Sherforce bailiff

[ploddertom]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

Sherforce had organised the rcj case as when I spoke to the regarding the case they had admitted the vehicle was mine - do you have that either in writing or via email?

In that case you are perfectly correct in the assumption they took this to protect themselves. Did they list the Hearing as a Fee Assessment Hearing either Summary or Detailed?

Have you subjected them to a SAR?

[steve3112]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

I don't know sherforce did not even know it had been sold on the 11 of nov when it was promised back to us the letter releasing car from auction house was on 28 sept sent from sherforce regarding release of the vehicle, when I phoned them at around 5pm as it wasn't back at my property I was then forwarded an email from sherforce that car was sold on the 7th nov I tried to explain this to the master in court but he did not listen to a word I had to say I have kept copies of all corespondonse regarding this

[steve3112]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

Thanks as I say I am going to see a solicitor tomorrow so hopefully we can shed some light on where I stand my head at the moment is just so full if things as I cannot believe how I have been treated as never experienced or heard of a case like this before but thanks for advise I have noted every thing and made notes from the court while it was still fresh in my head it's just so confusing as when you are in the court they seem to be able to be little you

[bluebottle]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

I am somewhat surprised the fiasco at the court was allowed to happen, though, nothing these days surprises me.

If Sherforce think they have walked away from this unscathed, they need to think again.

Although Sherforce, as a company, is vicariously liable for the actions of the Sherforce employees who were involved, the individual employees involved are responsible - and amenable - to the law, individually, and cannot escape justice by hiding behind their employer.

The circumstances of the case clearly show offences of Theft (Section 1, Theft Act 1968) and Handling Stolen Goods (Section 22, Theft Act 1968) on the part of the individual Sherforce employees involved. There is nothing to prevent OP and his legal advisor(s) applying to the Magistrates' for warrants to be issued for the arrest of the Sherforce employees responsible for the unlawful seizure and subsequent disposal of the car. This, however, is a lengthy process.

Another, more creative, method of resolving this matter is for OP's legal advisor to go to the media, give details of what Sherforce did, explain the legal situation, and appeal to the person in possession of OP's car to surrender it within, say, 48 hours, failing which the police will be requested to stop and seize the vehicle and that the person may be arrested for handling stolen goods. An offer of assistance to take action against Sherforce and the Sherforce employees involved for Fraud by False Misrepresentation (Sections 2 and 12, Fraud Act 2006) should the person in possession of OP's car surrender it within the stated time-limit.

Although this may seem a somewhat unusual way of resolving an issue such as this, it does hold Sherforce to account for offences its employees have committed during the course of their employment and significantly lessens the chances of Sherforce wriggling out of their responsibility to put right what has happened.

My gut feeling tells me that Sherforce thought they could hoodwink a High Court official by claiming the matter was a civil matter when, in fact, it is a criminal matter. The High Court has no jurisdiction over criminal matters, other than in very exceptional circumstances. This might explain the manner in which OP was treated.

Run this past your legal advisor(s) and see what they think.

[pepsie]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

Steve

Can you confirm if the hearing at the RCJ was a detailed assesment hearing, summary hearing or Interpleader the answer is important. Since Sherwins consists of but two legals.. Smithy and Sandbrook...the other hanger on being Chris Badger (not a solicitor but likes to give the impression he is ) which of these were representing Sherforce?

Pepsie

[CleverClogs]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

The circumstances of the case clearly show offences of Theft (Section 1, Theft Act 1968) and Handling Stolen Goods (Section 22, Theft Act 1968) on the part of the individual Sherforce employees involved. There is nothing to prevent OP and his legal advisor(s) applying to the Magistrates' for warrants to be issued for the arrest of the Sherforce employees responsible for the unlawful seizure and subsequent disposal of the car. This, however, is a lengthy process.

Another, more creative, method of resolving this matter is for OP's legal advisor to go to the media, give details of what Sherforce did, explain the legal situation, and appeal to the person in possession of OP's car to surrender it within, say, 48 hours, failing which the police will be requested to stop and seize the vehicle and that the person may be arrested for handling stolen goods. An offer of assistance to take action against Sherforce and the Sherforce employees involved for Fraud by False Misrepresentation (Sections 2 and 12, Fraud Act 2006) should the person in possession of OP's car surrender it within the stated time-limit.

Does the fact that the car was sold at a public auction mean that the buyer obtains good title to the car, or is that impossible because neither the bailiff nor the debtor ever had good title to the car?

My gut feeling tells me that Sherforce thought they could hoodwink a High Court official by claiming the matter was a civil matter when, in fact, it is a criminal matter. The High Court has no jurisdiction over criminal matters, other than in very exceptional circumstances. This might explain the manner in which OP was treated.

The High Court "Master" plainly could not concern himself with any criminal matters contrary to statute law, but he does seem to have taken a most unusual approach to a very simple matter of debtinue.

The motor car was not the property of the debtor, either in whole or in part. The vehicle was nevertheless seized and removed by a bailiff, at which point the car was in the bailment of the bailiff and/or his employer.

The bailiff and/or his employer had been informed that the debtor did not own the car, which detail could be readily be verified by application to the DVLA; neither the bailiff nor his employer seems to have done that.

Ordinarily, the bailiff and his employer should be told to render up the car that was in their bailment or the stated value thereof within a specified time, at the end of which they may be sued without further notice. The action of the bailiff company may have sought to prevent that means of redress, so I wonder if serving a Statutory Demand on the bailiff or his employer might work.

[labman]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

Indeed - I would have thought this was a typical case for replevin, but that was not used and the car was sold.

Pepsie, I bow totally to your greater knowledge on this one, but please could you explain why you asked the above questions to educate those of us with a lesser knowledge please? I, for one, would really appreciate it.:beagle:

[bluebottle]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

Does the fact that the car was sold at a public auction mean that the buyer obtains good title to the car, or is that impossible because neither the bailiff nor the debtor ever had good title to the car?


The High Court "Master" plainly could not concern himself with any criminal matters contrary to statute law, but he does seem to have taken a most unusual approach to a very simple matter of debtinue.

The motor car was not the property of the debtor, either in whole or in part. The vehicle was nevertheless seized and removed by a bailiff, at which point the car was in the bailment of the bailiff and/or his employer.

The bailiff and/or his employer had been informed that the debtor did not own the car, which detail could be readily be verified by application to the DVLA; neither the bailiff nor his employer seems to have done that.

Ordinarily, the bailiff and his employer should be told to render up the car that was in their bailment or the stated value thereof within a specified time, at the end of which they may be sued without further notice. The action of the bailiff company may have sought to prevent that means of redress, so I wonder if serving a Statutory Demand on the bailiff or his employer might work.

Hi CleverClogs,

In this particular case, Sherforce had no lawful authority to seize OP's vehicle, only the partner's vehicle. Knowing this, they then undertook to return the vehicle. However, they, then decided to sell the vehicle, via an auction house, knowing they had no right in law to do so.

Section 1, Theft Act 1968 states -

A person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive the other of it.

Up to the point Sherforce decided to sell OP's vehicle, they satisfied the criteria for appropriation, property and belonging to another. The point at which Sherforce decided to sell the vehicle is when the criteria for dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive was satisfied and the offence was complete.

With regard to your query about a purchaser obtaining good title at a public auction, unfortunately, the law governing ownership of stolen goods was changed during the 1990s, meaning that the original owner of the stolen goods always has good and lawful right and title to the property at all times, unless a court directs otherwise. The "good faith" principle no longer applies. As regards the status of the auction house, unless the auction house knew the OP's car had been unlawfully seized or stolen, they cannot be held liable in any way. If they did know, then they are liable, along with Sherforce, for Handling Stolen Goods by reason of being involved in the vehicle's disposal or realisation.

It should also be noted that selling a person stolen property without their knowledge, is Fraud by False Misrepresentation (Section 2, Fraud Act 2006), the misrepresentation being that by Sherforce entering the vehicle into the auction, knowing of the circumstances, they did so with a view to gain for themselves or another, or to expose another to loss or the risk of loss, thereby completing the offence. The victim in that case would be the person who bought it.

If Sherforce was able to prove they had made a genuine mistake, they would be liable for civil damages, in which case a Statutory Demand might be a viable option. However, the circumstances clearly show criminal behaviour on the part of Sherforce's employees and, under those circumstances, a Statutory Demand would not be appropriate.

How can OP obtain justice?

The OP and his solicitor can approach DVLA, obtain the details of the person who now has possession of OP's vehicle and advise them the vehicle is stolen and to surrender it or face having the vehicle stopped and seized by the police and themselves being arrested for handling stolen goods.

OP could also apply to the Magistrates' for warrants to be issued for the arrest of the Sherforce employees involved in the unlawful seizure and realisation of OP's vehicle. However, OP would need the names of the Sherforce employees involved in order to have arrest warrants issued.

Alternatively, OP can go down the route suggested in my previous post.

The OP may well have a right of common law lien against Sherforce. This would need to be checked with a legal professional, but it is a possible option. If found to be viable, there is nothing to prevent OP having any vehicles owned or used by Sherforce wheelclamped or seized until such time as they return or replace his vehicle.

What is Sherforce's liability?

Under Criminal Law, depreciation is not taken into account. It is the cost of replacement that is relevant. In OP's case, he could force Sherforce to recover the vehicle from the person who is currently in possession of OP's vehicle. Alternatively, OP can insist Sherforce provide him with a replacement vehicle on a like-for-like basis. If no vehicle is available on a like-for-like basis, only a better vehicle, this would be one of the rare occasions in English Law when betterment is lawful.

Bluebottle

[ploddertom]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

Before any more references are made to the rights & wrongs for this there are still several questions which need to be answered, I have asked one question twice so far without reply:
At what stage did the OP notify Sherforce of the ownership of the vehicle, I gather it was done initially when the seizure was made, however was this backed up by any written evidence and if so how long after the seizure was made. I am perturbed that there has been no mention of Interpleader which tends to suggest the proof was not made.

Following the OP's appearance in front of the Master the other day - firstly we are not aware what this was for and secondly would have to wait until the Order comes through as to what happened. I tend to think that one of the reasons the Hearing was held was to obtain protection for the Authorised HCEO. Whether this was was classed as a Summary or Detailed Assessment Hearing may have been a smokescreen.

I would also strongly suggest that most solicitors would struggle with this as not many are versed in HCEO matters. To take things further the OP may indeed have to appeal the Hearing but may find the costs and procedures prohibitive.

If not already done I would urge the OP to submit a SAR to find out more of how and what happened.

[labman]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

I agree PT. I've just read Schedules 1 and 2 of the CPR's in their entirity, and this is potentially very complex. An SAR is essential to ascertain exactly what happened and your questions need answering.

[bluebottle]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

I have reviewed this matter and taken note of what Galahad, Labman and Plodderton have said above.

The circumstances are that bailiffs employed by Sherforce seized OP's car in breach of the warrant they had been issued with by the court, were told of their unlawful conduct, acknowledged the seizure was in breach of the warrant and undertook to return the car to OP, as the law requires them to do. They did not do so and sold OP's car regardless and knowing the law did not permit them to do so.

In determining how this should be dealt with, I have applied the two-part test prescribed by the Court of Appeal in the case of R -v- Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110. The first part of the test demands whether by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what the defendant did was dishonest. If it was dishonest, the second part of the test demands whether the defendant themself realised that what they were doing was by those standards dishonest.

Taking account of all factors, in my judgment, both parts of the test in R -v- Ghosh are satisfied.

My gut feeling is that the reason the hearing at the RCoJ went the way it is because Sherforce knew, themselves, just how serious the matter was and hoodwinked the master of the court into believing the matter is a civil matter when, in fact, it is a criminal matter. Whilst this prevents OP going back along the civil route, it does not prevent him pursuing this along the criminal route.

The ownership of OP's car, given the circumstances, remains vested in OP. If the auction house did not know Sherforce did not have a right in law to sell it on behalf of the creditor, the auction house cannot be held liable in any way, unless they knew of the circumstances, in which case, the auction house staff would be guilty of being involved in the realisation and disposal of stolen goods. The auction house would, in such circumstances, be liable to reimburse the person who purchased the car with the price they paid.

What of Sherforce's liability? The Sherforce employees who were involved in this matter can be held criminally-liable for their actions and, as such, risk arrest without warrant, charge, prosecution and imprisonment. Sherforce, as an employer, is vicariously liable for the actions of the employees involved as what happened occurred during the course of their employment.

Civil reparation does not apply in criminal cases. In this case, something called Restitution applies. In practice, OP is entitled to recover his vehicle and claim any detriment to the vehicle to return it to the condition it was in at the time of the unlawful seizure. Also, any contents in the car at the time of the unlawful seizure will need to be restored to OP or money paid to replace them. In the event the car cannot be recovered for any reason, OP can claim a replacement vehicle on a like-for-like basis. If this is not possible and the only vehicle available is better than that unlawfully seized, OP would be lawfully entitled to receive that. It is one of the very rare occasions in English Law when a claimant can be better-off than they were before.

How can OP enforce his rights in this matter?

He will almost certainly need a legal professional to assist him with this if he is to achieve a successful outcome. The first priority is to obtain the name and address of the person who is currently in possession of OP's car from DVLA and inform them of what has happened. Bearing in mind the principle of "good faith" no longer applies, that person would be under a duty to return the car to OP. If he refused, OP would have to decide whether to ask the police to seize the vehicle or force Sherforce to replace the vehicle and its contents on pain of criminal proceedings, involving the police. Common Law Lien should not be ruled out as a means of enforcing this either.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

Firstly, Sherforce were under a duty to ensure they seized only goods belonging to the debtor. That would have been stated on the warrant the court issued to them. They had no right to seize OP's car as he was not the debtor. They were also under a duty to ensure that they had a right in law to sell the car on behalf of the creditor. They did not as OP was not the debtor and the warrant authorised Sherforce to seize and sell the debtor's property only.

Nor did SheerFarce seem to have taken any step to verify the ownership of the vehicle.

Secondly, OP informed Sherforce of wrongful seizure, they acknowledged this and undertook to return the car, which they are legally-obliged to do. They did not do so and sold the car regardless. Under those circumstances, bailiff law goes out of the window and Criminal Law flies in. This is explained in my last post.

I agree, although there remains the matter of their liability at civil law.

Thirdly, Sherforce, as an employer, is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. In practice, the employees are liable for the seizure and sale of OP's car. Sherforce is liable for any compensation that is payable.

Shouldn't the bailiff(s) and SheerFarce be sued jointly and severally, so that the case need not be lost if SheerFarce could prove the bailiff(s) had ignored specific, written instructions to return the vehicle?

Fourth, it is becoming pretty clear that the RCoJ hearing was a smokescreen. Sherforce, in all probability, knew they had seriously messed-up and were trying to save the skin of the bailiff as well as their corporate skin. By trying to portray it as a civil matter when, in fact, it is a criminal matter, they succeeded in pulling the wool over the court master's eye. However, in my experience, this probably happened for a reason and by it so happening in this way, Sherforce will not be able to go back along the civil law route and have a second bite of the cherry. Neither will OP. The only route open is the criminal route.

That was why I wondered if it might be possible to enforce the debt by a Statutory Demand, followed up with a bankruptcy petition or (in the case of SheerFarce) an application for a winding up order.

Of course, if SheerFarce and/or its goons were to be convicted of a crime, the Office of Faffing and Twaddling might have enough cause to close them down.

[bluebottle]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

Hi CleverClogs,

Sherforce's liability under Civil law is to restore OP's vehicle to him, plus damages for any detriment. If they can't, they have to provide a replacement vehicle on a like-for-like basis. If that's not possible and the only suitable vehicle is better, they have to do that. H.M. Customs and Excise found this out, some years ago, when they illegally crushed someone's car. The car was six weeks old when seized and the court ordered them to provide a brand-new replacement car to the person whose car they illegally crushed. HMCE tried to fob him off with a used vehicle, but the judge ordered them them to comply on pain of imprisonment for contempt. It cost HMCE an extra £5K as the list price of the car had increased by that amount following seizure. It was a Mercedes S-Class.

The bailiff would know or ought to know they were legally-required to return the vehicle to OP. In order for Sherforce to successfully escape being held liable for the actions of the bailiff, they would have to show that the bailiff's actions were not during the course of their employment. As for litigating both Sherforce and the bailiff, that is a question that needs to be answered by a legal professional.

Sherforce can be proceeded against for Fraud by False Misrepresentation against the mug who bought OP's car at auction. So can Sherforce's directors, officers, company secretary and managers if it happened with their consent or connivance (ignorance). Sherforce's goons can be proceeded against for Theft and Handling Stolen Goods, provided the goon who stole and decided to sell OP's car wasn't the same person. If it was another goon, Handling Stolen Goods stands against them.

Subject to any appeal, a conviction for dishonesty against a company director, in addition to any criminal penalties, normally carries an automatic lifetime ban from acting as a company director. As far as I am aware, a bailiff must be of good character. A conviction for dishonesty would probably make them not a fit and proper person to act as a bailiff, in which case their certification would be revoked. A conviction for dishonesty against a company can initiate proceedings to close the company down if it is in the public interest to do so. This is normally undertaken by OFT, HMRC or the Official Receiver, depending on the circumstances of the case.

I've checked Statutory Demands and it seems these can only be served on individuals. Whether this would work in this case, in respect of the goons, I do not know. What might be better, seeing as Sherforce is a company, is to contact the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) to see what they say. After all, Sherforce is a company and BIS are responsible for regulating companies.

Bluebottle

[pepsie]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

Steve

Can you confirm if the hearing at the RCJ was a detailed assesment hearing, summary hearing or Interpleader the answer is important. Since Sherwins consists of but two legals.. Smithy and Sandbrook...the other hanger on being Chris Badger (not a solicitor but likes to give the impression he is ) which of these were representing Sherforce?

Pepsie

Re: Sherforce bailiff
On what grounds did you go to the RCJ on? Had you advised Sherforce when the car was initially that it was subject to 3rd party claim & if so how long after seizure was this done? Were Sherforce's costs for more than £1k?

I asked the question anticipating a reply to the above: Sherforce as we all know have a habit of running to the RCJ when they realise they have commited a possible wrong doing and the assigned HCEO is open to litigation.

They will use (invent) any reason they think they can get away with, to get the matter before a Master and request "no further action be taken against the HCEO"

In this instance it was a case of Sherforce taking and selling a car illegally, for which they should have become answerable to a Judge in the County Court.If there was a dispute to the fees then they could raise the matter with either detailed costs hearing or summary hearing...this was not the case in this instance. If there was a dispute to the ownership of the car taken and sold then this should have been dealt with by Interpleader to estabish ownership (PT's Question)

IMHO It seems on reading the post that none of the above 'justified' a hearing at the RCJ amd was merely an exercise to abuse legal procedure? I agree with all the posts that suggest the OP seeks good legal advice as this is not the first time Sherforce have acted outside the law and I doubt it will be the last.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/1270.html


Pepsie

[Milo]

Re: Sherforce bailiff

I have read this entire thread with great interest and frankly, the actions of Sherforce appear to be simply outrageous but sady, as you would see from other forums...not uncommon.

Sherforce and other High Court Enforcement companies enforce unpaid CCJ's over a certain amount for companies and individuals but their "prize possessions" are their CONTRACTS with suppliers etc. These range from water companies, builders merchants etc etc. At one time, Sherforce had a contract with HM Reveue. I don't believe that the contract is with them any longer and a few days ago, a "little birdie" told me that they no longer have one of their water company contracts which "apparently" has now been given to another HCEO company.

It is alsmot certainly the case that the complaint from the outset should have been brought to the attention of the CONTRACTOR. The OP has said that this debt relates to an overpayment of benefit. Was this a local authority etc? Would he mind giving details?

It is vitally important that they know what their AGENT is doing and the manner in which their debt was being enforced by them. Personally, I would be making a Freedom of Information request fro a copy of the Contract.

Has the Contractor/judgment creditor been advised of this complaint and if so, what was their response.

Seeing what action has already taken place, I hate to say this, BUT surely any claim for the vehicle should really be made against the CONTRACTOR. This would need to be discussed with a solicitor.

I would also suggest that a letter should be sent to the Tribunals Courts & Enforcment Team at the Ministry of Justice at Petty France as they are shortly to release their consulatation on bailiff reform and they really should know what is happening with debts that are being enforced by High Court Enforcement Officers.

A copy of the letter should also be sent to the High Court Enforcement Officers Association.

I would not suggest writing to the Ministry of Justice with normal complaints but serious ones like this deserve to be brought to their attention.