Series 2 - The Sheriffs are Coming

[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.

[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.

[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.

[HCEOs]

I think I employ them....

[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.

[HCEOs]

This use of HCEOs in debts under £600 and CCA is only right. For too long creditors in this market have only ever had the option of the inefficient County Court Bailiff.

 

The original idea behind the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991 was that the judiciary did not want to charge interest on interest. Things have come a long way since then and in today's age this can easily be dealt with by our sophisticated IT systems.

 

Any amendment of this order would also bring in fixed fees like those to be introduced shortly. For debts under £600 these fees would be reduced further eliminating the fears of debts increasing by thousands.