Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My personal view is that if you break down the work into various parts and treat each one is a breach of contract then each claim would refer to different set of facts. However, I take the point you're making. In terms of tracking down his assets – I'm afraid the only thing I can suggest which I think I've already suggested above is that you get the addresses of any properties fees associated with and run them through the land registry website and see what that brings. There is a small fee for each search. If you find that all of the properties are in the names of his wife or other relatives, and I think that you had better understand that you are dealing with somebody who knows their way round, and is very calculating about what they do and how they can avoid liabilities. Do you have any kind of bank details for him? You might be able to get an order against his bank account – assuming that it is still live. At the very least, if you wanted to cause a bit of discomfort then if you tried running a few very small claims simply to get judgements which would then remain unsatisfied and which would at least impact is credit file. Not a very nice way to go about things – but but at least it's another way of bringing some pressure to bear. It's too late now but I think that you may be didn't embark on this in the best way. I would certainly wanted to see his insurance documents and also to contact the insurers to begin with to make sure that they would cover these kinds of problems – although as I have said, I don't expect they would have done.
    • Thanks for your response.    Is there a way for me to find out if he has assets?    I looked at small claims court and dividing the issues, but I read somewhere (maybe citizens advice or GOV. website?!) that you cannot claim against the same person twice for matters arising from the same incident so I'm not sure that it would work out as surely it would be seen that these issues have all arisen from the same incident (his original work)? 
    • Hi,   So the company is capital recoveries,sending in my wife's name and yes for a short fall. They don't seem to have sent mine yet..lol.. As insaid it is a long story which I did post at the time on here when going through the repossession,basically Kensington claiming they only had fax and not email etc and just making things difficult so when we moved away I made things awkward for them explaining I won't be able to forward anything as I don't have fax..yes I know I should have but they put us through a difficult  time and didn't make things easy.   Why would it have been removed from the credit reports within 5 years though,this is what I don't understand.And to collect on it now would they need to re-apply for anything. I don't deny I must owe something....    
    • On the basis of what you say, you will have no difficulty bringing a successful claim against him. The problem is that first of all, bringing a claim of this size – even if you win will incur costs for yourself and it seems to me that you may have problems enforcing the judgement. It is never worth beginning a claim unless you know that you can identify assets belonging to the defendant so that you can enforce the judgement. If you can't enforce judgement then bring any claim is simply a waste of money. The second problem here is that your claim exceeds the £10,000 small claims limit and this means that costs will be even greater. Also, in the event that he starts to cause problem and resists the claim, you could find that your costs are escalating and once again even if you win, you will not be able to enforce the judgement and you will lose everything. If you happen to lose, then it would be catastrophic because you would have to pay a substantial part of his cost as well. If you want to proceed with this at all then I think that you are going to have to look at away of dividing the claim up into smaller parts so that you can identify a particular aspect of it which is less than £10,000 to deal with. A claim of £2000 or £3000 would be much easier and much cheaper and then if you won that, you could attempt the enforcement and see where that got you. On the basis of that, you could decide to proceed with further claims – attempting each time to keep the value of the claim to less than £10,000. At least if you had a successful claim for £2000 and you are unable to enforce it, you would have kept your costs to a minimum. Also, it would have the effect of impacting on his credit file which he might find rather difficult to deal with. You can even bring a number of smaller claims if you simply wanted to hit is credit file and causing a great deal of difficulty over a long period of time. That might persuade him to start dealing with you. He says that he is insured – but you aren't able to get hold of his insurance details. If you got a judgement against him then you might find some way of persuading him/forcing him to supply you with his insurance details – if they exist. However, I can imagine that his insurance will not cover him for bad work. It will only cover him for accidents.  
    • whos the fleecers thats trying to scam you? i will gather you mean there was a shortfall debt?  
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2879 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

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i would say so !

it really depends on what type of debt they are collecting but the powers are pretty much the same no right of entry to a residential property

 

They lie lots and come out with waffle just phoning the imaginary office person to organize a lorry then phone back how did you get on sorting the lorry

in the hope of payment

 

but they get results wonder how many they fail to collect they edit those out!

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The County Court Bailiff can enforce debts under £600 up to a maximum of £5000. He must also contact you telling he is coming. He is a salaried employeee and gets paid regardless of whether he is successful at collection or not.

 

In the main the HCEO collects on debts of over £600 with no upper limit. The first you know of him coming is when he knocks on the door or enters the premises. He gets paid on results. He also has the power to force entry to commercial premises on an initial & any following visit.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some differences. Being able to enforce debts over £600 is one.

 

In the main the method of enforcement is very similar indeed and in fact, the 2 officers shown on film were at one time bailiffs working for one of the well known bailiff companies.

 

If you read the governments response to the Consultation Paper you will see that MoJ are "wrongly" claiming that HCEO's should be paid more and unbelievably one of the reasons is because there are more Interpleaders claims !!!!

 

I could barely believe what I was reading. I wonder whether MoJ had looked to see WHY such claims were made. If they had of done they would have seen that many such claims were due to HCEO's removing items that did not belong to the debtor !!!!

 

Could it have something to do with the astonishing fees that they charge or am I just being cynical ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

No tomtubby you are being factual, the cynical view would be that the government are trying to prop up distress as a valid 21st Century ethical, caring affordable (not) way of allowing debtors to discharge debt, without impoverishing them unduly . An own goal by MOJ springs to mind, as you rightly point out, the growth in interpleader applications is due to the actions, some seen on camera by the likes of the misleadingly named Sheriffs Office on BBC.

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 OTHERS

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some differences. Being able to enforce debts over £600 is one.

 

In the main the method of enforcement is very similar indeed and in fact, the 2 officers shown on film were at one time bailiffs working for one of the well known bailiff companies.

 

If you read the governments response to the Consultation Paper you will see that MoJ are "wrongly" claiming that HCEO's should be paid more and unbelievably one of the reasons is because there are more Interpleaders claims !!!!

 

I could barely believe what I was reading. I wonder whether MoJ had looked to see WHY such claims were made. If they had of done they would have seen that many such claims were due to HCEO's removing items that did not belong to the debtor !!!!

 

Could it have something to do with the astonishing fees that they charge or am I just being cynical ???

 

In the first instance County Court Bailiffs can also enforce debts between £600 and £5000. Above this only the HCEO may enforce, although we have seen CCB's splitting debts e.g. £7000 judgment with one warrant for £5000 and another for £2000.

 

And again I would advise that it costs much more to run an HCEO business than a Bailiff business - almost 7 times more if you adhere to Alexander Dehayen's report:

 

1. There are several key differences between Non‐High Court Enforcement (Bailiff) and High Court Enforcement:

 

1) Legal obligations; An HCEO is obliged to accept any Writ sent to them for the postal districts to which they have been assigned. They also have the discretion to accept Writs from anywhere in England and Wales, but may decline or accept the Writ if it is for an area to which they have not sought assignment. The obligation to accept Writs from certain postcodes potentially places HCEOs in a position where they must incur costs, even in some cases where they may not assess a high probability of recovering fees, and therefore may not achieve a profit on a case‐by‐case basis. On a case‐by‐case basis HCEOs may therefore potentially be obliged to undertake unprofitable activities. In addition to these costs, HCEOs are also exposed to the risk that a creditor may seek damages in respect of any cases where the creditor believes that, through the HCEOs negligence or lack of appropriate action, a Writ was not successfully enforced. Due to this obligation to the creditor, the HCEO may find that he is under pressure to incur further cost in attempting to enforce the debt, at the creditor’s insistence, even when the HCEO may not believe that the actions are cost effective or appropriate. The increased level of legal obligations of the HCEO to the creditor, compared to those of the EA to the creditor are therefore likely to increase the average cost of Enforcement of High Court debt compared to Non‐High Court debt.

 

2) Case volumes / Economies of scale; In comparison to Bailiff Companies, HCEOs handle a significantly lower volume of cases. Responses to the RFI indicated that Bailiff Companies handled an average of 196,000 cases annually. HCEO respondents handled on average only 12,000 cases: just 6% of the case volume handled by the average Bailiff Companies.

 

Due to lower volumes, HCEOs have less scope to exploit economies of scale, which are most likely to exist in the administrative stages of cases. Benefits of economies of scale are likely to be limited to administrative activities as Bailiff / HCEO activities incur mainly marginal costs, assuming that Bailiffs / HCEOs are operating at close to capacity.

 

HCEOs costs per case handled are therefore likely to be higher than Bailiff Companies due to a reduced opportunity to exploit economies of scale.

 

3) Nature of client relationships; Although HCEO case volumes are very much lower than Bailiff Companies case volumes, conversely they are likely to deal with a larger number of different clients. Whilst EACs may have a smaller number of “bulk creditors”, such as LAs or Magistrates Courts, many HCEO creditors are infrequent users of Enforcement services, and may only send a single Writ to an HCEO for Enforcement.

 

Consequently, HCEOs have less incentive to attempt costly Enforcement actions on the basis of maintaining a creditor relationship. Bailiff Companies on the other hand, may undertake costly actions, even when they exceed the available fees on a particular case, in order to maintain the creditor relationship to preserve the larger volume of cases where fees exceed costs incurred.

 

This feature of HCEO‐creditor relationships might suggest that greater incentives are required to ensure sufficient HCEO action, potentially by allowing cost recovery and profitability on a case‐by‐case basis. However, the HCEO obligation is useful here, as that alone (aside from financial incentives) should ensure that HCEOs take sufficient reasonable action on all cases.

 

Since creditors send fewer cases to HCEOs, each creditor has higher expectations (on a per case basis) of the amount of information and feedback they expect to receive from HCEOs in relation to the progress made on their case or cases. The RFI responses indicated that all HCEOs were in the practice of providing “initial reports” to their creditors, containing important debtor information and an assessment of the probability of successfully enforcing the debt. Only two Bailiff Companies were in the practice of providing a similar report.

 

Providing this detailed information to creditors is costly for HCEOs. Furthermore, since creditors each supply a low volume of cases they are more likely to make ad hoc enquiries relating to case progress, and to be more insistent on further specific Enforcement action: each of these factors serve to increase the cost per case of HCEO Enforcement.

 

4) Legal complexity of cases handled; High Court Enforcement tends to be a more legally complex process than Non‐High Court Enforcement, since:

 

HCEOS have the obligation to have a wide ranging knowledge of Civil Procedure Rules and should be prepared to defend that knowledge and expertise before senior judiciary as the circumstances of each case dictate; following the levying upon goods, it is more common that an interpleader process will be entered into, during which the debtor and third parties may make representations relating to the status and legal ownership of goods levied upon;

 

HCEO fees are more often challenged by debtors through the legally complex process of detailed cost assessment; and since the HCEOs actions are potentially subject to legal challenge by the creditor, to whom the HCEO has enhanced duties and obligations (compared to an Bailiff), various aspects of the case must be recorded and administered to a level of accuracy and detail that could withstand examination in the context of a legal challenge. The administration of High Court Writs of Fi Fa therefore includes a greater level of detail and quality of information than that of non‐High Court distress Warrants.

 

As a result of all of the above considerations it is necessary for HCEOs to employ admin staff with greater levels of skill, and often with legal qualifications. Suitably qualified admin staff demand higher salaries, and serve to increase the staff overhead cost per case for HCEOs compared to Bailiff Companies.

 

5) Average size of debt enforced; In terms of case volumes the bulk of Bailiff Company case volumes (around 84%) consist of Council Tax, HMCS, and RTA Enforcement (with one Bailiff Company also enforcing significant volumes of CSA debt, and most EACs also enforcing a small number of Commercial Rent and NNDR cases in comparison to their core debt‐types). The average debt size for the core EAC debt‐types are as follows:

 

Council Tax ‐ £543;

 

HMCS ‐ £197; and

 

RTA ‐ £111

 

The average debt size for High Court debt was £3,696: substantially higher than the core Bailiff Company debts. There is likely to be a correlation between debt size and cost of Enforcement, particularly for the latter stages of the Enforcement process, since physical activity is required to be performed on goods with a larger total value. This correlation may also exist at the Administration Stage if debtors with larger debts are more likely to be seasoned debtors, or to expend greater effort to avoid paying debts.

 

The impact of these correlations would be reflected in higher costs per case for High Court debt compared to non‐High Court debt.

 

6) Frequency of occurrence of exceptional cases. Anecdotally HCEOs report a far greater frequency of occurrence of exceptional cases; where, for example, they are required to levy and remove for sale particularly large or valuable items. These exceptional cases are more costly to enforce and increase the average costliness of cases enforced by HCEOs.

 

The following section discusses each of these differences and describes how many of them increase the cost of High Court Enforcement compared to Non‐High Court Enforcement.

 

1) The Cost of Enforcement; The accounting data gathered during the RFI exercise clearly shows that the impact of the sum of factors described above is to increase the cost of HCEO Enforcement to a level substantially above Bailiff Comapny Enforcement.

 

The average total cost per case for an HCEO was determined to be nearly seven (7) times higher than that of a Bailiff Company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is my understanding of a county court bailiff. there is no minimum amount. the average amount on a warrant is £197.25. the claimant when issuing the warrant for example on a £4000 debt chooses how much to they want on the warrant. the cost of the warrant £100 + £95 off the debt + £2.25 solicitors costs so asking the bailiff to collect £197.25. i don't why they don't just issue it for £4000

 

they collect upto £5000 unless its under the consumer credit act. for which there is no limit on the warrant.

 

if its not under the consumer act. lets say paid a builder £25000 not done the work the they can split the amount £5000 on the warrant and 20000 outstanding.

 

after speaking the enforcements at the county court who tell me they can not force entry on a private dwelling because there is not a judge in the land who will give permission. they can do but a case went belly up on one they did years ago and judges will now run a mile

however they can force entry on a commercial premises but not on a first visit and even then they would have to get permission of a judge first.

 

so hceo say they can force entry . do they have to get permission first

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

HCEOs cannot force entry to a residential dwelling unless they have previously seized goods within or are forcibly ejected.

 

They can however force entry to a commercial property, or detached barn or garage, on a first visit to seize goods, although this only happens in rare occasions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They can talk **** and keep a clean shirt :-)

 

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 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

 

Well they are obviously more important in their own minds than a PCSO or a police officer, so likely they think community punishment for slapping a copper or PCSO, death for slapping a HCEO.

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 OTHERS

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

HCEO I really do admire your persistence with a subject matter that is very much "close to my heart". I know AD's report very well l indeed and at the time of the 1st draft ( which was heavily criticised by many) I was most critical myself of the reference to HCEO work and do not agree with the vast majority of what he wrote in his final report.

 

There are many bailiff companies who do not have the large volume of case that other large firms have and they have to survive on the same fee scale as other larger companies. It is nonsense to attempt to explain the need for significant additional fees becuse they have LESS cases.

 

What should be noted is that 2 working groups were set up to consider the fees scale. One to represent bailiff companies and the other for HCEO's. It was most interesting to note that of the 6 members of the "working group" 3 members came from just ONE company....SHERGROUP. I will say no more on the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the programme and have been watching them every morning.

 

It's about time the crooks out there met their match and are made to cough up. We lost our business 5 years ago to a guy who kept shifting the assets from one company to another. We used the court bailiffs but they were useless. I know what to do next time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bunnymen. I own a small business and currently have x3 bad debts totaling £12k. I have sent one of these debts to the HCEOs for action. I have struggled to keep my business afloat in recent years but have done so because when times were good, I saved instead of spending our profits on an extravagant lifestyle. In today's climate, I'm running out of savings and have had to sacrifice holidays, a bigger house a new car etc. BUT - one of my debtors drives a £30k car, owns several properties locally as well as a holiday home in Florida and afforded to fly Business class to New Zealand at Christmas. He acknowledges the debt he owes me but thinks he's above the law and refuses to pay. I'm hoping that the HCEOs will be able to seize goods (hopefully his "status" car) to sell at auction and it is likely that with their fees as well as what I've spent on Court costs so far, his £5k debt to me, will become £6k+. And do you know what - it serves him right!!! I'm fed up with people dodging their debts. People on these forums give advice to others about how NOT to pay!!! But, people like me and Bunnymen get forgotten about!! If people don't pay me for the goods I've have provided, then eventually my business will end up another tragic victim of today's culture where people don't take responsibility for their actions and think it acceptable to live on credit. So please stop slagging off these Sheriffs - they are working on behalf of people who are already victims - and if you don't believe me, watch the programme and remember Bunnymen when you do! In the meanwhile, I'll be back at my desk tomorrow morning phoning my customers and listening to their sob stories about why their payments are late. At the same time, I'll have my own suppliers putting my account on stop if I can't pay them. Then I'll go home and try not to worry about how we're going to pay next month's mortgage!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO you have both totally missed the point....it is the genuine 'can't pays' and not the beat the system 'wont pays 'we try to help... the people who want to pay but find themselves drowning when a debt of £500 is turned into 2K in the blink of an eye , they are the people who need know how to protect themselves and their families from being threatened and terrified on their doorsteps, they are the people who don't know where to start to getting their problem onto a level playing field.........cag can and does help them.....not to avoid the debt but simply to get recognition to the reality of their situations....

 

 

WD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many ways for people to not pay their debts IF they face up to them. If someone has made a legitimate and reasonable offer to pay a debt, a creditor won't usually involve a court. It's a tedious and long process that most creditors would prefer to avoid. But, if people get into debt and bury their head in the sand then it's likely a CCJ will follow court action. But even a CCJ doesn't mean the debt will be paid. As a claimant, to try and enforce payment, I have had to pay the Court another £40 here, another £50 there. It costs £60 to pass the claim to the High Court, so yes the costs are mounting up before the HCEOs get anywhere near it...but only if the claimants bury their heads in the sand. But check out the information on the CCB web site...there is so much help out there for people in debt that I honestly cannot believe that people get visits from the HCEOs unless a) they've acted like an ostrich or b) they can pay but just don't want to. There is also a tariff of what the HCEOs are able to charge but I suppose you're going to come back and tell us that none of them stick to that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those that use this site do so because they have a problem that they would like some help with and it is unfortunate if you think it is about those "avoiding" their responsibilities. If you take the time & search properly you will also find the odd post where someone has asked on how to reclaim monies to which they also get help. In a recent thread I have mentioned this TV program and pointed out at least 2 posts that have featured in posts on CAG - both looking for reimbursement, so yes it swings both ways.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's about "avoiding" responsibilities at all. People looking for help and advice here and on other forums are the ones who aren't avoiding their responsibilities (I think). My point is that there is loads of support and advice out there for people who are in debt and any Court action could potentially be avoided if people looked for that help and faced up to their responsibilities instead of ignoring it. On another forum this evening, I found several ideas about how people can avoid paying debts when bailiffs come knocking - I think that's the subject of another thread though. Anyway, I need to get off my soap box now and go to bed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Orangesmarties.

 

Welcome to the forum. Your post is detailed and interesting a I would like to comment.

 

Sadly your business like many others in this awful recession is struggling and I am sorry to hear this.

 

As you will see I personally have been posting on the bailiff forum for nearly 6 years and have posted over 5,300 responses. In all of that time I can say with all honesty that I have NEVER ONCE advised somebody NOT to pay their debt. In fact...even further, I have tried to stress that members of the public should REFUSE to allow a bailiff into their home and the reason for this is as follows:

 

By refusing to allow a bailiff into the home, the fees will be CAPPED at just £42.50

 

By refusing to allow a bailiff into your home you will avoid a levy fee and walking possession fee.

 

By refusing to allow a bailiff into your home the bailiff will then very likely return the account back to the council.

 

This will the mean that ALL PAYMENTS will then be paid to the relevant local authority/creditor and not used to discharge bailiff fees. After all..... the debt is due to the creditor and it is important that they get paid. Without exception ALL regular posters on here have the same view. The debt MUST be paid.

 

Sadly, since the recession took hold it is the case that bailiff and HCEO companies are charging fees that are way in excess of what if correct or fair. Proof of this can be seen every day on the TV programme concerning the Sheriffs.

 

If you are considering using an HCEO to enforce a judgment instead of a county court bailiff then it would be wise to enquire beforehand what the position is with HCEO fees and whether all monies paid are used to discharge fees first being paying the client.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree some people are just out to avoid paying debts that in turn have a knock effect to the ordinary person on the street. the BBC seen to be highlighting this and avoiding showing the debtor with three kids doing three jobs and have a bully on the doorstep collecting a payday loan.

 

payday shop direct vanquis credit cards and all these big companies that target low income families and people on benefits know the risks. hence the high prices and high interest rates they charge. these are the people who this site help

 

as for todays program a guy put a £16500 deposit down on a porsche in a seemly reputable showroom and the company simply changed the name and £16500 deposit lost. these are debtors the government should clamp down on

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Orangesmarties.

 

Welcome to the forum. Your post is detailed and interesting a I would like to comment.

 

Sadly your business like many others in this awful recession is struggling and I am sorry to hear this.

 

As you will see I personally have been posting on the bailiff forum for nearly 6 years and have posted over 5,300 responses. In all of that time I can say with all honesty that I have NEVER ONCE advised somebody NOT to pay their debt. In fact...even further, I have tried to stress that members of the public should REFUSE to allow a bailiff into their home and the reason for this is as follows:

 

By refusing to allow a bailiff into the home, the fees will be CAPPED at just £42.50

 

By refusing to allow a bailiff into your home you will avoid a levy fee and walking possession fee.

 

By refusing to allow a bailiff into your home the bailiff will then very likely return the account back to the council.

 

This will the mean that ALL PAYMENTS will then be paid to the relevant local authority/creditor and not used to discharge bailiff fees. After all..... the debt is due to the creditor and it is important that they get paid. Without exception ALL regular posters on here have the same view. The debt MUST be paid.

 

Sadly, since the recession took hold it is the case that bailiff and HCEO companies are charging fees that are way in excess of what if correct or fair. Proof of this can be seen every day on the TV programme concerning the Sheriffs.

 

If you are considering using an HCEO to enforce a judgment instead of a county court bailiff then it would be wise to enquire beforehand what the position is with HCEO fees and whether all monies paid are used to discharge fees first being paying the client.

 

.

.

 

I would very much welcome a response from Orangesmartie to this post from last night...

Link to post
Share on other sites
.

.

 

I would very much welcome a response from Orangesmartie to this post from last night...

 

We wait with bated breath for a response

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 OTHERS

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
We wait with bated breath for a response

 

I guess he won't be interested in hearing how innocent small businesses like he had regularly get destroyed, including iirc one in the last few months, because the HCEO's arrive at the wrong place, and refuse to read proof they are at the wrong company, whilst the HCEO's themselves then receive very little punishment, whilst staff at the victim companies lose jobs.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess he won't be interested in hearing how innocent small businesses like he had regularly get destroyed, including iirc one in the last few months, because the HCEO's arrive at the wrong place, and refuse to read proof they are at the wrong company, whilst the HCEO's themselves then receive very little punishment, whilst staff at the victim companies lose jobs.

 

Huntress Search Ltd v Canapeum Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC 1270 (QB) (28 May 2010) springs to mind as an example of a HCEO, in this case Claire Sandbrook of Shergroup scuttling to a high couirt master in an interpleader, and being denied relief, the borked enforcement against a third party being extremely serious:

 

http://judgmental.org.uk/judgments/EWHC-QB/2010/[2010]_EWHC_1270_(QB).htm

 

Then there was the case of the Yorkshire chippy stripped out by bailiffs for a third party debt, the list goes on

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 OTHERS

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...