andrew wilson Andrew Wilson HCEO over old CCJ already being paid

[felthorpe]

Can someone offer some advice please?

 

 

My husband had a dispute with a solicitor and they got a CCJ.

He should have defended the case but didn't and it was ages ago now so I believe he is stuck with it.

 

 

He has been paying them sporadically as and when he can afford to and the debt is now down to £660.

 

He received a letter from an enforcement agency a few weeks ago and ignored it,

he just paid another instalment to the solicitor who had the CCJ and thought no more about it.

 

Now we have had a notice put through the door from this bunch at Andrew Wilson & Co which says they have a Writ.

We have not received any notification from the High Court about any Writ (although I don't know if they have to notify us)

and the enforcement details on the note only mention the CCJ from the County Court as the enforcement details, not any High Court claim number.

 

 

There is however a Writ number at the top of their note but I don't trust this to be anything other than their reference number,

it is just a number, no letters in it as you see in county court claims.

 

We have no intention of letting these people into the house, which is owned by me and not him in any event.

We have revoked their license to enter the premises with a notice in our porch window, which they must have read when they visited today.

 

My husband intention is to carry on paying the solicitor direct as and when he can until the original debt is paid

(they waived the right to interest in a letter to him).

 

What I want to know is what rights, if any these enforcement people have?

Can they take his car if it is on the drive despite the licence to enter the premises being revoked?

 

If we pay the solicitor in full will they have to go away or are we stuck with them now banging on the door every few days?

 

They have added over £1,000 to the alleged debt that they are now demanding, is this legal?

 

My instinct is to ignore them and make sure they can't get in but I need some guidance please.

 

Thanks for such a good and interesting forum.

[dx100uk]

what was the old debt all about please

and who is the sols?

 

 

and no they have no right of entry whatsoever

 

oh and be carful reading these freeman of the land sites and these silly

notices to put at you gate or window.

 

 

load of useless twaddle!!

 

 

dx

[felthorpe]

The debt was a solicitors bill

 

I didn't use anyone elses sign,

 

 

I just said I was revoking the implied license to enter the premises.

[dx100uk]

but you read it somewhere...be careful of fotl twaddle.

 

 

was there a judgement order for the CCJ

 

 

£XX per week month etc?

 

 

or was it a default judgement for the whole amount?

 

 

dx

[felthorpe]

judgement for whole amount.

 

They agreed he could pay in instalments as and when but they wanted regular amounts.

He has not been able to pay regularly but has paid sporadically.

They agreed not to add any interest to the CCJ debt.

 

What I really want to know is if he pays the balance now, what, if anything will still be due?

Will he have to pay the bailiffs costs?

They seem awfully high and I have checked what they are allowed to charge and they seem to be adding about £1,000.

 

Can we stop this by paying the original debt to the original solicitor rather than to these debt collectors?

 

He has paid an amount since they sent these guys round and they (original solicitor) kept the money, so we expect they will accept the balance.

 

Will the bailiffs have to go away then?

 

I am not worried about the house or contents because that belongs to me and that can be proven,

we would not let them in anyway but he has a car and there is no finance on it and

 

 

from reading the legislation, it looks like they could clamp it and take it.

 

 

We just don't want to have to play hide and seek with it, s

o what are the chances they will get called off if we pay the original debt in full?

 

Re revoking licence to enter the premises:

I know that there is an implied licence to enter my property.

 

This is what is regularly exercised by people coming to my front door in crossing my property to get there e.g. by the postman.

I know that I am entitled to revoke said implied licence but must do this clearly and unequivocally.

The person then on my land has to leave or be deemed a trespasser.

 

There is case law where a police officer has been told to leave, thereby having his license

to enter the property revoked and has failed to do so and has subsequently arrested the householder.

The conviction that the householder then faced was quashed by the court because the officer was there unlawfully when he made the arrest.

 

I have a sign in my porch window clearly displayed which reads

"Please Note: Any implied licence to enter these premises is hereby revoked by the lawful occupier.

Entering these premises without permission will constitute trespass."

 

I have yet to test if this theory works and hope I never have to

but I was once advised by a bailiff friend of mine that such notices do work and they should take notice of them.

 

I know that after they have taken your goods, it is an uphill fight to prove that it was done unlawfully

but I hope the notice may prove a deterrent if they think I am serious about enforcing it and trust me, I am.

 

P.S. The law is my profession but I do not specialise in bailiffs! Hence my questions on here, I just want some advice from those who have such experience.

[Bailiff Advice]

I will respond in the morning. In the meantime it would be better if you go back to your post number 4 and look for the EDIT button and remove the name of the creditor (solicitors firm).

[dx100uk]

Re revoking licence to enter the premises:

I know that there is an implied licence to enter my property.

 

This is what is regularly exercised by people coming to my front door in crossing my property to get there e.g. by the postman.

I know that I am entitled to revoke said implied licence but must do this clearly and unequivocally.

The person then on my land has to leave or be deemed a trespasser.

 

There is case law where a police officer has been told to leave, thereby having his license

to enter the property revoked and has failed to do so and has subsequently arrested the householder.

The conviction that the householder then faced was quashed by the court because the officer was there unlawfully when he made the arrest.

 

I have a sign in my porch window clearly displayed which reads

"Please Note: Any implied licence to enter these premises is hereby revoked by the lawful occupier.

Entering these premises without permission will constitute trespass."

 

I have yet to test if this theory works and hope I never have to

but I was once advised by a bailiff friend of mine that such notices do work and they should take notice of them.

 

I know that after they have taken your goods, it is an uphill fight to prove that it was done unlawfully

but I hope the notice may prove a deterrent if they think I am serious about enforcing it and trust me, I am.

 

P.S. The law is my profession but I do not specialise in bailiffs! Hence my questions on here, I just want some advice from those who have such experience.

 

 

I think I know the case its here several times

but that letter wasn't the reason why it was quashed

 

 

debt collectors yes it would work

but then you don't need it with them anyway as they have no legal powers

bailiffs are a whole different breed I it does not apply.

 

 

anyway just be careful of this freemen of the land stuff.

[dx100uk]

judgement for whole amount.

 

They agreed he could pay in instalments as and when but they wanted regular amounts.

He has not been able to pay regularly but has paid sporadically.

They agreed not to add any interest to the CCJ debt.

 

What I really want to know is if he pays the balance now, what, if anything will still be due?

Will he have to pay the bailiffs costs?

They seem awfully high and I have checked what they are allowed to charge and they seem to be adding about £1,000.

 

Can we stop this by paying the original debt to the original solicitor rather than to these debt collectors?

 

He has paid an amount since they sent these guys round and they (original solicitor) kept the money, so we expect they will accept the balance.

 

Will the bailiffs have to go away then?

 

I am not worried about the house or contents because that belongs to me and that can be proven,

we would not let them in anyway but he has a car and there is no finance on it and

 

 

from reading the legislation, it looks like they could clamp it and take it.

 

 

We just don't want to have to play hide and seek with it, s

o what are the chances they will get called off if we pay the original debt in full?

 

 

sadly under the new rules since april paying the debt off to the sols does not dissolve your requirement to pay bailiff fees.

that are legally due.

 

 

the sols have employed the HCEO at a cost of £60

they don't have to inform you

[Bailiff Advice]

Re revoking licence to enter the premises:

 

I know that there is an implied licence to enter my property.

 

I have a sign in my porch window clearly displayed which reads

 

"Please Note: Any implied licence to enter these premises is hereby revoked by the lawful occupier. Entering these premises without permission will constitute trespass."

 

I have yet to test if this theory works and hope I never have to but I was once advised by a bailiff friend of mine that such notices do work and they should take notice of them.

 

I know that after they have taken your goods, it is an uphill fight to prove that it was done unlawfully but I hope the notice may prove a deterrent if they think I am serious about enforcing it and trust me, I am.

 

P.S. The law is my profession but I do not specialise in bailiffs! Hence my questions on here, I just want some advice from those who have such experience.

 

The notice is of no use whatsoever and in fact, with bailiff enforcement, they are totally ignored by all companies.

 

About 8 years ago Removal of Implied Right of Access Notices were picked up by Freeman on the Land supporters and within months, went 'viral' on the internet. It would seem from research that I have been the only person to write on this subject. The following link is to a thread that I wrote last year and you will see in the opening post that I refer to a further thread that had been viewed at that time over 16,000 times. Both threads have now been viewed approx 30,000 times !!!

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from

[Bailiff Advice]

 

 

I have a sign in my porch window clearly displayed which reads

 

"Please Note: Any implied licence to enter these premises is hereby revoked by the lawful occupier. Entering these premises without permission will constitute trespass."

 

 

This debt is being enforced by Andrew Wilson & Co and they enforce judgments that are transferred up to the High Court for enforcement.

 

A Notice of Removal of Rights of Implied Access (trespass notice) has no relevance either with the enforcement of a High Court writ of Fi Fa and this is because the company (Andrew Wilson & Co) and its' enforcement officers have statutory protection against any claims for trespass and wrongful interference of goods.

 

This protection is afforded by Section 11 (entitled: Protection of Officers) of Schedule 7 of the Courts Act 2003. Furthermore, Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 states that officers executing a warrant are not considered to be harassing debtors and therefore are protected by the law.

 

Accordingly, any legal action for harassment would not succeed where the officer is in the process of "enforcement of any liabilities by legal process".

[HCEOs]

felthorpe, please take the advice of Bailiff Advice above. The notice is pointless and will not stop the HCEO from enforcing.

 

Coming to the issue, the Notice of Enforcement is sent to allow you to pay the sums due without incurring the additional costs of a visit. The fact your husband chose to ignore it is why you have the problem you have.

 

I would also suggest that it is due to the sporadic payments is why the creditor has chosen to enforce the matter.

 

The correct procedure is to make an agreed payment arrangement with Andrew Wilson & Co and ensure your husband sticks to it.

 

Remember, jointly owned goods (those bought in marriage) can be enforced against so if your husband can clear this up once and for all it wouldn't be a bad idea.

[numbers666]

Can you please post the breakdown of fees / costs added ?

 

As the amount was over 600.00 OS the claimant exercised their right to transfer up.

 

There are two options / solutions here:

 

i) the costs are incorrectly worked out and can be mitigated to reduce the quantum owed

 

ii) the debt is in OH name only ? He has no goods to his name ? Will the car realise the total due ?

 

N

[felthorpe]

My husband has now paid the balance owing to the original creditor.

 

 

From what I can tell, the creditor has only spent £75 in recruiting the HCEO.

 

 

He has also written to the original creditor saying that the debt is paid in full and he would like acknowledgement that nothing else is owing to them.

We will see what response we get.

They have kept the money paid.

 

 

The charges suggested by the HCEO are way above the amounts set out in the legislation (Taking Control of Good (Fees) Regulations 2014),

does anyone know why this is?

 

 

The amount originally owed was £700.

The HCEO was then recruited.

£40 was paid, the debt was then £660.

 

 

The HCEO attended the property.

The table says £190 for first enforcement stage.

The HCEO is asking for over £1,000.

 

 

The £660 has now been paid, so the debt is clear.

 

 

What is likely to be outstanding and to whom?

[HCEOs]

OK, yes the creditor would have paid £60 for a writ of control.

 

By rights, the creditor should hand over your payment to the HCEO. They will take their lawful fees and enforce against you for the balance. Whether the fees charged are correct is something you will have to decide once you've had a breakdown.

 

From what you say it would seem the Compliance and Enforcement Stage 1 fees have been charged. These are due and payable. For a £1,000 debt you would be looking at approx £318 (incl. VAT) and if you add a bit of interest the sums due are around £1,000.

 

This really will come down to whether the creditor is willing to pay the HCEO fees out of what he has had. From experience that is unlikely.

 

Be warned, a further attendance will likely incur the Sale Stage fee which will add at least £594.

[Bailiff Advice]

What HCEO is stating above is completely true. Please be very careful.