In my opinion, there was an inconsistency by the Sherrifs in one of the recent episodes. Generally they don't accept a log book as proof of ownership and they try and take people's cars off them if people cannot prove above that, that a car is owned by someone but then in another episode, one of the sherrifs was accpeting the log book as proof of ownership when he wanted to take a car too or something like that!
How can people proove that they own a car above a log book anyway?
Their firm is called The Sheriffs Office so thats why they are calling themselves Sheriffs here is their website about us section. http://thesheriffsoffice.com/about_us
Up until 2004 (according to wikipedia) High Court Enforcement Officers were called Sheriff's Officers, so presumably that's why the company picked that name when they were formed.
We skyplus the programme and then fast forward through most of the client's stories. To us that bit often seems to be padded out too much. But the programme is often entertaining. Yeah, you want to see more examples like the dodgy car firm that changed it's name while the enforcement officers were there, but most of them are canny enough to realise that once they show up their attempt to avoid paying has gone.
Made me laugh the other day when Lawrence and Kev went to collect a debt from Easyjet and they came to a barrier with an intercom at the carpark entrance, it was on Kevs side, he turns to Lawrence and asked him what to say! Kev's obviously there to stand in the background trying to look mean!
The guy who bought the BMW then the engine blew up two weeks later said that even though a car is bought from a dealer without a warranty, you can claim a refund within 6 months of purchase if the car breaks down.
I've never heard of this, can anyone quote this piece of legal gold ?
The guy who bought the BMW then the engine blew up two weeks later said that even though a car is bought from a dealer without a warranty, you can claim a refund within 6 months of purchase if the car breaks down.
I've never heard of this, can anyone quote this piece of legal gold ?
It's called the Sales Of Goods Act 2005. If there is a fault within the first 6 months then it is up to the company that you bought it off to prove that there was a fault there when you bought it. After 6 months it is up to you to prove that the fault was there when you bought the product. As the guy had the car for only two weeks before the engine blew up I would expect the company that he bought it off to fix it. Warrenty or not.
Made me laugh the other day when Lawrence and Kev went to collect a debt from Easyjet and they came to a barrier with an intercom at the carpark entrance, it was on Kevs side, he turns to Lawrence and asked him what to say! Kev's obviously there to stand in the background trying to look mean!
Must admit I find them a curious 'team'. Whilst Lawrence ("Mr Griggs" as he sometimes introduces himself) is very assertive and seemingly has an answer for everything, 'Kev' is the absolute opposite! Very timid and looks like the first puff of wind would blow him over and I always think if he got challenged by anyone he would burst into tears!
The guy who bought the BMW then the engine blew up two weeks later said that even though a car is bought from a dealer without a warranty, you can claim a refund within 6 months of purchase if the car breaks down.
I've never heard of this, can anyone quote this piece of legal gold ?
It's called the Sales Of Goods Act 2005. If there is a fault within the first 6 months then it is up to the company that you bought it off to prove that there was a fault there when you bought it. After 6 months it is up to you to prove that the fault was there when you bought the product. As the guy had the car for only two weeks before the engine blew up I would expect the company that he bought it off to fix it. Warrenty or not.
Lucky for him one of his clients was conversant with this law and pointed him in the right direction!
Strange how the Garage guy turned out to be good to deal with and appeared genuinely confused by the procedures. It seemed a case of 'one hand not knowing what the other was doing' between the Courts.
My ex fiance did this job for the council, not a private cowboy company, and he was known as a bailiff, which is what I always thought someone who worked in this field was known as. So are these people called 'sheriffs' just by the programme makers? I know they have sheriffs in scotland, but england?
In Scotland, a sheriff is analogous to a judge and sits in a second-tier court, called the Sheriff Court. The sheriff is legally qualified, in comparison with a lay Justice of the Peace who preside over the first-tier District Courts of Scotland.
The sheriff court is a court of first instance for the majority of both civil and criminal cases. However, the court's powers are limited, so that major crimes such as rape or murder and complex or high-value civil cases are dealt with in the High Court (for criminal matters) or the Court of Session (for civil matters).
There are six sheriffdoms in Scotland, each with a Sheriff Principal. Within each sheriffdom there are several Sheriff Courts; each court has at least one courtroom and at least one Sheriff (technically a Sheriff Depute). A Sheriff may sit at different courts throughout the sheriffdom.
Sheriffs are usually advocates and, increasingly, solicitors with many years of legal experience. Until recently, they were appointed by the Scottish Executive, on the advice of the Lord Advocate. However, the Scotland Act 1998 introduced the European Convention of Human Rights into Scots law. A subsequent legal challenge to the impartiality of the sheriffs based on the provisions of the Convention led to the setting up of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, which now makes recommendations to the First Minister, who nominates all judicial appointments in Scotland other than in the District Court. Nominations are made to the First Minister, who in turn makes the recommendation to the Queen.
My ex fiance did this job for the council, not a private cowboy company, and he was known as a bailiff, which is what I always thought someone who worked in this field was known as. So are these people called 'sheriffs' just by the programme makers? I know they have sheriffs in scotland, but england?
No......nothing to do with the programme makers at all. That is there actual job title.
The difference between the two is a Bailiff is working only for the County Courts and employed by them, where the Sheriffs are contracted by the High Court to act on their behalf.
It always seems very unfair that people lose vast sums of money because a limited company has gone into liquidation - then a company with a similar name etc opens up in the same place.
One person the other day lost £16,000, horrendous. If you know the loopholes you can get away with anything, it appears.
It always seems very unfair that people lose vast sums of money because a limited company has gone into liquidation - then a company with a similar name etc opens up in the same place.
One person the other day lost £16,000, horrendous. If you know the loopholes you can get away with anything, it appears.
Yeah, it always amazes me how it seems to be totally legal for a bankrupt business to be reopened using the same premises, same equipment, often the same owner, but with a slightly different name!
Yeah, it always amazes me how it seems to be totally legal for a bankrupt business to be reopened using the same premises, same equipment, often the same owner, but with a slightly different name!
Don't forget these are the 'wealth creators' that are making this country great.
No......nothing to do with the programme makers at all. That is there actual job title.
The difference between the two is a Bailiff is working only for the County Courts and employed by them, where the Sheriffs are contracted by the High Court to act on their behalf.
Not entirely correct, The Title sheriff was changed to high court enforcement officer in 2004. The company featured are called the Sheriffs office, but the producers do use a certain degree of dramatic license in the commentary referring too the enforcement officers as sheriffs.
Another good episode today.I'm pleased that they are repeating series 1 as i didn't see it the first time around.I thought the guy with the glasses that the sheriffs woke up early in the morning was pretty cocky.
Another good episode today.I'm pleased that they are repeating series 1 as i didn't see it the first time around.I thought the guy with the glasses that the sheriffs woke up early in the morning was pretty cocky.[/QUOTE]
I know! If I had Laurence and co. at my door I think I would pass out! (and then pay up!).
Think the old fellow who slipped on ice outside his fave pub, then blamed them and was awarded compensation was quite funny doing his *reconstruction* of the fall and then looking amazed that they hadnt put warning signs up saying *careful its icy*, bet he doesnt go there for his sunday lunch anymore now, he was flabberghasted that he slipped on ice and nobody from the pub had bothered to warn him ice was slippy.
Yes, a very entertaining and engrossing programme, which I missed the first time around.
Is it more effective to make a potential claim against a 'named individual' as opposed to a company which can be dissolved to avoid paying out and owing thousands of pounds?
Also, in one episode, one of the sheriffs appeared to accept that a counter claim going through the courts at a later date could temporarily halt any 'live writ' being enforced until a decision was made or reached in that subsequent court hearing? Another sheriff, Mr Griggs, was adamant that he wouldn't allow or accept that excuse in another episode, and was legally entitled to enforce the writ there and then.
I really enjoy watching these people who have lied and cheated others out of hard earned money wriggle and squirm before eventually accepting their fate and paying up. In many cases, it ends up being far more after various charges have been added.
Probably not allowed, but they could spice things up by permitting some of the people owed money to accompany the sheriffs when they confront these individuals.
Think the old fellow who slipped on ice outside his fave pub, then blamed them and was awarded compensation was quite funny doing his *reconstruction* of the fall and then looking amazed that they hadnt put warning signs up saying *careful its icy*, bet he doesnt go there for his sunday lunch anymore now, he was flabberghasted that he slipped on ice and nobody from the pub had bothered to warn him ice was slippy.
I was thinking about that shyster when I was walking to work this morning. If I slipped on the icy pavement then would I sue the nearest house or the local council? Alternatively, do I just take a bit more care?
Seriously, it is amazing the litigation-happy parasite was so shameless to appear on national television and more than happy to recreate his carelessness. I wouldn't have the front.
Mind you, I wouldn't have the front to sue in the first place.
The very aggressive guy who sold a stolen dune buggy seemed to have got away without making recompense. I would like to have known what the next step is in a situation like that, because it looked as if a debtor in non-commercial premises without outside assets can simply refuse to cooperate and get away without it.
The very aggressive guy who sold a stolen dune buggy seemed to have got away without making recompense. I would like to have known what the next step is in a situation like that, because it looked as if a debtor in non-commercial premises without outside assets can simply refuse to cooperate and get away without it.
Unfortunately the episodes being shown at the moment are repeats. Have to admit I found this guy hilarious even though he's just a stupid thug.
Grix to thug at the door; "Can I leave you this paperwork sir?"
Thug to Grix; "No you can't.....go away. I'm not interested".
The very aggressive guy who sold a stolen dune buggy seemed to have got away without making recompense. I would like to have known what the next step is in a situation like that, because it looked as if a debtor in non-commercial premises without outside assets can simply refuse to cooperate and get away without it.
I think that chap was a sole trader so there are other possibilties. If the creditor has the money he could threaten and then take bankruptcy proceedings, that may have the desired affect. But if the debtor is indeed a 'man of straw' then as they say you can't get blood out of a stone.
Is it more effective to make a potential claim against a 'named individual' as opposed to a company which can be dissolved to avoid paying out and owing thousands of pounds?
Only if it is the 'named individuals' who owe you the money. As they have stated on the programme several times it is imperative that the right name(s) is put on the claim form otherwise you are stuffed when you try to enforce any judgment.
You also have to remember that a Company is a separate legal entity from its directors.
I think that chap was a sole trader so there are other possibilties. If the creditor has the money he could threaten and then take bankruptcy proceedings, that may have the desired affect. But if the debtor is indeed a 'man of straw' then as they say you can't get blood out of a stone.
Joan didn't seem to fare any better against Messrs Lydford and Barnard of Classical Flooring, hence her then considering bankruptcy proceedings against them. If they haven't got cars outside that belong to them that can be taken, that seems the only recourse. Which, of course, is more time and expense.
Comments
How can people proove that they own a car above a log book anyway?
Up until 2004 (according to wikipedia) High Court Enforcement Officers were called Sheriff's Officers, so presumably that's why the company picked that name when they were formed.
We skyplus the programme and then fast forward through most of the client's stories. To us that bit often seems to be padded out too much. But the programme is often entertaining. Yeah, you want to see more examples like the dodgy car firm that changed it's name while the enforcement officers were there, but most of them are canny enough to realise that once they show up their attempt to avoid paying has gone.
I've never heard of this, can anyone quote this piece of legal gold ?
It's called the Sales Of Goods Act 2005. If there is a fault within the first 6 months then it is up to the company that you bought it off to prove that there was a fault there when you bought it. After 6 months it is up to you to prove that the fault was there when you bought the product. As the guy had the car for only two weeks before the engine blew up I would expect the company that he bought it off to fix it. Warrenty or not.
Maybe he's a trainee?
Strange how the Garage guy turned out to be good to deal with and appeared genuinely confused by the procedures. It seemed a case of 'one hand not knowing what the other was doing' between the Courts.
In Scotland, a sheriff is analogous to a judge and sits in a second-tier court, called the Sheriff Court. The sheriff is legally qualified, in comparison with a lay Justice of the Peace who preside over the first-tier District Courts of Scotland.
The sheriff court is a court of first instance for the majority of both civil and criminal cases. However, the court's powers are limited, so that major crimes such as rape or murder and complex or high-value civil cases are dealt with in the High Court (for criminal matters) or the Court of Session (for civil matters).
There are six sheriffdoms in Scotland, each with a Sheriff Principal. Within each sheriffdom there are several Sheriff Courts; each court has at least one courtroom and at least one Sheriff (technically a Sheriff Depute). A Sheriff may sit at different courts throughout the sheriffdom.
Sheriffs are usually advocates and, increasingly, solicitors with many years of legal experience. Until recently, they were appointed by the Scottish Executive, on the advice of the Lord Advocate. However, the Scotland Act 1998 introduced the European Convention of Human Rights into Scots law. A subsequent legal challenge to the impartiality of the sheriffs based on the provisions of the Convention led to the setting up of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, which now makes recommendations to the First Minister, who nominates all judicial appointments in Scotland other than in the District Court. Nominations are made to the First Minister, who in turn makes the recommendation to the Queen.
The difference between the two is a Bailiff is working only for the County Courts and employed by them, where the Sheriffs are contracted by the High Court to act on their behalf.
One person the other day lost £16,000, horrendous. If you know the loopholes you can get away with anything, it appears.
Yeah, it always amazes me how it seems to be totally legal for a bankrupt business to be reopened using the same premises, same equipment, often the same owner, but with a slightly different name!
Don't forget these are the 'wealth creators' that are making this country great.
Not entirely correct, The Title sheriff was changed to high court enforcement officer in 2004. The company featured are called the Sheriffs office, but the producers do use a certain degree of dramatic license in the commentary referring too the enforcement officers as sheriffs.
Is it more effective to make a potential claim against a 'named individual' as opposed to a company which can be dissolved to avoid paying out and owing thousands of pounds?
Also, in one episode, one of the sheriffs appeared to accept that a counter claim going through the courts at a later date could temporarily halt any 'live writ' being enforced until a decision was made or reached in that subsequent court hearing? Another sheriff, Mr Griggs, was adamant that he wouldn't allow or accept that excuse in another episode, and was legally entitled to enforce the writ there and then.
I really enjoy watching these people who have lied and cheated others out of hard earned money wriggle and squirm before eventually accepting their fate and paying up. In many cases, it ends up being far more after various charges have been added.
Probably not allowed, but they could spice things up by permitting some of the people owed money to accompany the sheriffs when they confront these individuals.
I was thinking about that shyster when I was walking to work this morning. If I slipped on the icy pavement then would I sue the nearest house or the local council? Alternatively, do I just take a bit more care?
Seriously, it is amazing the litigation-happy parasite was so shameless to appear on national television and more than happy to recreate his carelessness. I wouldn't have the front.
Mind you, I wouldn't have the front to sue in the first place.
Grix to thug at the door; "Can I leave you this paperwork sir?"
Thug to Grix; "No you can't.....go away. I'm not interested".
Door slammed shut!!
I think that chap was a sole trader so there are other possibilties. If the creditor has the money he could threaten and then take bankruptcy proceedings, that may have the desired affect. But if the debtor is indeed a 'man of straw' then as they say you can't get blood out of a stone.
Only if it is the 'named individuals' who owe you the money. As they have stated on the programme several times it is imperative that the right name(s) is put on the claim form otherwise you are stuffed when you try to enforce any judgment.
You also have to remember that a Company is a separate legal entity from its directors.