URGENT HCEO visited and took Car this morning - **won in court **

[YORK1966]

Hi All, a HCEO turned up this morning from Sherforce and removed my wifes car. not really sure what to do next, debt was £600 for Yorkshire water, the fees charged by Sherforce are £2500. I really don't have this kind of money and realise that time is limited, what should I do. I think I might have a claim under Section 99 Schedule 7 para 2 as the car is essential to my wifes business. The boot also contains all her tools and she is currently unable to work as a result. How can I progress such a claim and does anyone have success of this kind of claim? Thanks

[totiesquoties]

hi york1966, see www.nationaldebtline.co.uk website, their phone number and opening times are there too, give them a ring it is a free service, and they are very knowledgeable on all sorts of problems, hope this helps totiesquoties.

[ploddertom]

In whose name is the account?

 

PT

[YORK1966]

In whose name is the account?

 

PT

The Account is in both Names Mr & Mrs..

Thanks for your comment

[ploddertom]

I assume therefore the original CCJ was in both names? Did you have any knowledge of the original CCJ? Did you acknowlege receipt of the documents and did you offer a defence? Did you offer a payment proposal? As for the car how is it insured - for business and who is allowed to drive? Not tring to pry but what sort of business is it?

 

PT

[YORK1966]

I assume therefore the original CCJ was in both names? Did you have any knowledge of the original CCJ? Did you acknowlege receipt of the documents and did you offer a defence? Did you offer a payment proposal? As for the car how is it insured - for business and who is allowed to drive? Not tring to pry but what sort of business is it?

 

PT

 

Hi thanks for your questions, in-responce

This is a high court matter and to be honest I did not know, but this may be due to burying head in sand..

No defence or correspondence or payment offer has been entered into

Car is insured for business use in my wifes name with me as a named driver.

My wife is a mobile beauty and nail technician and has been trading for 5 years (sole proprietor)

 

Many thanks for your comments

[wonkeydonkey]

I would like to reply to this by PM and will advice the sir=te team as to my reasons.

 

WD

[ploddertom]

The original action would have been through the County Court which because of non-payment has been transferred up through the High Court for enforcement. It is very important to know if you were aware of the original CCJ/ Please also note that the enemy also read these forums so be wary of giving too much away that may identify yourself.

 

PT

[YORK1966]

The original action would have been through the County Court which because of non-payment has been transferred up through the High Court for enforcement. It is very important to know if you were aware of the original CCJ/ Please also note that the enemy also read these forums so be wary of giving too much away that may identify yourself.

 

PT

I was not aware of the original CCJ

Thanks

[ploddertom]

I was not aware of the original CCJ

Thanks

 

In that case at what stage did you become aware of any action?

 

PT

[YORK1966]

When they arrived this morning..

 

Thanks

[tomtubby]

How much roughly is the car worth?

 

How on earth can fees of £2,500 be applicable!! The regulations make it clear that fees must be "reasonable" and not UNREASONABLE!!!

[brassnecked]

Application for a stay and a set aside? Sherfarce are very creative with their fees.

[YORK1966]

How much roughly is the car worth?

 

How on earth can fees of £2,500 be applicable!! The regulations make it clear that fees must be "reasonable" and not UNREASONABLE!!!

Car isn't worth anywhere near £2500, the fees certainly seem unreasonable with no clear breakdown.

[tomtubby]

I have not been able to respond to this or many other posts recently as I was recovering from hospital treatment.

 

As many people on here are aware, I have a commercial business providing bailiff advice to the public. Due to the astonishing number of similar enquiries that we receive concerning High Court Enforcement and the matter of goods being removed that are either “exempt from seizure” or belong to third parties, I will provide a rather lengthy reply in a separate post that may be useful to others in a similar position.

 

 

Firstly, in cases where "exempt” or “third party” goods have been seized by a High Court Enforcement Officer executing a writ of fi fa, the CORRECT procedure is for the debtor or the “third party” to make a FORMAL CLAIM to the High Court Enforcement Company within 5 days of seizure.

 

For a "Third Party" claim, this will need to comply with RSC Order 17 (2) and the following template should provide a guidance as to how to complete such a FORMAL CLAIM.

 

If the claim relates to items seized that are "protected or exempt goods", this will need to comply with RSC Order 17 (2A) and the 2nd template should provide a guidance as to how to complete the form.

 

 

 

 

THIRD PARTY CLAIM

 

In The HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Queens Bench)

 

HIGH COURT CLAIM NUMBER: 1DW 123456

 

COUNTY COURT CLAIM: ABC 1234

 

(Sent from the xxx County Court by Certificate dated (date)

 

CLAIMANT: The Joinery Company Ltd

 

DEFENDANT: Mr James Smith

 

 

I, Mrs Susan Smith of: 1, High Street, Anytown, Anywhere. Postcode, make this Third Party Claim under RSC Order 17 (Rule 2) in respect of the following vehicle that was wrongfully seized from the above premises on 1st September 2011 by a High Court Enforcement Officer from XYZ Ltd

 

• Black Renault Clio. Vehicle Registration Mark: BD03 123
  

I am the wife of the Defendant; Mr James Smith and the above vehicle is owned by me personally and was purchased from my own funds.

 

I am enclosing as evidence, a copy of the sales receipt from ABC Motors addressed to me dated 1st January 2006 confirming receipt of my payment of £4,000. I am also attaching a copy of the V5 Registration Document from DVLA and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance dated 1st January 2006 from Swinton Insurance.

 

Signed by: Mrs Susan Smith (September 1st 2011)

 

...............................................................

Address for service:

1 High Street

Anytown

Anywhere, Postcode

Date: 1st September 2011

 

 

 

FORMAL CLAIM TO ITEMS PROTECTED FROM SEIZURE.

 

In The HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Queens Bench)

 

HIGH COURT CLAIM NUMBER: 1DW 123456

 

COUNTY COURT CLAIM: ABC 1234

 

(Sent from the xxx County Court by Certificate dated (date)

 

CLAIMANT: The Joinery Company Ltd

 

DEFENDANT: Mr Jo Blogs

 

 

I, Mr Jo Blogs of: 15, The Avenue, Anytown, Anywhere. Postcode, make this Formal Claim under RSC Order 17 (Rule 2A) in respect of the following items that were seized from the above premises on 1st September 2011 by a High Court Enforcement Officer from XYZ Ltd and which I believe are protected from seizure in accordance with section 138 (3A) of the Supreme Courts Act 1981 in that they are for “my use personally in the course of my business or vocation”

 

• Ford Transit: Vehicle registration number: BD53 ABC
  

For the past 3 years I have worked as a self employed electrician trading under the trading name of ABC Plumbing and the above vehicle is used by me solely in the course of my self employed business.

 

 

 

 

 

As evidence, I am attaching the following documents:

• Copy of the insurance certificate from Swinton Insurance confirming that the vehicle is insured for my business use.
  
• A letterhead and business card in the business name of ABC Plumbing.
  

Signed by: Mr Jo Blogs (September 1st 2011)

 

 

...............................................................

Address for service:

15, The Avenue

Anytown

Anywhere, Postcode

 

Date: September 1st 2011

[tomtubby]

If a High Court Enforcement Officer has removed or seized goods that you consider should be “exempt” from seizure by virtue of section 138 (3A) of the Supreme Courts Act 1981 or belong to a “third party” then a Formal Claim must be made in writing within 5 days of the date of seizure to identify all of those goods in respect of which the claim is made. The relevant case law can be found under RSC 17.

 

The Formal Claim should be sent by email or fax to the High Court Enforcement Company and I would suggest a further copy is sent by registered post as well. It clearly provides under RSC 17 that upon receipt of a notice of claim that the High Court Enforcment Officer must forthwith give notice of the claim to the judgment creditor. The HCEO will submit the claim to the creditor or his solicitor using form PF 23.

 

 

(Please note that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “forthwith” means; at once, immediately or without delay)

 

Within seven days of receiving the notice of the claim, the judgment creditor (or his solicitor) mustdecide whether to admit or dispute the claim and he will do this by completing form PF24 which he will send to the HCEO.

 

If the creditor admits the claim, i.e. agrees that the third party’s claim is valid, or that the items are indeed “exempt from seizure” then the goods must be released by the HCEO and returned to the debtor or the third party.

It is important to be aware that the creditor will be liable for the HCEO’s execution fees and expenses incurred up to that point.

 

If the creditor fails to respond within the required 7 days, then the goods will in any event be released.

 

If the creditor disputes the claim, then the HCEO must within 14 days make an Interpleader Application to the High Court for a hearing. This will be heard by a Master in the Royal Courts of Justice and it will be for the Master to look at the evidence to establish whether the goods are indeed "exempt" or belong to a “third party”.

[YORK1966]

Thanks TT excellent post

[tomtubby]

My pleasure.

[DontPushMe]

Hi TT,

 

is there a difference between High Court Enforcement Office and High Court Enforcement Company? I notice that the OP mentions Sherforce and I'm a bit confused (I know, not difficult!) as to whether Sherforce is the High Court Enforcement Office or whether Sherforce is the High Court Enforcement Company or none of the above.

 

TIA

 

DPM

[tomtubby]

I can understand your confusion.

 

There are a number of various High Court Enforcement companies, ONE of which is Sherforce. Another company are indeed called the High Court Enforcement Company and there is another firm called the Sheriffs Office.

[DontPushMe]

Hi TT,

 

so High Court Enforcement Company is just that - a limited company and not a Government judiciary department that is called the High Court Enforcement Office?

 

TIA

 

DPM

[tomtubby]

Correct, a PRIVATE limited company

[DontPushMe]

So that means that debtors can be forgiven for thinking that they are a Government organisation?

 

DPM

[brassnecked]

So that means that debtors can be forgiven for thinking that they are a Government organisation?

 

DPM

 

Well I think the company are hoping their name makes a debtor less likely to argue the toss and pay up imho Where there can be problems is if they are acting as debt collectors only which does happen and they imply they are using bailiff powers when they should not be doing so

Edited September 20, 2011 by brassnecked

[YORK1966]

It seems a long time since my original desperate post, however I have an important update, today we spent 10 hours in the car for an hour in the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Well the result was that We Won! the car that was removed three months ago is coming home.

I would like to say a BIG huge thank you to all that have helped me and all your comments.

This site WORKS!

We still have a way to go, the story is not over yet. but today is a happy day!