BBC1 the sheriffs are coming. what extra powers do they have

[orangesmarties]

Sorry guys you've had to wait for my reply - I have to work long hours these days to try and keep things ticking over these days. I think that at the end of the day there are good and bad HCEOs exactly as there are good and bad debtors. There are Bailiffs who break the rules and intimidate etc and there are debtors who play the system to get out of paying. My understanding of this programme is to highlight the HCEOs who work within the law and it is trying to highlight the debtors who try to evade their responsiblities. There have been plenty of programmes in the past showing us all first hand the bully boy tactics of some bailiffs and I believe this programme was commissioned to try and dispel some of those beliefs.

To Caledfwlch - I am interested in everything you posted above and I agree it's not right. It's no more right than the debtors who can pay but who wont pay and who close companies down and re-open the next day as a new entity whilst the single mum with the 4 kids working 3 jobs still doesn't get the wages due to her!

 

 

 

At the end of the day we may have to agree to disagree.

[ohitsonlyme]

in reply to Orange smarties,I find the majority of posters to these forums to be intelligent, honest people and often times have simply fallen on tough times not knowing which way to turn, ending up with a CCJ and a previous excellent credit rating now destroyed only to find that the tough times get tougher when a HCEO comes knocking and as in my case and many others lying through their teeth to increase fees.

 

In order to fight back we investigate, only to find that we are not alone having been over charged and the good people on this forum such as TT and PT spend to me, what seems to be all of their waking hours helping folk to fight the injustice of the system

 

The days for the bad HCEO have to be numbered the BBC programme is one sided clap trap

 

I remember the words of an American evangalist Preacher hero of mine Robert Schuller Tough times never lst BUT TOUGH PEOPLE DO!!

 

Onlyme again

[tomtubby]

Sorry guys you've had to wait for my reply - I have to work long hours these days to try and keep things ticking over these days. I think that at the end of the day there are good and bad HCEOs exactly as there are good and bad debtors. There are Bailiffs who break the rules and intimidate etc and there are debtors who play the system to get out of paying. My understanding of this programme is to highlight the HCEOs who work within the law and it is trying to highlight the debtors who try to evade their responsiblities. There have been plenty of programmes in the past showing us all first hand the bully boy tactics of some bailiffs and I believe this programme was commissioned to try and dispel some of those beliefs.

 

To Caledfwlch - I am interested in everything you posted above and I agree it's not right. It's no more right than the debtors who can pay but who wont pay and who close companies down and re-open the next day as a new entity whilst the single mum with the 4 kids working 3 jobs still doesn't get the wages due to her!

 

 

 

At the end of the day we may have to agree to disagree.

 

 

 

I was hoping that you would address your claim that posters on the forum are "apparently" advising debtors not to pay.....

[theuprightman]

There has been a number of posts I've seen over the last couple of years regarding avoiding paying your debt but as a rule of thumb these are very few and far between.

[Bunnymen]

CAG has helped me many times as a guest, but not in the debt forums.

 

The usual posters on here are all about not paying your debts.

[caledfwlch]

CAG has helped me many times as a guest, but not in the debt forums.

 

The usual posters on here are all about not paying your debts.

 

Links to some posts as proof, since its so rife?

 

if by "here" you mean the Bailiff subsection, you will find nobody advocating non payment of debt. You will however find everyone advocating not paying the Bailiff, which is an entirely different thing.

 

But please do provide some links.

[brassnecked]

Links to some posts as proof, since its so rife?

 

if by "here" you mean the Bailiff subsection, you will find nobody advocating non payment of debt. You will however find everyone advocating not paying the Bailiff, which is an entirely different thing.

 

But please do provide some links.

Exactly so, the bailiff and the enforcement process of itself makes repayment of the debt at a rate affordable to the debtor impossible, a contradiction of intent, as the debtor in the main cannot afford to repay the debt at the original rate, but the bailiff and or HCEO charges, make discharge of the debt potentially, with fees and interest added, with random visits adding more maybe dodgy attendance to remove fees, impossible. The debt and its payments lasting until the debtor dies.

[caledfwlch]

Exactly so, the bailiff and the enforcement process of itself makes repayment of the debt at a rate affordable to the debtor impossible, a contradiction of intent, as the debtor in the main cannot afford to repay the debt at the original rate, but the bailiff and or HCEO charges, make discharge of the debt potentially, with fees and interest added, with random visits adding more maybe dodgy attendance to remove fees, impossible. The debt and its payments lasting until the debtor dies.

 

Its funny how often people accuse the good citizenry of CAG of condoning debt avoidance, but can never actually provide any links to back their statement up

[brassnecked]

Its funny how often people accuse the good citizenry of CAG of condoning debt avoidance, but can never actually provide any links to back their statement up

 

That's because someone with a low posrt count coming in accusing Caggers of debt avoidance are possibly enforcement industry shills and trolls in some cases. Debt needs to be paid off, but at a rate affordable in the debtors circumstances and available income. A constant spiral of unaffordable payments set by bailiffs to garner an ever increasing spiral of defaults and fees, is no use to anyone except the enforcers.

[i hate bailiffs]

CAG has helped me many times as a guest, but not in the debt forums.

 

The usual posters on here are all about not paying your debts.

 

Troll alert:spy:

 

one day you may be in a situation that is beyond your control and will need help

it is not about avoiding debt it is about not being fleeced

for example the grubby bailiff industry needs cleaning up

people do not ask to have bailiffs after them and should not have to pay there extortionate made up fees

 

If you would like some examples i can give you plenty as could others

 

Lets deal in FACTS here i`m waiting for your examples

[brassnecked]

CAG has helped me many times as a guest, but not in the debt forums.

 

The usual posters on here are all about not paying your debts.

If you are Bunnymen, where is echo? "The killing time, unwillingly mine. Fate up against your will, through the thick and thin" quoted from The Killing Moon.

 

No seriously it is not about avoidance, it is about mitigation, and making the repayments affordable. A whole raft of charges cannot help an impoverished debtor afford to pay the debts down.

[HCEOs]

Debt needs to be paid off, but at a rate affordable in the debtors circumstances and available income. A constant spiral of unaffordable payments set by bailiffs to garner an ever increasing spiral of defaults and fees, is no use to anyone except the enforcers.

 

Debt is not always owed by people who can't afford to pay it. Having watched most of the programme, and from my own experience, many debtors have the ability to pay, it is that they do not wish to. Remember, High Court Enforcement usually relates to business debts and it is rare that debtors fall into the vulnerable category as often seen posted in on CAG. If they do the HCEO should withdraw.

 

For the 'won't pays' the debt and the fees charged by the HCEO should be paid. Remember this is 'Enforcement'.

[tomtubby]

HCEOs

 

I am interested in your statement that in your opinion "many debtors have the ability to pay". This does not appear to be the position in many of the cases that I have seen in the TV programme. Instead, payment is NOT made by the debtor and is paid instead by a third party. This is clear proof that the debtor cannot pay. You cannot deny that debt is being paid by THIRD PARTIES.

[brassnecked]

Debt is not always owed by people who can't afford to pay it. As a poster on CAG is quite likely to have income problems, lost their job or be on benefits, they will be more people on CAG asking for help who cannot afford to pay, than the general run of debtors Having watched most of the programme, and from my own experience, many debtors have the ability to pay, it is that they do not wish to. Remember, High Court Enforcement usually relates to business debts and it is rare that debtors fall into the vulnerable category as often seen posted in on CAG. As the utilty companies tend to go for CCJ, and manage to get the debt up to the magic£600, (should be £10k imho) for a writ of fi-fa, in the full knowledge the debtor may be on benefits this isn't strictly true If they do the HCEO should withdraw. Yes they should, but as has been seen on here the likes of Shergroup are more likely to persist with enforcement even to threatening Motability cars, than withdraw in a vulnerable situation.

 

For the 'won't pays' the debt and the fees charged by the HCEO should be paid. Remember this is 'Enforcement'.

Yes it's Enforcement

 

BN

[ploddertom]

Most of those that ask for help here are for individuals. In particular there are 2 Water Co's who appear to favour 1 HCEO Co. The majority of these have been when the first the person has known about any action is when the Enforcement Officer has called, no prior notification of any proceedings or CCJ. One Enforcement Officer even had the cheek to serve all his documentation by post and tried to charge as if he had visited! That one was swiftly squashed, from memory all the others were either Set Aside when full payment was available or an application made for a Variation direct to the Creditor.

 

There are few businesses that have been here asking for help.

[HCEOs]

HCEOs

 

I am interested in your statement that in your opinion "many debtors have the ability to pay". This does not appear to be the position in many of the cases that I have seen in the TV programme. Instead, payment is NOT made by the debtor and is paid instead by a third party. This is clear proof that the debtor cannot pay. You cannot deny that debt is being paid by THIRD PARTIES.

 

I would disagree, most of the payments I have seen have been made by the debtor. What I would also remind you is that the time to pay has technically been and gone. A writ commands the Enforcement Officer to seize goods. Payment is a by-product of this very action.

[HCEOs]

Yes it's Enforcement

 

BN

 

I agree that most posters on here with HCEO issues are individuals and that Utility Debt get's mentioned considerably. But this type of debt is only a small part of what HCEOs do. I would estimates that around 6,000 of the 75,000 Writs issued in 2011 are from Utilities and most of these are dealt with by the big 5 as it were.

 

If I'm honest it's not great work and he recovery rates are nothing like usual judgment enforcement. Any work where the debtors are going to be individuals, probably on fairly hard times, without significant assets is going o be tough. And yes, when it comes to individuals on benefits most cases should be passed back to the creditor. I can't comment on the specific HCEO company you mention but I do take note of which companies appear the most on CAG. Unfortunately creditors often do not.

[whosdonethat]

They have the power to fit a pasty sideways into their gobs and the power to look butch at all

times.

ps :if you slap a HCEO do you get a longer prison sentence because they are so important compared

to a private bailiff ?

They are just a team of bald headed thugs threatening people

[brassnecked]

They are just a team of bald headed thugs threatening people

That's why it makes good TV, you are hoping someone will flip at the door, and clobber the sheriff with a bat or chuck some water over them, or the cat gets them, vicious creatures cats, also plod can't do you if the cat attacks the bailiff. Seen a few vicious cats where the postman fears to go through the gate.

[Fulhamboy]

That's why it makes good TV, you are hoping someone will flip at the door, and clobber the sheriff with a bat or chuck some water over them, or the cat gets them, vicious creatures cats, also plod can't do you if the cat attacks the bailiff. Seen a few vicious cats where the postman fears to go through the gate.[/quote

 

In one episode they seized a jet, but why did the dxxxhead of a security guard just waive them

through ? What would they have done if he said no ? Throw a massive wobbly and threaten to put

a levy on his hut or call the police and have him arrested for interfering with their profit making

[brassnecked]

That's why it makes good TV, you are hoping someone will flip at the door, and clobber the sheriff with a bat or chuck some water over them, or the cat gets them, vicious creatures cats, also plod can't do you if the cat attacks the bailiff. Seen a few vicious cats where the postman fears to go through the gate.[/quote

 

In one episode they seized a jet, but why did the dxxxhead of a security guard just waive them

through ? What would they have done if he said no ? Throw a massive wobbly and threaten to put

a levy on his hut or call the police and have him arrested for interfering with their profit making

 

You never know, they may be thick or facey enough to levy the gatekeepers car. A Jacobs bailiff tried to seize my motor for a debt at a house I was parked opposite once, whilst on the phone to our local MP. he soon did one when I told him i was on the phone to the MP, was not the debtor whose details he gave me thinking I was the debtor in breach of DPA, and pointed the phone camera at him.

[sgtbush]

That's why it makes good TV, you are hoping someone will flip at the door, and clobber the sheriff with a bat or chuck some water over them, or the cat gets them, vicious creatures cats, also plod can't do you if the cat attacks the bailiff. Seen a few vicious cats where the postman fears to go through the gate.[/quote

 

In one episode they seized a jet, but why did the dxxxhead of a security guard just waive them

through ? What would they have done if he said no ? Throw a massive wobbly and threaten to put

a levy on his hut or call the police and have him arrested for interfering with their profit making

 

forced entry coz it was commercial property

they are allowed to do this under the writ

and he could of been arrested for obstruction

[brassnecked]

 

forced entry coz it was commercial property

they are allowed to do this under the writ

and he could of been arrested for obstruction

 

 

Yes so they can steamroller through the gate, and damage it even though it is the landlords property, not under the jurisdiction of the debtor, who is merely leasing a unit in the compound then? But could they get someone done by those attending police if a brace of vicious cats attack the HCEOs and claw their legs to shreds?

[sgtbush]

 

 

Yes so they can steamroller through the gate, and damage it even though it is the landlords property, not under the jurisdiction of the debtor, who is merely leasing a unit in the compound then? But could they get someone done by those attending police if a brace of vicious cats attack the HCEOs and claw their legs to shreds?

 

yes they could technically steam roller thru the gate, forced entry means as such, in practise, they would of just ducked under it, or called the police explaining they have been denied access and have forced entry rights, the police would of attended and made sure that they were not impeaded in any way, as its a court order

in relation to the cats!!!!! not a lot could be done about that, cats are cats, but taking it a little bit futher than that, if someone "set" their dog upon them or the like then the owner or dog or person in control of the dog would be arrested

[brassnecked]

 

yes they could technically steam roller thru the gate, forced entry means as such, in practise, they would of just ducked under it, or called the police explaining they have been denied access and have forced entry rights, the police would of attended and made sure that they were not impeaded in any way, as its a court order

in relation to the cats!!!!! not a lot could be done about that, cats are cats, but taking it a little bit futher than that, if someone "set" their dog upon them or the like then the owner or dog or person in control of the dog would be arrested

 

Yes but if the gates were locked, no one there and the scenario was as before, and they damaged the gates, the landlord could sue the sheriffs then for cost of repairing the damage . As to cats, they can do more damage than a dog to an intruder, especially Siamese, trust me I know, and a copper was the victim, the copper made the mistake of attempting to prosecute the cat owner...... As you say, had it been a jack russell that attacked the sheriff then the owner could be done.