HCEO Enforcement Help Please

[Lincsflier]

Hi all need some advice please. I have a debt that was incurred as a sole trader with DSG retail which has now been handed up to Sherforce.

 

The company never got off the ground and through ill health it ended up going to county court and then being passed up to the high court by DSG. I don't dispute the debt but wanted to pay by instalemnts which Sherforce were not interested in at all and wanted payment in full and nothing else would satisfy. I contacted CCCS and was advised by them to submit form N245 to the court which I have done BUT reading through the forum I think this advice may have been off the mark and it should have been form N244. Can someone please help clarify what is right as this is worrying us sick.

 

On another note when Sherforce called I was left with no WPA at all and only found out what they plan to levy on by calling their staff in India.

 

Thanks in advance for all your help.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

A WPA is a walking possessions agreement, the document needs a signature to show you have agreed to it for it to be valid.

 

I think you need to speak to an expert on the Civil Procedure rules for information about setting aside an order.

 

The law prescribing fees chargeable by a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) for collecting unpaid debts is Schedule 3 of Regulation 13 of The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004. Broadly speaking it provides:

 

Where the sum due is £100 or less - 5%

Above £100 - 2.5%

Mileage Charges - 29.2p per mile Max £50

Seizure of goods - £2 per site

Signed Walking possession agreement fee - £3.25 a day

 

Transport and storage of removed goods/valuation - the law provides Reasonable costs - See: Culligan -v- Marston Group Ltd et-al, no. 8CL51015 the court ruled that because the Bailiff produces no breakdown of his charges, he is unable to show that it is reasonable costs. Therefore, items such as van fees, tow truck fees and attending to remove fees = £0.00.

 

The expression "Reasonable costs" used in the legislation means a bailiff cannot transport or sell your goods to make a monetary gain for himself or another. It only provides for bailiffs to remunerate themselves for receipts for actual provable costs. You have a right to see them, but if a bailiff asks you to pay a fee under a pretence it is accessing personal information under the Data Protection Act then you can start litigation and make a complaint to police under the 2006 Fraud Act 2006 for intending to defraud you by making a false representation.

[Lincsflier]

Thanks for that the charges being added so far are just over £1200 on a debt of £716!! A little more than what they can charge it would seem.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

It appears the bailiff is screwing you well & truly!!! Do you have any documents from the bailiff to prove he is trying to charge you those fees?

 

The following procedure currently has a 100% success rate. The letter below asks the HCEO to pass a truth-test about his fees. Three things can happen:

 

1) The HCEO can try to convince you his fees comply with legislation – and you have a written confession he intended to defraud you

2) He can refund you – this is called mitigation the HCEO intended to defraud you, and accepts the opportunity to put things right

3) No reply – you can proceed with litigation against the HCEO Company

 

In any event, you have the HCEO with pants at half mast

 

Name of HCEO Firm

Their Address 1

Their Address 2

Their Address 3

Postcode

 

BY POST AND BY EMAIL

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: [YOUR NAME + REF]: Your fees.

 

I write following visits by your High Court Enforcement Officer, however after seeking advice there appears to an irregularity with your fees. I now ask you to provide the following within seven (7) days:

 

1) Written confirmation of your fees

 

2) Written confirmation of the original debt

 

3) The name and address of the organisation that instructed you

 

4) Either confirm in writing that your fees are lawful and truthfully comply with legislation, or refund me unlawful fees plus reasonable compensation for being cheated by your bailiff with his fees by midday the seventh day from the date of this letter.

 

A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 2 of the Act specifically describes a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. If no satisfactory refund is made to me by 12.00 midday seven (7) days from the date of this letter I will automatically make a criminal complaint to Police under the 2006 Fraud Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act. If you have charged VAT on unlawful fees then you may be reported for VAT fraud and your documents will be given in evidence.

 

This is a letter before action and is not a request to access any personal data about me in the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998. It is delivered by Royal Mail and deem it good service upon you by the ordinary course of post under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. It now is your responsibility and in your best interests this letter is handed to the relevant person within your organisation.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

YOUR NAME

 

 

 

When a bailiff defrauds you with his fees he commits an arrestable offence. Your document is sufficient evidence and the police should at minimum, arrest the bailiff and question him under caution at a police station and the bailiffs DNA goes on the national database!

 

The Chief Constable

Name of Police Authority

Address 1

Address 2

Address 3

Postcode

 

DATE

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Re: Reporting a crime committed under the Fraud Act 2006

 

I enclose a document given to me by a man saying he is a High Court Enforcement Officer (the suspect). He charged fees £AMOUNT when the law does not provide for any. The law prescribing HCEO fees is Schedule 3 of Regulation 13 of The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004 and only provides fees of [£AMOUNT]. The law does not provide for the suspect to charge me any fees where no goods have been transported or sold by them. The suspect did not move any goods in a van and I did not sign any documents for him. I have been defrauded by the suspect who is cheating with his fees and I have asked for a refund without success.

 

I appreciate the police have a propensity to dismiss bailiff crime to be a civil matter, but the official legal position is the suspect commits an arrestable offence under the 2006 Fraud Act. Lord Lucas at the House of Lords on 20 April 2007 when he asked HM Government whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) replied with, inter-alia (quote) A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 (unquote).

 

Section 1 means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

The law can provide reasonable costs in respect of bailiffs transporting goods in a van (attending to remove fee) however no goods have been levied and no document has been signed by me. District Judge Advent on the 9th & 24th September 2008 presiding over Case 8CL51015 Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). The court ruled that (quote) because the bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable (unquote).

 

Any offence committed under the 2006 Fraud Act is an arrestable offence under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Please assign a crime reference number and I request the crime is investigated professionally and objectively and I am happy to help you in your enquiries and stand as a prosecution witness at trial.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

YOUR NAME

Enc: copy of HCEO document giving contact details

 

If the police fob you off with excuses or tries a delay tactic, write down the name and rank of the police officer and contact the IPCC and your MP with a written complaint of 'Perverting the Course of Justice'. It is an offence under Section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 to conceal a crime under false pretences. You will then find the police will start cooperating soon enough!

[Lincsflier]

Thanks for all that yeah have the High Court form 55 he left which detailed the claim but no break down of costs.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

The letter above should suffice in getting a breakdown of costs, but to be honest, this is pointless becasue the law decides how much an HCEO can charge.

[lets fight bailiffs]

You must make a formal complaint to Mr Chris Badger who is now the complaints manager for Sherforce and explain that you do not agree with the amount of fees. and request the he sends it back to a master for a detailed assesment and if he refuses then write to your MP. that way you have given them the chance within there complaints system to deal with it.

 

LFB

[Lincsflier]

Thanks will do that first and then take it further if needed. Wife and I are literally worried sick over all this and don't know what to do next as we can't afford to make large payments to them but at the same time don't know what forms we should have sent off etc.

[ploddertom]

Did you receive the original documentation from the Court where you have to acknowledge service and admit/deny or partial claim of the debt. Were you found to be "guilty" by Judgment by default?

 

Depending on what happened originally you may have a slight chance of Set Aside. After Judgment was given did you try to set up an instalment plan either through the Court or direct with DSG.

 

You can probably still apply to pay via instalments but need to go back to Court for this - believe that is what N245 is for. However your initial problem is to deal with the HCEO.

 

Even if you deal with any application in the County Court enforcement via the HCEO will still go ahead - to stop this you MUST apply to the High Court for a Stay of Execution. If granted this will halt any further action by the HCEO until your application is decided.

 

Sherforce are very unforgiving and are known for their sometimes extortionate and/or unlawful charges. Their WPA is usually an all encompassing piece of paper that in reality is worthless as they do have to list specific items and cannot just claim everything. Have they said when they are coming back and did they tell you in advance what sort of extra charges they will be making. Many of their fees can be challenged but you have to remember that their Complaints department is dealt with in house.

 

Specifically ask for a breakdown of their fees and go over it with a microscope anything you find wrong challenge them and you could allege fraud has been committed by:

1 The Officer attending your premises

2 The Authorised HCEO

3 The Company

I've been told that most of their fees are allotted before they even attend!

 

Keep us informed of progress good or bad.

 

PT

[tomtubby]

On the matter of fees being charged by HCEO's please read the following thread that I started this afternoon !!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/230350-hceo-fees-parliamentary-question.html

[ploddertom]

Another thought: although you say Sherforce were not interested in instalments - are these the thoughts of the Creditor?

 

PT

[Guest Happy Contrails]

On the matter of fees being charged by HCEO's please read the following thread that I started this afternoon !!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/230350-hceo-fees-parliamentary-question.html

 

This not not on the statute book yet.

 

Lord Bach only says - The Ministry of Justice is undertaking a detailed examination of the cost of High Court enforcement with the intention of setting a new fee structure.

[sherbrook]

This not not on the statute book yet.

 

Lord Bach only says - The Ministry of Justice is undertaking a detailed examination of the cost of High Court enforcement with the intention of setting a new fee structure.

 

FYI, I was advised today that the new fee structure is due in 2012 but with an iminant change in Government this could be delayed somewhat.

[tomtubby]

FYI, I was advised today that the new fee structure is due in 2012 but with an iminant change in Government this could be delayed somewhat.

 

A consultation document is being prepared and I will know more on this at the end of this week.

[brownefamily]

Don't pay Sherforce fees they are claiming under Schedule C (which are their visit fees, admin fees etc) and don't pay WPA if no WPA was left or signed.

Do try to pay DSG. Write to Sherforce (copying in DSG) saying you will not pay any Schedule C fees and are not able to pay the debt plus interest in full but can offer to pay in instalments of £x. Send your first payment with the letter.

Tell Sherforce that if they insist on trying to charge you under Schedule C, you will require a Fees Assessment Hearing (and say you are aware they recently withdrew from such a Hearing, rather than have fees assessed by a Master) but you will not pay them otherwise. State that you will, however, pay the debt in instalments, together with interest and any fees incurred in transferring up.

If you want a draft letter to send, pm me and I'll send you the letter I used in my case against Sherforce.

I did repay the debt plus interest but not Sherforce's ridiculous charges and they ended up paying me costs.

So don't pay ridiculous charges but do pay your debts and actual and reasonable costs incurred as a result of your delay in settling your debt.