Series 2 - The Sheriffs are Coming

[ploddertom]

The levy on the actual vehicle would stand but not for the contents.

[caledfwlch]

The levy on the actual vehicle would stand but not for the contents.

 

Wouldn't including an invalid levy invalidate the entire levy though?

[ploddertom]

No, because they are listed separately

[brassnecked]

No, because they are listed separately

Thanks PT

[ploddertom]

If a vehicle is locked then like a house the Bailiff should only make peaceful entry, particularly if he has not asked for the keys. He cannot use the excuse that he has to smash a window in order to gain entry to remove as other means are available to do that these days - HIAB lift.

[China.Blue]

Scenario. Bailiffs or Sheriffs knock at your door. Without letting them in , you tell them you are on full benefits and have a medical condition. You also tell them that regardless of what they say or threats made , you will not pay them a penny piece because you just can't. You have nothing of any value in the house and a car outside that is worth more in scrap than to auction. Possible outcome?

[caledfwlch]

Scenario. Bailiffs or Sheriffs knock at your door. Without letting them in , you tell them you are on full benefits and have a medical condition. You also tell them that regardless of what they say or threats made , you will not pay them a penny piece because you just can't. You have nothing of any value in the house and a car outside that is worth more in scrap than to auction. Possible outcome?

 

If it's a civil issue, CCJ, Council tax and so on, not really much they can do, sweet foxtrot alpha. Better off hiding the car just to make their life harder though.

 

If it's for a Fine though then you would have to play it carefully since Prison is a potential result, you would have to get in touch with the court, and have the min amount deducted from your benefits (which I think is under a fiver a week)

 

If its Council Tax, there is a potential for Prison, but for that to happen, you would have to go to court for a committal hearing, and literally stand in front of the Judge and tell him defiantly "I AM NOT GOING TO PAY A PENNY" even if you offer a quid a week, you wouldn't get locked up. Those are both issues where you would need to contact the original "creditor" either Court or Council though.

 

If you refuse peaceful entry (and to ensure this cant happen keep the house locked at all times, windows and doors, and speak to Bailiff through letterbox or window) the Bailiff him or herself, is pretty much neutered, impotent, useless. If you can film the entire visit, especially of you informing them you are vulnerable under the National Standards

 

Seriously move your Car though, or sell it for a couple of quid to a friend or family member, and get the DVLA stuff done so that they are the registered owner/keeper, log book etc. If it was council tax for example, they will add hundreds on for levying the car, and if your unlucky, the council will simply pass the charges on to you, so its best to avoid hundreds being added to your bill. Hiding your car means the most the Bailiff could get out of you if the council, are one that would pay the bailiff fees out of what you pay them, is £44.

 

With Council Tax you can get in touch with council at your own pace, the Bailiff when he eventually realises he isn't going to get to gain entry and levy on anything, will return it null bono. With a Fine, definately be more proactive, just in case an arrest warrant gets issued.

[China.Blue]

Thank you for your reply caledfwich. I have to say it is a bit of a mine field out there ! It is a civil problem with Lowells. These idiots just don't seem to understand what I am telling them. If court proceedings take place , do they (Lowells) have to inform me of the date?

[caledfwlch]

Thank you for your reply caledfwich. I have to say it is a bit of a mine field out there ! It is a civil problem with Lowells. These idiots just don't seem to understand what I am telling them. If court proceedings take place , do they (Lowells) have to inform me of the date?

 

The Court will inform you. Do not look or contact Lowells for things like Court Dates, always get that info from the Horses Mouth, ie, the Court. It's not unknown for a Creditor to "accidently" give the wrong date......

 

Have you created a thread in the debt collection section? If not, do so. If you have not even been taken to Court yet, then you are a LONG WAY from seeing a Bailiff darkening your doorstep. A letter pointing out your on benefits and ill etc might make them reconsider going for a CCJ, unless we are talking about thousands.

 

Like I say, if you havent started a thread on the Debt/going to Court side, do it ASAP so the experts in that area can sort you out with advice and ease your worries etc. Stuff like challenging the Debt, CCA requests etc.

 

Say they take you to Court and gain a Judgement. You make sure you are there for the Hearing. You then show the Judge proof you are on Benefits and ask for Time to Pay/Variation Order. The Judge will very likely order you to pay £1 a month, that is the general repayment figure for someone on benefits who has gained a CCJ. It will take Lowell years just to recoup their legal costs of going to court, never mind touching the actual debt, which is why it's stupid to take someone on benefits to Court, as I said ensuring they know you are on benefits might stop them.

 

You will only riisk Bailiffs if you go to court, lose, and then you fail to keep up with repayments which is why its important to attend any CCJ Hearing, so you can show the Judge your means and get a repayment plan you can afford, if you lose.

 

From what I recall, if you rent your home, are on benefits, especially if likely to be on them for a long time, if you do as in my first post, batten down the Hatches and make the Bailiff Impotent, once he returns the case to the Creditor, head bowed in sorrow and misery at having failed, wondering if he is losing his touch, this supposed big man/woman full of incredible powers humbled and defeated by a normal, everyday Consumer simply refusing to open their door, and hiding their Car, there is basically absolutely nothing Lowells could do to you. If the debt is over £750 they could try and make you bankrupt. Given the above (if it matches your situation, re renting etc), then it would be pointless, they will waste a couple of grand making you bankrupt and wont see a penny in return, unless you own a House, or have a couple of genuine Picasso's hanging on your wall, they wont bother making someone on benefits bankrupt.

 

So, as you have not actually gone to Court, now is not the time to Worry. Now is the time to plan, to see what's what, to see if the debt's enforceability can be challenged, if its amount can be challenged, running through the various and myriad angles of attack and all the tools and rules a Consumer in 2013 has available to use.

[Surfer01]

I had a bit of an argument with friends yesterday who have watched every episode. They sincerely believe that sheriffs are still employed in England due to the name of the program. No matter what I said, they would not budge from that belief and eventually there was a challenge of a £10 bet although my friend was quite happy to increase it to £50 or even £100.

They then went on to state that a HCEO could break into any commercial premises and possess goods. I stated that the HCEO could only do this if they had a levy or walking possession order and the debtor had failed to pay. This was confirmed by a pamphlet pdf file posted on an earlier post.

Above instances goes to show how gullible the general public are regarding BBC programs and the powers of the HCEOs. People can easily be misled by these inaccurate and badly scripted programs. Why don't they do Loretta's case on TV?

[brassnecked]

I had a bit of an argument with friends yesterday who have watched every episode. They sincerely believe that sheriffs are still employed in England due to the name of the program. No matter what I said, they would not budge from that belief and eventually there was a challenge of a £10 bet although my friend was quite happy to increase it to £50 or even £100.

They then went on to state that a HCEO could break into any commercial premises and possess goods. I stated that the HCEO could only do this if they had a levy or walking possession order and the debtor had failed to pay. This was confirmed by a pamphlet pdf file posted on an earlier post.

Above instances goes to show how gullible the general public are regarding BBC programs and the powers of the HCEOs. People can easily be misled by these inaccurate and badly scripted programs. Why don't they do Loretta's case on TV?

Hear hear Surfer01 :biggrin:

[ploddertom]

They then went on to state that a HCEO could break into any commercial premises and possess goods. I stated that the HCEO could only do this if they had a levy or walking possession order and the debtor had failed to pay. This was confirmed by a pamphlet pdf file posted on an earlier post.

 

Bet you are pleased you didn't take them up on their offer of increasing the bet as you would now be £100 poorer. HCEO's can indeed force entry to commercial premises and they do NOT need any levy of WPA in order to do so. The pamphlet you probably refer to is that concerning Bailiffs.

[brassnecked]

Bet you are pleased you didn't take them up on their offer of increasing the bet as you would now be £100 poorer. HCEO's can indeed force entry to commercial premises and they do NOT need any levy of WPA in order to do so. The pamphlet you probably refer to is that concerning Bailiffs.

Yes ploddertom, thanks for the timely intervention, to remind us we must always bear in mind the fundamental differences regarding bailiff, and HCEO, with commercial premises, and the associated issues around third party goods, interpleaders, Huntress foods et al.

[Surfer01]

Bet you are pleased you didn't take them up on their offer of increasing the bet as you would now be £100 poorer. HCEO's can indeed force entry to commercial premises and they do NOT need any levy of WPA in order to do so. The pamphlet you probably refer to is that concerning Bailiffs.

 

The bet was regarding the term "Sheriffs" and not breaking into the commercial premises part which was another issue. I can find no mention in any literature that allows them to physically break into commercial premises without a levy or WPO first so would be interested if you can point me in the right direction, it would be appreciated.

Surely they would need a warrant to enter anyway and have the police present otherwise they could nick a load of stuff? I am not referring to calling a locksmith to open up as I don't regard that as "breaking in". The pamphlet does refer to HCEOs and not just bailiffs.

[ploddertom]

I don't have time at present as need to be away most of the rest of today but can assure you they do have the power to force entry to commercial premises, they do not require a separate Warrant and the Police do not need to be in attendance.

 

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Legal-battle-forces-Naked-Fish-closure/story-11957157-detail/story.html#axzz2KUwfK5RI Not the best example I admit but gives you an idea, there are others.

[Surfer01]

I don't have time at present as need to be away most of the rest of today but can assure you they do have the power to force entry to commercial premises, they do not require a separate Warrant and the Police do not need to be in attendance.

 

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Legal-battle-forces-Naked-Fish-closure/story-11957157-detail/story.html#axzz2KUwfK5RI Not the best example I admit but gives you an idea, there are others.

 

Thanks. I am happy to wait as no real urgency as I just want to satisfy my curiosity and update my knowledge which is a bit sparse on bailiffs. No mention or it here or here. Also what are the safeguards for vulnerable people with a HCEO? I will read through the link you supplied.

Also found this where it states that they need to contact LL before forcing entry.

[Surfer01]

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 Schedule 12 makes interesting reading on the powers of enforcement agents. Reasonable force is not defined but seems to indicated that a WPO or levy should be in pace first and more importantly that the goods should belong to the debtor. Many businesses sell goods for which they have not yet paid. The onus is on the enforcement officer to make sure the premises are not rented and the goods belong to the debtor!

[Surfer01]

Here we can read about the fees that can be charged by enforcement officers. Click here.

[ploddertom]

You are better off reading the FAQ's at http://thesheriffsoffice.com/faq some of them have links to other articles. OK so they are going to say that but believe me they are correct. The HCEO derives his powers from the Writ he is issued with and you have to go back to realise that HCEO's inherited the powers of the High Sheriffs prior to 1994. If you Google for "HCEO forced entry" you will get a raft of things to look at and in amongst them are Solicitors giving the same advice.

[Surfer01]

You are better off reading the FAQ's at http://thesheriffsoffice.com/faq some of them have links to other articles. OK so they are going to say that but believe me they are correct. The HCEO derives his powers from the Writ he is issued with and you have to go back to realise that HCEO's inherited the powers of the High Sheriffs prior to 1994. If you Google for "HCEO forced entry" you will get a raft of things to look at and in amongst them are Solicitors giving the same advice.

 

Thanks PT. I Googled HCEO and many threads contradicted the other. It was my understanding that the the HCEO Regulations 2004 replaced the Sheriffs Act 1887 and Courts Act 2003? Am I wrong. Up to now I have steered clear due of offering any sort of advice regarding bailiffs due to very limited knowledge on the subject, but would now like to expand my knowledge somewhat with your help and the help of other caggers. Thanks.

[ploddertom]

Thanks PT. I Googled HCEO and many threads contradicted the other. It was my understanding that the the HCEO Regulations 2004 replaced the Sheriffs Act 1887 and Courts Act 2003? Am I wrong. Up to now I have steered clear due of offering any sort of advice regarding bailiffs due to very limited knowledge on the subject, but would now like to expand my knowledge somewhat with your help and the help of other caggers. Thanks.

 

Don't so much look at threads on Forums because I agree you do get mixed messages. However much we may beg to differ on certain matters the information given on many HCEO websites is very accurate. The way forward with commenting on Bailiff or any of the other Forums for that matter is to wade in and say what you think - there will be the odd one who will give you short shrift if you are wrong - had it done to me and have done it to others at times. In the main we all help each other out and usually just a gentle reminder if something is wrong works wonders and you learn as you go along.

[HCEOs]

Thanks PT. I Googled HCEO and many threads contradicted the other. It was my understanding that the the HCEO Regulations 2004 replaced the Sheriffs Act 1887 and Courts Act 2003? Am I wrong. Up to now I have steered clear due of offering any sort of advice regarding bailiffs due to very limited knowledge on the subject, but would now like to expand my knowledge somewhat with your help and the help of other caggers. Thanks.

 

For info the HCEO Regulations 2004 are just that - Regulations (Statutory Instrument No 400 of 2004) and therefore do not replace the Acts to which you refer.

[zydeco]

http://thesheriffsoffice.com/articles/the-government-response-to-the-bailiff-consultation-fee-reform?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Sheriffs+Office+-+email+83+Feb+13&utm_content=The+Sheriffs+Office+-+email+83+Feb+13+CID_502a4ed74436ebcf7a7ee07dc20e849c&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Whilst%20the%20actual%20amounts%20have%20not%20yet%20been%20finalised%20HCEO%20fees%20will%20be%20higher%20than%20bailiffs%20The%20new%20fee%20scales%20will%20be%20allocated%20according%20to%20the%20different%20stages%20of%20the%20enforcement%20process%20%20MORE

 

http://thesheriffsoffice.com/articles/can-you-enforce-a-money-judgment-beyond-6-years?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Sheriffs+Office+-+email+83+Feb+13&utm_content=The+Sheriffs+Office+-+email+83+Feb+13+CID_502a4ed74436ebcf7a7ee07dc20e849c&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Section%2024%20of%20the%20Limitation%20Act%201980%20states%20that%20an%20action%20shall%20not%20be%20brought%20upon%20any%20judgment%20after%20the%20expiration%20of%20six%20years%20from%20the%20date%20on%20which%20the%20judgment%20became%20enforceable%20%20MORE

 

A couple of links from an email I got today.

[madpriest]

Just to clarify matters regarding rights of entry.

 

An HCEO has a right of entry to any commercial premises

(S)he doesn't need a levy or anything like that.

He needs a writ from the High Court.

 

The most common writ is a 'Writ of Fi Fa' or Fieri facias

which commands the HCEO to seize goods. They usually of course

try to get the money but they are actually commanded to seize goods.

 

They can and do enforce entry to commercial premises sometimes with a locksmith. I have seen them threatening a a huge international company with breaking in because the jobsworth at the gate wouldnt let them in.

 

Very useful if you have a judgement against a large company as I do

and am in the process of putting HCEO into Santander.

 

Also useful if you have been awarded damages at a tribunal for say unlawful dismissal or something. Sometimes they wont pay up. The HCEO will recover it.

 

They aint all bad and can be useful if you are the little guy against the big guy.

 

Hope this helps

[welshwizard1972]

Hi all,just been reading all the interesting [EDIT] on the infamous "sherrifs" website and found this statement:

 

The Ministry of Justice will consider the impacts of the new fee regime and then review the Order.

 

This could see HCEOs being permitted to enforce judgments below £600 and those regulated by the Consumer Credit Act,

which would give creditors greater choice for enforcement action.

 

Is this correct surely the amount to transfer to the high court is to low not to high this could end up turning miniscule debts into thousands!!!

" only one winner there" and letting them loose with regulated agreements next it will be late dinner money

and tea and coffee payments heanous crimes though they be.

Edited August 9, 2013 by dx100uk
behave - dx