Southern Water and Sherforce have taken a car

[tomtubby]

In cases where an HCEO makes an application to the court for "protection" from claims etc, it would be worthwhile for the debtor to take notice of the following judgment that went to the Appeal Court. The person seeking "protection" was the owner of Sherforce and she lost an initial application to the High Court for "protection" and for this reason, she took her case to APPEAL. She lost this case AS WELL !!!!

 

It is "commonplace" to be told by a bailiff that they can "asssume" that all goods on the premises belong to the debtor and that it is for the "owner" of the goods to "PROVE OTHERWISE.

 

 

NOT ACCORDING TO THIS JUDGMENT !!!!!!!

 

I have a copy of the FULL judgment where it states that the enforcement officer entered the premises and:

 

"Refused to consider any of the oral and documentary evidence presented by the Respondent and its solicitors on the day of execution that they were not the judgment debtor, that the premises did not belong to the judgment debtor and there were no assets belonging to the judgment debtor on the premises"

 

And of further interest in the judgment is the statement from the Accountant to the Claimant who said as follows:

 

"They again refused to accept his explanation. I e-mailed a copy of the title of the premises and the purchase agreement to Mr Amin who showed him copies. He ignored these documents and forcefully insisted that he and his colleagues intended to take the Company's machinery"

 

 

 

A judgment creditor may enforce its judgment by seizing and selling at auction a debtor’s goods. In the High Court, a judgment creditor applies to an enforcement officer (formerly called a sheriff) to attend at the debtor’s premises to seize goods. In the county court a bailiff is instructed.

Proceedings were brought by DSI Foods Limited (DSI) against the enforcement officer who had attended at their premises. DSI were not the judgment debtor, but the enforcement officer had refused to read documents offered by DSI. The financial controller of DSI had only been able to bring the execution to an end by permitting a payment to be made against his personal debit card. The enforcement officer applied for an order restraining these proceedings, but the Master refused to grant the enforcement officer the relief claimed. The enforcement officer appealed.

As the court noted, there is relatively little authority giving guidance as to when relief should be granted. Previous case law acknowledged that a sheriff is entitled to protection where the claimant had not suffered a real and substantial grievance. So the question was, whether in the light of the limited case law available, had DSI incurred a real and substantial grievance?

 

On the facts of this case, the court held that the Master was entitled to conclude that DSI had suffered a real and substantial grievance in respect of the attitude and conduct of the enforcement officers. The enforcement officers refused to consider any of the oral and documentary evidence that they were not the judgment debtors, that the premises did not belong to the judgment debtor and that there were no assets belonging to the judgment debtor on the premises. DSI also suffered financial loss as a result of the interruption to business and the need to destroy food which was being processed at the material time and which had become contaminated as a result of the enforcement officer’s attendance at the premises.

 

In addition, as the enforcement officers attended at an address which was not on the appropriate form, a question arose as to whether the enforcement officer only had authority to carry out execution at that address. The court held that the duty of enforcement was to be defined in terms of a specific address or addresses rather than by reference merely to a wide geographical jurisdiction although it was not determinative of the appeal itself.

 

This case is of note as there has been very case law on the ability of an enforcement officer to apply for relief. This case confirms that a court will explore whether a claimant has suffered a real and substantial grievance when considering relief. In addition, as a practical point, judgment creditors should make clear which address or addresses the enforcement officer is to attend rather than relying on an enforcement officer’s general jurisdiction for the area so as to avoid any confusion.

 

 

Huntress Search Limited (Claimant) v Canapeum Limited (Defendant) and DSI Foods Limited (Interpleader Claimant) [2010] EWHC 1270

 

 

Edited March 27, 2012 by tomtubby

[brassnecked]

It may well be an idea for the Op to contact SW asap, and ask them what they are going to do about the illegal siezure of the car, and that as per the case quoted by tt: Huntress Search Limited (Claimant) v Canapeum Limited (Defendant) and DSI Foods Limited (Interpleader Claimant) [2010] EWHC 1270

 

their agent Sherfarce may well be in the doo doo if they carry on.

[caledfwlch]

I hope the OP's friend has been to the Police and begun the proceedings to have the Bailiff arrested for theft.

 

Potless - if your friend has not yet done so, ensure he prints out some stuff to show the officers that taking a car for someone elses debt, IS Theft/Taking without Consent.

 

Does your friend have internet access? If so, I wonder if maybe he should sign up ASAP and start his own thread regarding the theft of his car?

[potless chap]

From what I can gather from talking to her this evening.SW have said tomorrow they are going to tell SF that they have no interest in the car. When she asked where her car was the lady a SW told her that it is probably in Wembley. Thats at least 100 miles from her. We are not sure what is going to happen tomorrow as SW when asked said they did not know if there would be any charges relating to the removal and storage,or how the car was to be returned.She has work tomorrow so would be unable to travel to London and feels somewhat agreved that this may be expected of her?

[brassnecked]

From what I can gather from talking to her this evening.SW have said tomorrow they are going to tell SF that they have no interest in the car. When she asked where her car was the lady a SW told her that it is probably in Wembley. Thats at least 100 miles from her. We are not sure what is going to happen tomorrow as SW when asked said they did not know if there would be any charges relating to the removal and storage,or how the car was to be returned.She has work tomorrow so would be unable to travel to London and feels somewhat agreved that this may be expected of her?

Tell Sw THEY are liable for any charges, NOT the car owner, after all they are responsible for Sherfarce who are their agents. This is one of the reasons Sherfarce will be applying for relief at any interpleader, so victim of car removal cannot sue them.

 

A cynic may opine sorry we took an innocent third parties car but it's in our yard 100 miles away, come and get it or we will charge you for storage, and by the way we might want £xxxx removal costs also.

 

Others will know much more

Edited March 27, 2012 by brassnecked

[ploddertom]

Quite simply she sticks out and insists that those who took it return it intact, if there is so much as one scratch on it she will be making a claim against them. She should also be putting together a claim for the inconvenience & costs involved in her having had to hire a similar vehicle for use whilst she has been without her own. After all if they had done their job correctly in the first place then this would not have arisen & of course as Creditor SW are also responsible for this regardless of what they may say.

 

PT

[wonkeydonkey]

Did you get a pre enforcement letter from SW? if yes can you forward a copy to PT if not can you ask SW if

 

a)one was sent (and they tell us everyone get this)

b) can you have a copy of it

 

This quite important as he is researching aspects to the reason so many people are not getting the paperwork that is claimed to have been sent!!!!

 

WD

[tomtubby]

If Southern Water are saying that the car is to be released, then this is CONFIRMATION that a MISTAKE was made by the enforcement agent. It is for this reason that Southern Water MUST arrange for the return of the car. This was a MISTAKE by tTHEIR AGENT and there should be no further cost to you.

[tomtubby]

Has the car been returned....

[Isiris]

May I ask, are you saying in 4 and a half years, no letter addressed to your mother has arrived at your house from SW, Debt Collectors and you havent received any claim form nor order of judgement?

[seanamarts]

Can the OP up date us if possible.

[potless chap]

Hello all,sorry for the delay in updating this thread.My PC started to do some really weird things like emailing anyone I have emailed in the last four years? Then it shut me out and my internet provider shut me down for unusual use. I had to do a security check and change my passwords before I could get back on the net. The car has been returned, it was delivered back two days after they took it. They where not going to deliver it back until my friend mentioned the case listed above. Their response was instant,she was even transfered to someone of authority who appologised for the whole episode. I have spoken to SW and sent them my mothers death certificate.I am now in talks with them regarding the outstanding bill.The property has basically been uninhabited for the best part of four years. in response to some of the questions.I have received no paperwork from SW nor was I aware of any court action against my mother.

[tomtubby]

Delighted to hear that the car has been returned!!

 

Do you mean that your friend advised Sherforce about the case of DSI Foods or was this mentioned to Southern Water?

[potless chap]

Hello TT it was mentioned to Sherforce who then moved very quickly to get things sorted. Cheers guys you have all been a great help and support.Its forums like this that put back the faith in human nature that the underhanded companies take away from us!

[tomtubby]

Thank you for updating us all. Maybe Southern Water should be advised of the case of DSI Foods !!!!

[ploddertom]

Maybe a copy should land on their doormat!

 

PT

[wonkeydonkey]

duplicate post

[wonkeydonkey]

Hello TT it was mentioned to Sherforce who then moved very quickly to get things sorted. Cheers guys you have all been a great help and support.Its forums like this that put back the faith in human nature that the underhanded companies take away from us!

 

Sherforce the self proclaimed 'best in enforcement' have done nothing to enhance the Industries profile. They take pride in being members of the HCEOA yet constantly call them into disrepute, paying little to no heed to the Rules and Regulations that self govern the Industry.

 

The Lord Chancellor is seen to have 'approved' all High Court Enforcement Officers prior to appointing him/her to carry out enforcement in the name of Queen and Country. It has to be assumed, those that undertake responsibility to ensure they are approving a suitable candidate are qualified to do so.

 

HCE starts with a writ being assigned to the Enforcement Officer who in turn delegates an employee to carry out their given instruction, this is not disimilar to the role of any employer but most employers seek to have the 'best' in their employ, often going the extra mile to ensure they are employing people shown to be trustworthy, honest and a credit to their business..

 

It was only recently suggested to me I take a look at the list of 'officers' as published on the Sherforce website, I did just that and on scrolling down the list almost to the bottom I noted a famiiar name.

 

Formerly the 'Credit Manager' to "one of the UK's largest suppliers of electronic payment solutions" he was empowered to employ the services of Sherforce to transfer debts to the High Court for Writ of Fi'Fa' and then order they carry out execution to them regardless of the little things like set aside in progress, he even 'starred' in a promotional video to give testimonial to Sherforce excellence, he boasted that being a 'prominant' client of Sherforce he was positioned to tweak their strings and they would always dance to his tune, he wanted it known he was a 'buddy' of Chris Badger and they worked together to ensure both 'benefited' from the relationship.

 

 

So what led to this role reversal of being the 'top man' to becoming a foot soldier for Sherforce? I do not need to speculate on the answer to that question as I have evidence that allows me to conclude it was his ego that drove him to believe he was 'untouchable' but the reality was he was incompetent and I have good reason to suspected that in order to cover up his incompetence he was placed to tell the initial lie and what followed was true to the quote by Sir Walter Scott "oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" If this is the standard Sherforce see to be trustworthy, honest and a credit to their business..then it speak volumes.

 

I cannot name him but if any of you come across him he will be easily recognised, for I would describe him as being small in stature but very big in ego

 

 

WD

Edited April 18, 2012 by wonkeydonkey