HCE officer - Stat Demand now served on me.

[caledfwlch]

Hi, can anyone else give me some advice on this please....why do bailiffs keep calling when they know i have no assets here and nothing belongs to me...what is the point in that...nothing will change..should i appeal the court decision...

 

They are probably being hassled by your ex, not to mention that on 12 grand, their own fees will be pretty epic I bet.

 

What your current partner needs to do is go to a local solicitors and swear a Statutory Declaration. This will cost from £5-£10 and the local court may even do it for free.

 

What this SD will do is list everything in the house that a Bailiff can take and will state that it is owned by your Partner, make photocopies of it too so you have plenty around.

 

What the SD means is that even if the HCEO's do manage to get into the property, they will be unable to levy or seize anything. It will basically remove their trump card, and their main "power" over a debtor.

 

Send a photocopy in the post to the HCEO's firm, and next time they visit, give the HCEO at the door a copy too and point out that it covers everything in the property.

 

It feels a bit like what this ex partner is doing is bordering on harassment.

 

You absolutely need to put in an appeal, and if possible to put in an official complaint against the Judge.

 

Do you work? Bankruptcy or a Debt Relief Order really could be the best way to resolve this, and give you a big laugh at the guy who is clearly "after you" especially since you have no assets.

 

If you are unemployed, or on a low income, then a Debt Relief Order is pretty much the same as Bankruptcy except its a lot cheaper to start (around £90)

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_help_with_debt_e/debt_relief_orders.htm

 

The SD will protect your partners assets from being taken by the HCEO's anyway. It will also likely infuriate your ex when he is told that you have nothing they can seize, and thus they have no power or methods of enforcement left against you.

[roxy100]

hi caledfwlch, thank you for that reply...we have a SD done and have shown this to the bailiffs but they still keep calling...what is the point in this.....

 

yes i have considered trying to settle the debt for 1500, which i could borrow, or if the claimant doesnt accept then i will just say that i will decalre bankruptcy...i truly have no assets so they will be buggered then....

 

if the bailiffs have seen an SD, does this then make it illegal for them to enter, say for instance if my son is there and the door is open(we live in the country and often leave the door open), or can they still try it on and enter and levy?

 

same with car, they have seen the log book is not in may name....would it be illegal for them to try and take that...or can they be awkward....

[caledfwlch]

hi caledfwlch, thank you for that reply...we have a SD done and have shown this to the bailiffs but they still keep calling...what is the point in this.....

 

yes i have considered trying to settle the debt for 1500, which i could borrow, or if the claimant doesnt accept then i will just say that i will decalre bankruptcy...i truly have no assets so they will be buggered then....

 

if the bailiffs have seen an SD, does this then make it illegal for them to enter, say for instance if my son is there and the door is open(we live in the country and often leave the door open), or can they still try it on and enter and levy?

 

same with car, they have seen the log book is not in may name....would it be illegal for them to try and take that...or can they be awkward....

 

Having been presented with an SD to show that everything within the property is owned by your partner (have you got the car on the SD too? If not get it added) then were they to take anything belonging to your partner, then they would be committing the criminal act of Theft.

 

As your ex seems to be very friendly with Judges etc, I am wondering if someone at the HCEO's maybe the boss is also another "friend" it seems bizarre they are still visiting when they know they cannot actually seize anything, its a complete and utter waste of their time!

 

I am wondering if one of our experts knows if this could be construed as Harassment, since really this is a "nul Bona" situation, they know, and have been provided with proof that you have no assets they can seize, and no savings or income to pay even a small part of the debt off, so they are in effect now allowing themselves to be used to harass and intimidate you on the creditors behalf, despite knowing there is no point in them attending as none of their powers apply.

[roxy100]

Hi..i am just waiting for them to call again any time as they will have had a copy of the letter with my application dismissed..i have sent them another copy of the statutory declaration together with copy of log book and land register copy for the property.

 

my ex mother in law was a legal secretary...so yes, suppose she knows them all..

 

the HCE, turn up, i see them coming, i go outside, they hand me another 'we will take your goods letter' with the balance increasing all the time!!, they they sit outside the house for 20mins....before leaving..

 

They know, that i know, they can't take anything, but they still call..

 

I am calling the court tomorrow to ask about appealing...

[Homer67]

Guys, there has to be a case for harrasment here surely? The OP has shown she has no assets and yet they are still pursuing for seizure of goods, bearing in mind an offer of affordable payment terms has been proved and made - why are they still pursuing for seizure when there is nothing to take?

 

Would the OP benefit from going to another court and asking for help ?

 

I don't usually comment on this forum as I don't have enough knowledge, but I read with avid interest and this one reminds me of a situation my partner was in with her ex who used the courts and their inability to communicate to hassle her long after their marriage had finished - it was resolved with an SD as here and he got the message

[HCEOs]

In my opinion the claimant may be foolish not to accept some of the offers mentioned. However, the HCEO has a responsibility to the claimant and can be sued if they are not seen to do their job. If there are genuinely no assets then, the HCEO will return the case as Nulla Bona (no goods) and it will be closed.

 

Unfortunately, we see this all too often where a claimant just won't accept that the case is unenforceable.

[SURFBOY]

In my opinion the claimant may be foolish not to accept some of the offers mentioned. However, the HCEO has a responsibility to the claimant and can be sued if they are not seen to do their job. If there are genuinely no assets then, the HCEO will return the case as Nulla Bona (no goods) and it will be closed.

 

Unfortunately, we see this all too often where a claimant just won't accept that the case is unenforceable.

But in this case the HCEOs are doing nothing but wasting their own time and money.

Would it not be more beneficial to the HCEOs to be putting more effort into persuading the claimant of the Nulla Bona situation rather than waisting their own time and money?

[HCEOs]

But in this case the HCEOs are doing nothing but wasting their own time and money.

Would it not be more beneficial to the HCEOs to be putting more effort into persuading the claimant of the Nulla Bona situation rather than waisting their own time and money?

 

Absolutely, but that's not as easy as it sounds. Many claimants, especially when they are individuals or small businesses won't take no for an answer. We currently have one client threatening to sue us because we refused to enforce against somebody we consider is vulnerable. He has now instructed another HCEO. Often, when the debt is emotive the HCEO get's put in a difficult situation.

 

I agree, in this case it sounds like a complete waste of time re-attending and one that will only cost the HCEO money as there doesn't appear the likelihood of recovery.

[ploddertom]

Absolutely, but that's not as easy as it sounds. Many claimants, especially when they are individuals or small businesses won't take no for an answer. We currently have one client threatening to sue us because we refused to enforce against somebody we consider is vulnerable. He has now instructed another HCEO. Often, when the debt is emotive the HCEO get's put in a difficult situation.

 

I agree, in this case it sounds like a complete waste of time re-attending and one that will only cost the HCEO money as there doesn't appear the likelihood of recovery.

 

A well balanced & honest response.

[brassnecked]

Absolutely, but that's not as easy as it sounds. Many claimants, especially when they are individuals or small businesses won't take no for an answer. We currently have one client threatening to sue us because we refused to enforce against somebody we consider is vulnerable. He has now instructed another HCEO. Often, when the debt is emotive the HCEO get's put in a difficult situation.

 

I agree, in this case it sounds like a complete waste of time re-attending and one that will only cost the HCEO money as there doesn't appear the likelihood of recovery.

Well said,

[roxy100]

Hi All, thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my posts, I have written to the HCEO asking these questions, i.e why keep calling when there are no assets, but yes i think above is correct, the claimant is adamant that I have assets...this is not the case..

 

I will await the response from the bailiffs and let you know...thank you very much.

[caledfwlch]

Hi All, thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my posts, I have written to the HCEO asking these questions, i.e why keep calling when there are no assets, but yes i think above is correct, the claimant is adamant that I have assets...this is not the case..

 

I will await the response from the bailiffs and let you know...thank you very much.

 

Next time they come just call the Police to remove them. Don't mention they are HCEO's on the phone, just say there are people trying to intimidate you. And do this every time they come. Point out to the officers when they start blabbing on about them being from the Court, explain nothing in the property is yours except non seizable goods such as your clothes, so you feel they are attending now to intimidate and scare you, and that you do feel intimidated, scared and harassed. In the HCEO's hearing ask the Officer how to initiate proceedings for a harassment order in court to ban from from coming to your home or within 300 yards for you. Bailiff's cannot be immune to such orders if their behaviour becomes harassing, and in this case I believe they are, and are allowing themselves to be used illegally, to harass, intimidate and threaten a debtor, when they KNOW full well its a Nula Bona case, and thats the important part I reckon, in getting action against them

 

Roxy, contact the Court tomorrow and make an official complaint regarding the HCEO's.

[tomtubby]

I think that I am right in saying that with debts enforced by a High Court Enforcement Officer the police are under a legal obligation to assist the HCEO if requested.

 

HCEO....am I right?

[caledfwlch]

I think that I am right in saying that with debts enforced by a High Court Enforcement Officer the police are under a legal obligation to assist the HCEO if requested.

 

HCEO....am I right?

 

Even to assist them in committing Criminal Acts and for example arresting people at their door and leaving it open so the HCEO can stroll in? I don't think so!

[HCEOs]

I think that I am right in saying that with debts enforced by a High Court Enforcement Officer the police are under a legal obligation to assist the HCEO if requested.

 

HCEO....am I right?

 

Yes, under Section 99, Schedule 7, paragraph 5 of the Courts Act 2003:

 

5. It is the duty of every constable, at the request of -

 

a) an enforcement officer, or

 

b) a person acting under the officer’s authority,

 

to assist the officer or that person in the execution of a writ.

 

It is also an offence to intentionally obstruct a High Court Enforcement Officer under Section 189 of the Courts Act 2003 / Section 10 of the Criminal Law Act 1977:

 

The Courts Act 2003 amended part of The Criminal Law Act 1977 which made it an offence to obstruct a Sheriff’s Officer in the execution of a High Court Writ. Under Section 189 of the Courts Act 2003, the 2003 Act amends Section 10 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 so that a person is guilty of an offence if he resists or intentionally obstructs any person who is an enforcement officer or a person acting under the authority of an enforcement officer and who is engaged in executing a Writ issued from the High Court.

 

Prosecution is relatively rare but I have seen it on a few occasions and it has been in the press a few times last year. If I remember correctly, one man got 12 weeks inside.

 

Neither of the above can be used to gain entry into a domestic premises however.

[caledfwlch]

Do you have any links out of interest? No matter how much I google, I have never been able to find such a case online, I have found successful prosecutions for obstructing Council Officers, such as Planning Officers, but, never, ever have I found one for the obstruction of a private citizen who is in the employ of a private corporation, which is what a HCEO is at the end of the day. I rather suspect that in the main as the role has been transferred to the private sector, then prosecutions must be a lot harder, since the laws describe an Officer of her majesty's courts etc, not a private company.

[HCEOs]

I Googled 'assault on a high court enforcement officer' and found some info.

 

You must remember that an HCEO (or his agent) is enforcing a High Court writ. Essentially they are an officer of the court so carry some clout when it comes to obstruction and assaults against them.

[caledfwlch]

I Googled 'assault on a high court enforcement officer' and found some info.

 

You must remember that an HCEO (or his agent) is enforcing a High Court writ. Essentially they are an officer of the court so carry some clout when it comes to obstruction and assaults against them.

 

Assault is a different matter though, I thought 12 weeks for "obstruction" sounded extreme, I take it HCEO companies insist that "obstruction" is added onto charges for physical assault etc?

 

Yes, I was right, I found the 12 week sentence. It is for serious physical assault and injury. But for some reason Sherrifs Office are claiming its for "Obstruction".

[brassnecked]

" @ HCEOsYes, under Section 99, Schedule 7, paragraph 5 of the Courts Act 2003:

 

5. It is the duty of every constable, at the request of -

 

a) an enforcement officer, or

 

b) a person acting under the officer’s authority,

 

to assist the officer or that person in the execution of a writ.

 

It is also an offence to intentionally obstruct a High Court enforcement officer under Section 189 of the Courts Act 2003 / Section 10 of the Criminal Law Act 1977:

 

If the HCE got the wrong address, right number wrong street, and it happens al lot arouind here, if HCEO called at the wrong address got shirty when shown ID and still insisted on levying something and was forcefully removed by occupant so HCEO/bailiff phoned police and cried wolf, who should be locked up then?

[welsh1]

Assault is a different matter though, I thought 12 weeks for "obstruction" sounded extreme, I take it HCEO companies insist that "obstruction" is added onto charges for physical assault etc?

 

Yes, I was right, I found the 12 week sentence. It is for serious physical assault and injury. But for some reason Sherrifs Office are claiming its for "Obstruction".

 

On the google one i found it says at the bottom that he was charged with resisting and obstructing,here's the last sentence,

 

After seeing the video evidence of the assault, Ahmed changed his plea to guilty of resisting and obstructing an enforcement officer, an offence under the Criminal Law Act 1977, and was given a 12 week custodial sentence.

[roxy100]

Hi

 

I have now been served with a statutory demand, i had made an offer of £40 per month which was the maximum that i could afford, this has been turned down. What should i do, leave them bankrupt me? i have no assets whatsoever....

 

Is there anything else that i can do...?? have it set aside?

[ploddertom]

To be honest it looks as if they want this sorting once and for all, possibly they haven't thought it through properly as if the make you BR they are not going to get anything except the satisfaction of having done. It may not be a bad thing as it would finish it off. I will ask someone else to cast an eye over this.

[citizenB]

I fail to see the point in making you bankrupt if you have no assets !

 

As a Stat Demand has been served, I will move this thread to the Legal Section.

[42man]

I would only recommend bankruptcy as a last resort, however if you have very little or nothing in the way of assets then it may be closure of your financial situation. If you can live with the stigma of being made bankrupt and live with it for potentially 12 months, then it isn't how you react to going into bankruptcy but how you come out of it at the end.....

[roxy100]

Hi

 

I do not really want to go bankrupt as i have just incorporated a company for a new business i wanted to start...and it would ruin this plan wouldnt it...?

 

I cant see what else i can do, i cannot afford a huge monthly payment, the debt was 10k, now with bailiff fees it is over 13k...

 

i have no other assets at all....so the creditor would get nothing....