Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Oh god! How silly!   I had so many different tabs and word documents open , cutting and pasting different bits I think I’ve copied in the wrong one.   Just had to nip out. I’ll post the correct version ASAP! X
    • Thank you for your response. I've read through some of the threads, however I haven't found any in a similar situation to mine where the overall outcome of the investigation has been posted (whether it was an out of court settlement or a conviction that resulted in a criminal record).    I'm aware that what typically happens is that you're taken to court where they give you a £1000 fine and a criminal record of 12 months (or 11 years if its an enhanced DBS check). This is the information I received following contacting a the TFL legal advice team.   
    • urm.. that's a telecom defence?? why not adapt the one I pointed you too??    
    • Thank you all again.   I think the word story is quite apt as it is clear from the 29 points over 6 pages that my parents have insisted lots of frankly irrelevant and often untrue things have been included in the solicitors letter.   Here is me filling in the gaps!   There was a dispute over a will in respect of your grandfather's house but the dispute was eventually abandoned and it seems that the house was apportioned to your mother and her brother who presumably were the only two children. The will was unsigned and so we could say that the house passed to the two of them under the rules of intestacy.   Not abandoned, it went to court and the court decided it should be sold and the £ divided between my Mother and my Uncle who were the only two children. So maybe they did own it whilst on the market? You then decided to buy the house for £50,000 and presumably the money you paid was divided between your mother and your uncle – who were the owners of the house.   Correct, it went on the market, a few people viewed it, my parents were awkward towards these potential buyers and then I made the offer to the estate agent and purchased it. This was in 1999. We talking about 20 years ago here and so in respect of most legal questions I would have thought that some limitation period applied. (However the issue of the trust has been raised – and this wouldn't be affected by limitation) However, presumably the house was bought at a proper value given the market at the time and any work that it needed doing. Presumably the house was properly conveyed.   Exactly, 20 years is ridiculous, and during that time my Father could have purchased it from me, instead of purchasing their own council house, if they really wanted to it 'back' as they keep saying. Yes market value in need of work and all above board. Although a lot of things have passed – including home improvements, tenancies et cetera, from the story you have told us, neither your parents nor your uncle have been involved in this at all. My Uncle has also sadly passed away.   I obtained additional borrowing to fund the work needed in 2008 (not mentioned in letter obviously) and have found some receipts, emails and mortgage letter to back this up, but in the letter my parents claim they paid for all this and carried out the work as I ‘had little interest in the property’ also all correspondence from letting agent is to me, but in letter claims by Father did all these and ‘I merely singed the tenancy’ which is rubbish.   One weird thing, the garden shed is still full of my Grandad's tools and my parents have the only key to this, have visited it randomly and instructed a builder person we both know over the years to trim the hedges. This was always been behind my back and have asked them to let me know or I can do it. I spoke to him yesterday and they have always paid him cash, so no paper trail.   Now you have received a letter from your parents saying that the house is really theirs and that you have simply been holding it on trust for them and they now want it back. Is this a reasonable summary of what has happened?   Yes, although the ‘trust’ that is mentioned is literally something they have made up, assumed or otherwise. There is absolutely nothing to my knowledge of this kind in place.   Although you have written a fair bit about bills, tenancies, and that you have lived in your parents home for some of this 20 years, I'm not sure what relevance that has to the problem. I have to say that your explanation is very unclear. A bit rambling in fact. If you think that part of the story is relevant then maybe you'd like to express it all a little more clearly and say in what way you think it is relevant to the problem.   Reason being it is referred to in the letter and quite representative of the whole letter, rambling. My point was it is not true and I am the one who has paid for these. It’s almost like they are trying to paint me as someone collecting the rent money whilst the did all the hard work and paid for things. You are much more familiar with the story then I am but I don't see that those factors are terribly important on the brief understanding that I have. if if any money is owed to your parents because of you having lived with them et cetera then it seems to me that that is a separate matter and has nothing to do with your ownership of the property.   Agreed You say that you have received a letter from solicitors claiming first of all that there is a constructive trust or that you might be subject to a proprietary estoppel. In terms of the estoppel, that doctrine is only available in very particular circumstances and could not be used to attack you in any event. Estoppel, whether it is proprietary or promissory can only be used as a defence. So the question of estoppel in this situation is completely irrelevant, in my view, although I don't see any basis for one in any event.   Lets hope so So what remains is the possibility of a constructive trust. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that there is such a trust and I think that the first question needs to be asked is on what basis they consider that there is a constructive trust. Secondly, of course, even if there was a constructive trust, on the basis of what you have told us, it wouldn't only be your mother who was the beneficiary, it would also be your uncle. Furthermore, if you were a constructive trustee then at the very least you would be entitled to recover all of the expenses that you had laid out over 30 years – including the cost of the property plus interest – less any financial benefit that you had accrued from renting it out and so forth.   Good point about me being a trustee, if, such a thing were in place. I had a google of the meaning and I honestly don’t feel it meets any of the criteria. I'm not sure how good this analysis is. This is well out of my experience – but I would suggest that you consider it and see whether any of it rings true. I would also start making a very detailed account of all the money which you have spent over the years on the property and also a detailed account of all the benefits you have accrued from it. I wouldn't supply this to their solicitor but if you end up having to instruct your own lawyer then I'm sure that you may be asked for this if there is any suspicion that a constructive trust may exist. Frankly it sounds like a load of rubbish to me but we will be very interested if you will keep us up to date. So there you have it. No particular answers. Just a few unsupported and unqualified opinions     I do really appreciate your time and effort on this. Yes, when I read it all again, rubbish does spring to mind.   My parents have been very challenging to say the least and have no idea of the consequence of their actions. To be honest, they have almost shot themselves in the foot as there is so much detail in the letter, lots of which is untrue and I can prove this. If it ever got to court and I really hope it doesn’t, I can only think this would go against them.   I really do think the solicitor (who is the same one that rinsed them ££££ over the will) is just charging them for this letter, which may have been a good few hours with the unneeded detail, knowing fully well this wont go anywhere!   Another thing the letter requests that I confirm I wont sell, rent out or re-mortgage the property!!! I have literally just started a new mortgage and need tenants to pay the rent, I don't think this request hold any water at all?   I hope this does come to nothing and hopefully helps others along the way!
    • god no never invite pointless letter tennis   dx  
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2296 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :lol: Hmm Robin could be mistaken as Robbing though :pound:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


I hate bailiffs. Let me know if you have had a problem with them. I am sure i could upset them.

I now have experience with Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited and won in court against them 01/2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"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::wink:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they have a writ of Fieri Facias

 

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

 

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


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!:whoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they have a writ of Fieri Facias

 

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

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :wink: so my mum used to say!!:whoo:

 

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


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...