HCEO’s What has been your experience?

All HCEO's are restricted on what assets they can seize in a residential property. TV's are a yes, but washing machines and freezers are usually exempt by law.

Then you have to consider the costs of removal, the costs of storage and then the auctioneers fees. That's before any enforcement fees have been recovered.

It does mean that the actual removal of household goods is usually a financial impossibility.

Having said that enforcement is not always about removal. The threat of removal and the replacement costs of the goods seized will often prompt debtors into making payment, even if that is by arrangement.

However, if there really are no goods of value and the debtor refuses entry and payment then there is nothing an HCEO can do. It is for the creditor to then consider other methods of enforcement which may include attachment to earnings, third party debt order, charging order or even insolvency proceedings.

It remains that obtaining a court judgment does not always get you paid. Neither does enforcement if the debtor has nothing and refuses.

It is worth having a read of this Property 118 article:

http://www.property118.com/the-challenges-of-recovering-rent-arrears-from-residential-tenants/77625/

Reply to the comment left by "David Carter" at "16/12/2015 - 20:03":

David, with respect, I KNOW there is at least the rescue's own equipment at that address (Oxford) which is worth considerably more than what the court granted me.
Originally, I actually wanted the equipment to be returned to me, (so I could resume trading), and after considerable effort by me, a few friends, and the lawyer, the return of that equipment was refused. So I had no alternative but to try and get it's true value in monetary terms, but unfotunatley the judge felt that only a "compensationary amount" was sufficient. You do know there are two people (one in Oxford and the other in Camberley) to which that Order pertains?

Even if the Oeder amount is split between the two of them, they can well afford to pay up, even witrhout taking goods in lieu of.

Reply to the comment left by "Gill Mathews" at "17/12/2015 - 02:05":

David. your information is intersting. So if the "person" is on benefits, why are they working a part time job at the College?
If there is nothing, in your opinion, of any value there, what about the red ford car, the classic motorbike in the back yard, and all of the Recue's equipment, including an expensive set of microchipping equipment, including scanner, and all that cat food (over a thousand pound's worth)???
How come this last July they managed to afford a 2 week holiday in Portugal if they are "on benefits"?
And that's just the Oford house, don't get me started on the Camberley one!

The latesrt is that the SHO has now issues ME with a "compliance Fee" (no accompanying paperwork to explain EXACTLY what they have done), of £90.
All they have done is say "Under the circumstances we have little choice but to offer a nil return in this matter".

Won't be voming back to you, or even recommending you to anyone else.

And they wonder why people take the law into their own hands, and deal with stuff themselves? This is why. Well done.

Reply to the comment left by "Gill Mathews" at "04/01/2016 - 18:04":

Ok Gill, its not a good outcome and wasted so much time. Can I ask what you - or any others - think is the next step that can be taken that might just achieve a better result.

I will shortly expect a similar letter from TSO. This all just leaves the debtors laughing up their sleeves.

Dear Gill,

Apologies, I have been away from the office over Christmas returning today.

Coming to your case, unfortunately we have seen no evidence that the debtor has any assets of value that can be seized and sold.

If the debtor does have the goods you state they must be contained within the residential property and, as explained, we are unable to force entry.

We have made various attendances to two very run down addresses, one of which had an unroadworthy car outside that would have cost more to remove than it would have fetched at auction. The other appears to be Council property which stank of cat urine.

As I said before, High Court Enforcement is not the only method of judgment enforcement and it may be prudent to look into other options.

In this matter we have done all we can and again highlights investigating your case prior to conducting any form of enforcement.

The compliance fee is stipulated in law and is contained in many sections of our website and our Terms that you signed. I can assure you the costs we have incurred far outweigh that fee.

I understand your frustration and am sorry we could not recover from you on this occasion, but sometimes debts are just unenforceable.

Kind regards, David

Reply to the comment left by "David Carter" at "04/01/2016 - 19:07":

seriously, I wonder whether your "boys" actually did anything.
the camberley house is privately owned, (by her mother). Yes, it's a EX-council house.

"stinks of cat urine"? Really? I bet the EHO would find that interesting.

If you are "unable to force entry" then who can?
(bearing mind that your office is attached to the courts)

The system stinks. and not just of "cat urine".

Reply to the comment left by "Gill Mathews" at "04/01/2016 - 23:23":

Hi Gill

I also had no success when I referred cases to the Sheriffs Office, and was just left with their charge. However, it is not David's fault that the law does not allow them to force entry, so while I agree that the "system" stinks, as it allows debtors to get away with, in effect, stealing our money, I don't think you should blame David or the Sheriffs for that situation, it is the politicians that have created this situation by creating laws that let tenants get away without paying.

The only way this stinking system will change is if the government change the law to provide landlords with an EFFECTIVE means of enforcement of a judgement debt (for debtors without significant assets, and no regular employment income). In my opinion the debtors should have an amount deducted from their benefits to pay their creditors, but at the moment this cannot be done for former tenants. For debtors that do have assets, but won't open their door, then perhaps the bailiffs do need to be given the power to force entry.

Reply to the comment left by "Mike Amapola" at "04/01/2016 - 18:20":

In the olde days we would have dealt with this sh!t ourselves. I was envourage to go down the legal route.
it's cost me my home, my business, my sanity, my health, and now a DRO awaits me.
I'm, a pensioner, there is no way i can afford to pay anymore out in legal fees on the pittance of the OAP the govt give me.

I've paid millions into this country over the years, and all i'm getting back for all that hard work is misery.
aND YOU WONDER WHY I'M LIVID?

Maybe we should campaign change the law just like fight against the tax grab from landlord.