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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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
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 :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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
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

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
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.

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
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'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

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.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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 ?

They are just a team of bald headed thugs threatening people

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

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

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

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...