[spireitenag]

CFC Village allegedly received a visit from a High Court Enforcement Officer accompanied by a TV crew from the programme 'Can't pay.We'll take it away!'




Yes that is correct.

However after spending about 30 minutes speaking to Liam Sutcliffe and other members of staff who provided documentary evidence the Enforcement Officer was happy to conclude it was a false claim for expenses by a former staff member.

They then left and the filming that took place was never screened as that was the end of the matter.

[Heart of a Niven]

So a TV company was happy to waste valuable time, money and resources on a matter that was completely unsubstantiated? I could buy an enforcemement officer turning up - that's their job - but a tv crew? For a wages claim? Come off it.

[spireitenag]

Heart of a Niven, on 19 February 2016 - 10:59 PM, said:

So a TV company was happy to waste valuable time, money and resources on a matter that was completely unsubstantiated? I could buy an enforcemement officer turning up - that's their job - but a tv crew? For a wages claim? Come off it.

If you have ever watched the programme they turn up for far smaller amounts of money to the likes of takeaways,shops and restaurants.

This claim involved an alleged figure in excess of £10k.

[Heart of a Niven]

I'm a little confused though. Are you saying you attended the meeting and the answers to your questions have put your mind completely at rest and there is nothing for any of us to worry about, or are you just reporting what you were told at the meeting?

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

spireitenag, on 19 February 2016 - 11:07 PM, said:

If you have ever watched the programme they turn up for far smaller amounts of money to the likes of takeaways,shops and restaurants.

This claim involved an alleged figure in excess of £10k.

Sorry Nige but it wouldn't be up to the two officers concerned to decide if it was a justified claim. They are just court enforcement officers. Whilst they can leave without payment they can't make a decision on the claim

[Benno Spire]

Heart of a Niven, on 19 February 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

I'm a little confused though. Are you saying you attended the meeting and the answers to your questions have put your mind completely at rest and there is nothing for any of us to worry about, or are you just reporting what you were told at the meeting?

Nigel is not passing judgement or opinion just stating what he asked and the response given for us all to make our own judgements.
Keep the info coming Nigel

[spireitenag]

Heart of a Niven, on 19 February 2016 - 11:10 PM, said:

I'm a little confused though. Are you saying you attended the meeting and the answers to your questions have put your mind completely at rest and there is nothing for any of us to worry about, or are you just reporting what you were told at the meeting?

I am not making any sort of statement about the answers to the questions/allegations.

I am simply going to post what was said and it's down to the individual to make their own mind up as to the validity of it.

[spireitenag]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 19 February 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

Sorry Nige but it wouldn't be up to the two officers concerned to decide if it was a justified claim. They are just court enforcement officers. Whilst they can leave without payment they can't make a decision on the claim

Regardless of that Neil the bottom line response from CT and LS is that the matter was ended after the evidence supplied by themselves and others.

No trace of a relevant court order is shown on the company credit history.

[Heart of a Niven]

Benno Spire, on 19 February 2016 - 11:16 PM, said:

Nigel is not passing judgement or opinion just stating what he asked and the response given for us all to make our own judgements.
Keep the info coming Nigel

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think Nigel's doing us all a favour and taking the time to go and ask the questions is very helpful. I just think the manner in which he was summoned is all a bit low-budget Godfather - will Nigel wake up with a pigeon's head on his pillow? Is Turner thinking he's some sort of Michael Corleone?

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

spireitenag, on 19 February 2016 - 11:18 PM, said:

I am not making any sort of statement about the answers to the questions/allegations.

I am simply going to post what was said and it's down to the individual to make their own mind up as to the validity of it.

Thanks Nige.

I will add my twopenneth to the answer given as I've started to do above.

In order for the court officers to come out on site the judgement by the court has already been made and they are trying to enforce payment. This presumably means representative of the "village" went to court and lost or nobody attended court and ignored it and judgement was passed and non payment resulted in the officers being sent out. The answer given doesn't appear to make sense.

[Wooden Spoon]

spireitenag, on 19 February 2016 - 10:53 PM, said:

CFC Village allegedly received a visit from a High Court Enforcement Officer accompanied by a TV crew from the programme 'Can't pay.We'll take it away!'




Yes that is correct.

However after spending about 30 minutes speaking to Liam Sutcliffe and other members of staff who provided documentary evidence the Enforcement Officer was happy to conclude it was a false claim for expenses by a former staff member.

They then left and the filming that took place was never screened as that was the end of the matter.

How long was your meeting with Turner?


And do my old pants need to go back in the carrier bag?

[spireitenag]

a kick in the balls, on 19 February 2016 - 11:25 PM, said:

How long was your meeting with Turner?


And do my old pants need to go back in the carrier bag?

The meeting lasted two hours.

I'm not even going there regarding your pants.

[Mr Mercury]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 19 February 2016 - 11:25 PM, said:

Thanks Nige.

I will add my twopenneth to the answer given as I've started to do above.

In order for the court officers to come out on site the judgement by the court has already been made and they are trying to enforce payment. This presumably means representative of the "village" went to court and lost or nobody attended court and ignored it and judgement was passed and non payment resulted in the officers being sent out. The answer given doesn't appear to make sense.

Very good point Ernie.

[For your eyes only]

Mr Mercury, on 19 February 2016 - 11:40 PM, said:

Very good point Ernie.

LS allegedly didn't turn up in court.

[Snowflake McBedwetter]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 19 February 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

Sorry Nige but it wouldn't be up to the two officers concerned to decide if it was a justified claim. They are just court enforcement officers. Whilst they can leave without payment they can't make a decision on the claim

Exactly. These aren't regular bailiffs, they're acting on a judges order.

[Exharboroughspireite]

Ok so first thanks to Nigel for taking his time to ask the questions.

If the club are trying to fob us off this is a dangerous path in the sense that (as already proven) there are a number of posters on here with knowledge of accountancy, court workings and other areas of expertise. Instead of closing the matter like I presume they are hoping to do they now are at risk of opening Pandora's box further.

[Mr_Pleasant]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 19 February 2016 - 11:25 PM, said:

Thanks Nige.

I will add my twopenneth to the answer given as I've started to do above.

In order for the court officers to come out on site the judgement by the court has already been made and they are trying to enforce payment. This presumably means representative of the "village" went to court and lost or nobody attended court and ignored it and judgement was passed and non payment resulted in the officers being sent out. The answer given doesn't appear to make sense.

Spot on Ern. Just to add my bilge, if an HCEO has a CCJ of £10k to collect, they are rarely as passive as this one seems to have been.
Sounds like a CCJ has been ordered, still hasn't been paid, possibly cos they didn't think it was a genuine claim; in which case you appeal or apply to set aside the original decision within a pretty short period of time rather than moan to the HCEO.

[Mr_Pleasant]

spireitenag, on 19 February 2016 - 11:22 PM, said:

Regardless of that Neil the bottom line response from CT and LS is that the matter was ended after the evidence supplied by themselves and others.

No trace of a relevant court order is shown on the company credit history.

If there is no CCJ on the credit history, they weren't HCEOs; alternatively, there was a CCJ, it was paid in full within a short space of time and so disappeared off the record-in that case the HCEOs could be told to go away.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

Mr_Pleasant, on 20 February 2016 - 07:59 AM, said:

If there is no CCJ on the credit history, they weren't HCEOs; alternatively, there was a CCJ, it was paid in full within a short space of time and so disappeared off the record-in that case the HCEOs could be told to go away.

Alternatively, it's quite possible, given the confusion, that the claimant incorrectly issued proceedings against CFC 2001 Ltd instead of CFC Football Development School Ltd.

Given the note below that appears on http://cfcfds.co.uk/, clearly there has been some confusion at some stage.

Please Note: Our accounts/finance department are separate to that of Chesterfield FC. Any individual, company or entity that CFC Football Devleopment Limited has a financial relationship must contact by email: [email protected] in the first instance.

[60s 70s Spireite]

freelander2, on 20 February 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Alternatively, it's quite possible, given the confusion, that the claimant incorrectly issued proceedings against CFC 2001 Ltd instead of CFC Football Development School Ltd.

Given the note below that appears on http://cfcfds.co.uk/, clearly there has been some confusion at some stage.

Please Note: Our accounts/finance department are separate to that of Chesterfield FC. Any individual, company or entity that CFC Football Devleopment Limited has a financial relationship must contact by email: [email protected] in the first instance.

Sounds plausible.
I have said it before on here, but the accounts of the development company make miserable reading. A loss of £17k in the first period of trading, a £30k loss in the year to 30 June 14, and no explanation of who is supporting the ongoing existence of the business, as there is no share capital in issue and no mention of related party transactions, just liabilities of £53k.
From afar, it looks like creditors are likely to be knocking on the door every day. Unless of course there is unconditional support from a benefactor, whether individual or another company.

This post has been edited by 60s 70s Spireite: 20 February 2016 - 08:34 AM