Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Companies House today 12/06/18 confirmed that Claire Louise Sandbrook, High Court Enforcement Officer and owner of Shergroup Ltd is officially a resident in the USA, as per her completed form for Persons with Significant Control dated last year on 02/06/2017 (but filed today).

 

12 Jun 2018 - Change of details for Mrs Claire Louise Sandbrook as a person with significant control on 2 June 2017 - New Country /State usually resident: United States

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04771589/filing-history

 

Given that aside from Shergroup, Sandbrook sells her authority as an HCEO to the likes of DCBL and many other HCEO "franchises" does she really have control of the writs issued in her name?

 

With the recent DCBL case it would appear not - DCBL Ordered to pay £20k

 

Maybe it's finally time for a review into the HCEO system... :?:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe it's finally time for a review into the HCEO system... :?:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is certainly long overdue and an opportunity to weed a lot of the dross out.


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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen the judgement in Rooftops South West Limited, James Slocombe, Paul Howell and Marcus Davis v. Ash Interiors (UK) Limited, Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited and Claire Sandbrook [2018] EWHC 2798 (QB) ?

 

Could it please be made available here?

 

Apparently the judge commented about Claire Sanbrook (the third defendant in this case) purporting to exercise control over Direct Control Bailiffs Ltd (or their agents) from Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone seen the judgement in Rooftops South West Limited, James Slocombe, Paul Howell and Marcus Davis v. Ash Interiors (UK) Limited, Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited and Claire Sandbrook [2018] EWHC 2798 (QB) ?

 

Could it please be made available here?

 

I was provided with a copy of the Judgment in December. There is no doubt about it...it is a damning judgment. It was provided to me in confidence but I am aware that it has been referred to elsewhere in the last 24 hours so I will be asking whether it can be made public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be good if it could BA, Sandbrook needs removing from the HCEO register, she cannot exercise Due Diligence from the USA.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would be good if it could BA, Sandbrook needs removing from the HCEO register, she cannot exercise Due Diligence from the USA.

 

It is no secret that I have been a critic of CS precisely because of the reason that you have stated. However, it is lot more complicated than her being a resident of USA. As difficult as it is to believe, membership of the High Court Enforcement Officer Association is open to overseas as well as UK residents. I know of two HCEO's who live in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in theory Dog the Bounty Hunter could apply and be on the Register with them?

 

Should be UK Resident only.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The full judgement is online as a pdf document. The Judge ordered for DCBL to pay for transcripts of the full Judgement to be provided.

 

The Judgement was also going to be referred to a senior Judge to consider the matters further. Was not happy that HCEO's were being managed from Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
removed

 

just pm'd you, don't know why its 404 the full link works for me but when I put it on the forum the 404 comes up

 

I think this is either Wordpress or CAG stopping the information being linked to around the internet.

 

while this particular information might be totally OK, if it were a rac*sts blog or something defamatory, then publication beyond the first site would make it potentially very expensive and impossible to contain.

 

I just googled the case mentioned in E Munchs post and it came up in search. So just use google.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
removed

 

just pm'd you, don't know why its 404 the full link works for me but when I put it on the forum the 404 comes up

 

Many thanks for that, I've managed to download the PDF.

 

Link goes to a 404.

 

If you google "[2018] EWHC 2798 (QB)" (including the quotation marks"") then the pdf should come up.

 

I think why I wasn't finding it was that I was searching on the names rather than the citation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this belief(under), which is still perpetuated among many HCEO, has much to do with their attitude to enforcement and debtors.

 

44. It remains to deal with what I have called DCBL's overarching defence. This found its clearest expression in paragraph 29 of the witness statement of Ms Miah dated 10 October 2017. In that paragraph she said as follows:

"DCBL are commanded by the High Court to enforce the High Court writ. As such, all conduct by DCBL was carried out lawfully."

 

It is of course wrong, as said many times on here. The HCEOs powers are those contained within Schedule 12 of the TCE, the same as any Bailiff who seeks to take control of goods. No more no less.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree DB, but the attitude of DCBL seems to be play to the cameras, they owe the money, we use the "Ways & Means Act" to get it, it makes good TV. Wonder what's next, Sandbrook brings Dog The Bounty Hunter over and lets him loose on camera with DCBL, partnering Bohill?


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree DB, but the attitude of DCBL seems to be play to the cameras, they owe the money, we use the "Ways & Means Act" to get it, it makes good TV. Wonder what's next, Sandbrook brings Dog The Bounty Hunter over and lets him loose on camera with DCBL, partnering Bohill?

 

It amazes me that DCBL felt so confident that they could act beyond their powers, they showed it on TV.

 

Even when the issue arrived in court they couldn't be bothered to prepare a proper defence, supreme arrogance.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They deserve all that should be coming to them DB, Sandbrook should be struck off PDQ.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/06/2018 at 10:51, HCEOs said:

Companies House today 12/06/18 confirmed that Claire Louise Sandbrook, High Court Enforcement Officer and owner of Shergroup Ltd is officially a resident in the USA, as per her completed form for Persons with Significant Control dated last year on 02/06/2017 (but filed today).

 

12 Jun 2018 - Change of details for Mrs Claire Louise Sandbrook as a person with significant control on 2 June 2017 - New Country /State usually resident: United States

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04771589/filing-history

 

Given that aside from Shergroup, Sandbrook sells her authority as an HCEO to the likes of DCBL and many other HCEO "franchises" does she really have control of the writs issued in her name?

Her Phone number there is +1 321 246 7847   she is a lier and do not deal with her, she owe me over £6000.00 

With the recent DCBL case it would appear not - DCBL Ordered to pay £20k

 

Maybe it's finally time for a review into the HCEO system... :?:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Time to abolish it,a Review will be a whitewash, just like squaddies of yore blancoing the coal for the Genral's inspection.

Edited by brassnecked
  • Like 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ian Thomas001 said:

"she owe me over £6000.00 "

Would you like to expand more on the comment you made

 


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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully they will act and remove her from the Register.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Hopefully they will act and remove her from the Register.

 

Unfortunately, that appears to be more difficult than it should be.

 

I would suggest that the Regulations relating to the authorisation of a High Court enforcement officer need urgent review, if that isn't happening already. Like many regulations in other sectors, they are just not fit for purpose for the way the industry has evolved in recent years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?




  • Tweets

  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • I was talked into signing up with Future Comms (future-comms.co.uk) who cold-called me to change my mobile contract to them, via 02, rather than EE. I have a small business (only me!) and it's a business contract. True, the 4G network is better for my area. This company seemed to be a marketing set-up for various telecoms companies, so I assumed anything I signed would be with 02 and didn't think it might be a problem.
       
      They sent an email whilst I was on the phone to set up the direct debit mandate with my bank which I signed electronically. That was the first, of many, problems I found. Apparently THAT was my contract, binding me to 3 years and no 'cooling off' period, because I was a 'business' (meaning any consumer rights did not apply). When I subsequently asked in writing for a copy of my contract, that is what they sent - when I argued it was a DD mandate they insisted it was my contract!
       
      2 days later they asked for my phone details to get it unlocked which I sent. 10 days later, EE closed my account, so I changed the SIM card to 02 that had come a few days before. No network! They had done nothing about unlocking it. Fortunately I was lucky with EE who managed to give me the right codes, rather than the usual 10 days to go through Samsung.
       
      By this time I was suspicious of their set-up and wanted to cancel. As I said earlier, I found myself trapped into a 3 year contract with no 14 day cooling off period (they don't offer that). Promises to deal with my complaints never happened, promised return calls neither....and on and on.
       
      Ofcom's rules apply to consumers and small businesses (under 10 employees), yet this shower don't acknowledge that. They just repeat and repeat that I am a business so it doesn't apply. To cancel the contract I have to pay the full 3 year's fees!!
       
      I would like to know if others have had similar experiences? Or does anyone know how I can maybe declare the 'contract' unenforceable? I have never before been locked into something without a clear written contract, with t&c's! And, yes, I have asked, and yes, I have been ignored.
      • 84 replies
    • Future comms!. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415706-future-comms/
      • 10 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...