

 

if you dont owe the debt then you have nothing to fear but in our case we were owed money

and are now getting paid what is due by using high court sherriffs and will use again if ever necessary.

 

Money owed to you and you wishing to collect it is understandable.. I was owed money and wanted my due's, fortunately I was owed by a 'reputable' company who had enough assets to have written off the amount owed to me to toilet paper expenditure.

 

IMHO most people here on cag never deny their debts and it is clearly the case that majority would get great comfort from being in a position to pay them.

 

Mr Average... had a steady job that paid enough for his family to get by comfortably and meet his commitments , possibly even a bit left over at the end of the month to put toward a family holiday.

 

His crystal ball broke and he did not see he was going to become seriously disabled with little to no prospect of ever being able to return to work... his wife is then made redundant with no prospect of future employment.. dependant on state benefits for basic survival his debts fall by the wayside with no means to pay you....

 

All he has available to him is £5 left over at the end of the month.....lets assume he owed you £1500 for rent to a property you own...you would have sought to evict him, he moved out leaving that rent unpaid. question ....would you have accepted his offer of payment to the debt at £5 per month ....knowing it would take 25yrs to recoup your losses?

 

So....you know his circumstances and want your money regardless...fair comment I say, thats your right..... you decide to send in the heavies...they arrive with a Writ of Fi Fa that commands them to sieze goods to sell at auction to satisfy the debt to you and all the costs involved in the seizure of those goods...their fees double /triple the amount now owed,

 

 

It is a fact you cannot get blood out of a stone and now the debt is £3-£4K the debtor has no option .(if they have found cag to get the right advice)...but to apply to stay execution of writ as they have no means of paying the HCEO's Fees let alone the debt...On provision of a fact sheet (income and expenditure) they apply to vary the payment to an amount seen to be affordable to them, they offer the Court the £5 a month you wouldn't give consideration to..the Court advise you that is the offer..you refuse it...the court agree it....so the HCEO gets the £5 a month and they take their fees first in apportion and you get the dregs.....over the next 50 years?? where's the logic to that please??? for surely other the satisfaction and gratification to having 'won' the battle but lost the war....you will never get any benefit from it all, as your £1500 will be worthless 50 years hence??????

 

WD

Edited January 24, 2013 by wonkeydonkey

[brassnecked]

@ wonkeydonkey above, i agree 110% with your post, and it is the big companies, councils and government departments that are often the worse payers, and their tardiness can send a small business down the pan.

 

Lord Denning saw the problems with distress, and tried to kill it, but 40 years later it is still here, as in how can tripling or quadrupling an already unpayable debt with HCEO and bailiff fees help the debtor to pay his debts?

[HCEOs]

Whilst I appreciate wonkeydonkey and brassneckeds understandable stance on this forum, my experience shows that most debtors faced with the enforcement of a judgment are not the vulnerable people you quote.

 

I believe it is also incorrect that it is "big companies, councils and government departments that are often the worse payers" that send small businesses to their demise. My experience shows is that it is often rogue traders and, well, crooks that won't pay for the goods or services they receive, often trying to hide behind a myriad of excuses and companies.

 

Yes, of course the vulnerable need to be protected and despite WDs comments about the £5 per week scenario this is something that rarely occurs. Cases like that are passed back to the creditor as the costs in managing that kind of arrangement outweigh the value to the HCEO.

[stockport girl]

well said - i agree - the person that owed us money is a well known rogue and has a string of people chasing up bad debt owed by him, if it wasnt for the service of the HCEO we would have had no chance at all of ever getting the ccj paid and even now its only in dribs and drabs but better than nothing.

[wonkeydonkey]

Whilst I appreciate wonkeydonkey and brassneckeds understandable stance on this forum, my experience shows that most debtors faced with the enforcement of a judgment are not the vulnerable people you quote.

 

I believe it is also incorrect that it is "big companies, councils and government departments that are often the worse payers" that send small businesses to their demise. My experience shows is that it is often rogue traders and, well, crooks that won't pay for the goods or services they receive, often trying to hide behind a myriad of excuses and companies.

 

Yes, of course the vulnerable need to be protected and despite WDs comments about the £5 per week scenario this is something that rarely occurs. Cases like that are passed back to the creditor as the costs in managing that kind of arrangement outweigh the value to the HCEO.

 

It cannot be dismissed that a high proportion of the posts on cag are exactly in line with the scenario I outlined and I trust you will agee that removes them from the category of being a 'rarity' I can direct you at this very moment in time to two such cases that replicate that scenario, but until the people concerned obtained a stay of execution to the writ and a variation order to get affordable payments in place, they were pursued relentlessly by HCEO's for payments far beyond their dreams let alone their means.

 

Terrified at the prospect the burly individuals sporting the 'Im ard' haircuts intending to remove what little they did own to satisfy that debt of £450, now seen at £1,200 with the added fees, they actually crawled around the house on hands and knees so as not to be seen and sat in the dark for over a week.

 

WD

Edited January 25, 2013 by wonkeydonkey

[wonkeydonkey]

well said - i agree - the person that owed us money is a well known rogue and has a string of people chasing up bad debt owed by him, if it wasnt for the service of the HCEO we would have had no chance at all of ever getting the ccj paid and even now its only in dribs and drabs but better than nothing.

 

These are not the people who normally turn to cag for advice ...they are the people who know exactly how to play the game and often create themselves a comfortable lifestyle on the back of it.....but please do not confuse them with caggers in dire straights.

 

WD

[HCEOs]

It cannot be dismissed that a high proportion of the posts on cag are exactly in line with the scenario I outlined and I trust you will agee that removes them from the category of being a 'rarity'

 

Not at all. Over 70,000 judgments are enforced by HCEOs each year yet only a handful of complaints are raised on CAG.

 

You only have to look at CAGs first page to see that the vast majority of issues relate to the collection of matters relating to Local Authority or HMCTS.

 

Yes , there are instances where enforcement should be returned to the creditor for them to seek alternative legal redress but in my own experience that again is rare. Remember,the majority of HCEO enforcement is against businesses.

 

I can't comment on the specific cases you mention only to say that if any debtor is vulnerable then the case should again be returned to the creditor anyway.