Series 2 - The Sheriffs are Coming

[brassnecked]

Problem is when vulnerability is mentioned and proven, the HCEO often ignores it, especially where a utility is concerned, as Sherfarts and Southern Water have been proven to do on CAG

[HCEOs]

Problem is when vulnerability is mentioned and proven, the HCEO often ignores it, especially where a utility is concerned, as Sherfarts and Southern Water have been proven to do on CAG

 

I can't comment for Shergroup but my own experience is that I treat vulnerability very seriously. It needs to be treated seriously not only for the actual issues faced by the debtor but the reputation of any HCEO business can be quickly tarnished. You've only got to look at the reports raised in the Coventry Telegraph to realise that if you have some idiot working for you ignoring these policies the it is your company (and the industry as a whole) that suffer. Further, many vulnerable debtors do not have the assets or money so why risk your own job, your companies reputation for pennies. It shouldn't be tolerated and it MUSTN'T be tolerated.

[brassnecked]

I can't comment for Shergroup but my own experience is that I treat vulnerability very seriously. It needs to be treated seriously not only for the actual issues faced by the debtor but the reputation of any HCEO business can be quickly tarnished. You've only got to look at the reports raised in the Coventry Telegraph to realise that if you have some idiot working for you ignoring these policies the it is your company (and the industry as a whole) that suffer. Further, many vulnerable debtors do not have the assets or money so why risk your own job, your companies reputation for pennies. It shouldn't be tolerated and it MUSTN'T be tolerated.

 

From your posts, I don't doubt your sincerity and your personal adherence the rules, but as you rightly point out not all debtors are vulnerable, and some may well be charlatans, and yes we all agree debts should be paid; but certain companies seem to crop up on here almost looking to earn a badge of shame for their treatment of debtors.

[wonkeydonkey]

I can't comment for Shergroup but my own experience is that I treat vulnerability very seriously. It needs to be treated seriously not only for the actual issues faced by the debtor but the reputation of any HCEO business can be quickly tarnished. You've only got to look at the reports raised in the Coventry Telegraph to realise that if you have some idiot working for you ignoring these policies the it is your company (and the industry as a whole) that suffer. Further, many vulnerable debtors do not have the assets or money so why risk your own job, your companies reputation for pennies. It shouldn't be tolerated and it MUSTN'T be tolerated.

 

Excellent reply ..............I will push my luck and ask the obvious, why do these people put themselves, the company they work for and the industry in the spotlight?

 

WD

[seanamarts]

Excellent reply ..............I will push my luck and ask the obvious, why do these people put themselves, the company they work for and the industry in the spotlight?

 

WD

 

In one word WD.... GREED!

[brassnecked]

Excellent reply ..............I will push my luck and ask the obvious, why do these people put themselves, the company they work for and the industry in the spotlight?

 

WD

 

[caledfwlch]

Is it lawful for the BBC to be "naming and shaming" the people the Bailiffs are visiting, as the BBC does in the show? These are civil matters, surely data protection applies.

[ploddertom]

They usually have to sign a disclaimer.

[Deadwood]

I

They usually have to sign a disclaimer.

 

I think you are wrong on that point, court proceedings and matters arising are a matter of public record.

[brassnecked]

I

 

I think you are wrong on that point, court proceedings and matters arising are a matter of public record.

So long as the point can be backed buy settled law and caselaw, i think there can be no accusations of libel or defamation, as long as the facts are settled.

 

As in regulations say bailiff cannot do A he does so, and is called to account, as he has breached the rules and it is proven, he cannot then try to keep the fact from the public domain.

[Deadwood]

Is it lawful for the BBC to be "naming and shaming" the people the Bailiffs are visiting, as the BBC does in the show? These are civil matters, surely data protection applies.

 

Another reply.

 

I don't think there's any breach of the data protection act for the reasons previously stated but I do think the BBC is wrong in broadcasting with people's faces and names. I also think that having a TV crew at the enforcement is improper presssure on the individuals involved. There is a "holier than though" aspect to all this, a thread that runs through a number of programs such as saints and sinners and the cowboy builder programs. I'm all for having investigative journalism but that's exactly what this program isn't doing.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Deadwood

[Fulhamboy]

I agree the extra pressure of having a camera shoved in your face isnt very helpful, But never mind

the ins and outs on todays programme on two of the debts collected the amount paid to the sheriffs

had doubled with their fees.How do I get a job as a HCEO ? Easy money, I will be holidaying in

Bermuda every year. These HCEOs have a liscense to print money. No wonder they are so fat

feasting on foie gras and caviar everyday

[caledfwlch]

Another reply.

 

I don't think there's any breach of the data protection act for the reasons previously stated but I do think the BBC is wrong in broadcasting with people's faces and names. I also think that having a TV crew at the enforcement is improper presssure on the individuals involved. There is a "holier than though" aspect to all this, a thread that runs through a number of programs such as saints and sinners and the cowboy builder programs. I'm all for having investigative journalism but that's exactly what this program isn't doing.

 

I dont believe they have the legal right to show the faces. TV Companies following the Police have to often blur people out, so how come owing a few quid to a Bailiff suddenly means the BBC can spread your face all over prime time telly? Given some of the people refuse the camera crew to stay, its pretty clear disclaimers are not being signed - those people would not sign.

 

Is there any actual legislation that says being the recipient of an outstanding CCJ means you can be shown on tv against your will? I bet there is not, and the BBC would lose a hell of a lot of cash if someone took them to court.

 

It would not surprise me in fact if the information the BBC holds thinking it can film came from the Sherrif's themselves. It shows how arrogant they are letting it be broadcast to, as they seem to play very, very fast and loose with the law on the show.

[dx100uk]

didn't think that charity one was fair!!

 

debt was £650 they got +£1400 out of the hotel

 

more than double the debt!!

 

dx

[caledfwlch]

Another reply.

 

I don't think there's any breach of the data protection act for the reasons previously stated but I do think the BBC is wrong in broadcasting with people's faces and names. I also think that having a TV crew at the enforcement is improper presssure on the individuals involved. There is a "holier than though" aspect to all this, a thread that runs through a number of programs such as saints and sinners and the cowboy builder programs. I'm all for having investigative journalism but that's exactly what this program isn't doing.

 

The names is one thing I suppose, public record etc, but I seriously fail to see how the laws making such things public record also included a few sub lines to allow tv companies to hound, film and broadcast against their will, judgement holders.

[caledfwlch]

Some of the HCEO guidelines vs the Show.

 

Produce relevant identification on request; Debtor when asking for this was ranted at and accused of trying to delay proceedings (for asking to see proof they were legitimate HCEO's

Act within the law; This company certainly seems to have some very innovative and technical interpretations of the "law"

Respect confidentiality; They are allowing a TV Camera crew to follow them, and harass debtors, they are giving said crew all the information they want on the debtor, the debt etc, how on earth is this "respecting confidentiality"

Do not exaggerate the powers they have; See above

Are professional, calm, dignified and appropriately dressed; Well they tick this one.

Are firm but fair; and

Do not discriminate. No arguments here

[brassnecked]

Some of the HCEO guidelines vs the Show.

 

Produce relevant identification on request; Debtor when asking for this was ranted at and accused of trying to delay proceedings (for asking to see proof they were legitimate HCEO's

Act within the law; This company certainly seems to have some very innovative and technical interpretations of the "law"

Respect confidentiality; They are allowing a TV Camera crew to follow them, and harass debtors, they are giving said crew all the information they want on the debtor, the debt etc, how on earth is this "respecting confidentiality"

Do not exaggerate the powers they have; See above

Are professional, calm, dignified and appropriately dressed; Well they tick this one.

Are firm but fair; and

Do not discriminate. No arguments here

 

 

Exactly Caled, wonder if some old dear chucked the contents of a commode over the Sheriffs if they got the wrong address would get on TV?

 

One thing is certain the innocent third party would end up being arrested not the HCEO.

[caledfwlch]

Exactly Caled, wonder if some old dear chucked the contents of a commode over the Sheriffs if they got the wrong address would get on TV?

 

One thing is certain the innocent third party would end up being arrested not the HCEO.

 

Some of it makes me chuckle mind - some of the complete idiots thinking they are clever in trying to put the company assets out of the bailiff's reach, which of course is entirely legal, though it upsets the HCEO's, but don't do it properly. The one guy "sold" everything from the debtor company to his other company, was being arrogant and cheery on the phone. Except he forgot to do a monetary transfer to effect the sale. Saying that, I am not convinced the HCEO was in the right either, from a technical point of view. Does a financial transaction need to be completed for a sale to be legal?

[brassnecked]

Some of it makes me chuckle mind - some of the complete idiots thinking they are clever in trying to put the company assets out of the bailiff's reach, which of course is entirely legal, though it upsets the HCEO's, but don't do it properly. The one guy "sold" everything from the debtor company to his other company, was being arrogant and cheery on the phone. Except he forgot to do a monetary transfer to effect the sale. Saying that, I am not convinced the HCEO was in the right either, from a technical point of view. Does a financial transaction need to be completed for a sale to be legal?

 

Well it would prove that consideration had passed between the parties, or in this case party...

[renegadeimp]

The show is EXTREMELY biased. I just watched one episode, and to me it looks like the entire show was funded by a major bailiff company.

[brassnecked]

The show is EXTREMELY biased. I just watched one episode, and to me it looks like the entire show was funded by a major bailiff company.

 

Have to agree with you, as when the "Sheriff" says paid in full there is no mention that their intervention has possibly tripled the debt, wonder if the BBC dare to show one where a debtor is vulnerable and has applied for a Stay, and a Variation, it has been granted but they turn up anyway, as they sometimes do on a speculative visit?

[orangesmarties]

As far as I'm concerned the High Court Enforcement Officers are doing a good job collecting money on behalf of people like me who have been robbed by the nasty takers out there who seem to think it's acceptable to run up a debt then walk away from it. I'd like to note here that I've not had a holiday for several years, I drive a 9 year old car and I'm struggling to make ends meet and keep my business afloat each month. Why - because of people such as the ones receiving visits on a daily basis from the HCEOs. If any of you have actually bothered to watch this programme, note the number of people who say they can't pay because they don't have the money, then when they realise that they may too end up driving an 8year old car like mine instead of their 2year old Range Rover on the drive, they pop upstairs and return with a massive wad of cash to pay the debt THEY OWE!!! I hope that the Inland Revenue watch this programme and target these dishonest liars!

[renegadeimp]

Good job taking things way out of context orangesmarties. Nobody has an issue with people getting the money they are legitimately owed. However we do have an issue with the way they act, the way they operate, the extortionate fee's they add on purely for self gain.

 

Your 2 posts also sound very suspicious and dont resemble the postings of a new poster that has just come across this site. Especially to view the posts in a thread that is barely indexed even on google.

[orangesmarties]

I've read lots of posts this evening about people getting upset with their fees but as far as I'm concerned they earn them. They have overheads exactly the same as every other business does (wages, premises etc etc). I've not really seen much about praise for the good job they're doing on behalf people like me. The people they are trying to get money from have already been proven to owe the money. As far as I'm concerned if the debt ends up costing them twice as much - tough. I'm not able to claim for the extra hours I've had to put in chasing the debt, filling out Court papers, attending court etc etc etc...so let the Sheriffs get it...good for them.

 

Why are my posts suspicious?? Yes I am a new poster. I have actually been trawling the web tonight to try and find out more information about how to collect in the debts owed to me and a couple of threads caught my eye. FYI - A link for this site was posted on moneysavingexpert.com on another forum. Not quite sure why I feel I have to justify myself to you though!!

[renegadeimp]

You dont have to justify yourself. But if youve read around as you said you had, you would have already noted the reasons why people dont like them. Plus theres no real need for your harsh attitude.

 

As i said, we agree with you. What we dont agree with is the tactics, lies and illegal things bailiffs do.