Quatloos!

As suggested....

So does Sheila Harding have any qualifications, licences or any other formal notices that allows her to be a trusted place to go to for advice?

Discuss...

What ever does this have to do with sovereign citizens?
My guess (from the other sophomoric thread) is that it doesn't. A second guess would be that it's about two competitors ( who both run, let's say, "imaginative" businesses) squabbling over a client base.

I know nothing about Sheila Harding. Why don't you give us some background information about Sheila and share with us some of your thoughts on her. Starting a thread with questions isn't really the way to go about it imo.

Philistine wrote:What ever does this have to do with sovereign citizens?
My guess (from the other sophomoric thread) is that it doesn't. A second guess would be that it's about two competitors ( who both run, let's say, "imaginative" businesses) squabbling over a client base.

Was suggested a separate thread was created, so here it is.

I don't remember Sheila having any legal qualifications.

I do remember she was practicing in unlicensed debt counselling, but I understand the (then) OFTY had a few quiet words, and she has since re-shaped her business model.

Sheila's biz model is very different to mine. She prefers to cancel the debt and pass them to the bailiff company enforcing. The result is inevitable. She does not have a policy that protects her clients from the risks of non-compliant enforcement practices, or even mistakes made by bailiffs.

Philistine wrote:What ever does this have to do with sovereign citizens?
My guess (from the other sophomoric thread) is that it doesn't. A second guess would be that it's about two competitors ( who both run, let's say, "imaginative" businesses) squabbling over a client base.

There are alleged SovCit FOTL tactics being used to avoid debt, but, other than that, you may well have a valid point. We await Sheila Harding's reply.

I know she used to charge £10 for a written question submitted via her site, £15 if you requested a callback, and her phone line was charged at 61p per minute.

She has three times failed to pay for legally due car tax; on two of those occasions she wrote a cheque at the post office, took the tax disc and the cheque then bounced - she failed to return the discs as demanded. On each of these occasions she was fined in court, but also on each occasion the court was provided with a fake address.

A thread about somebody I've never heard of without even a scrap of background or a link... Who is this pratt?

longdog wrote:A thread about somebody I've never heard of without even a scrap of background or a link... Who is this pratt?

It's because the thread viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11160 was going off at a tangent. We appear to be attracting new members by the bus load (for some reason).

longdog wrote: Who is this pratt?

Sheila Harding or Droopy?

Not that I care either way

Droopy wrote:As suggested....

So does Sheila Harding have any qualifications, licences or any other formal notices that allows her to be a trusted place to go to for advice?

Discuss...

Big question after reading other pages about Jason Bennison. Sheila Harding runs a business giving advice about enforcement and seems to charge or used to charge alot of money. After her name came up she said she'd welcome a thread about herself and here it is so what are your legal qualifications for doing all this Sheila Harding? Do you have insurance? Worried she's making money and it doesn't matter how much from vulnerable people already in debt. Questions need answering here.

Flipper wrote:Sheila Harding runs a business giving advice about enforcement and seems to charge or used to charge alot of money.

Eleven posts and not an iota of proof, not even a link to a website. If it's the same in the morning, I'm locking the thread.

www.bailiffadviceonline.co.uk is hers she needs to answer questions about her qualifications as someone else was asked in another page like this with her on.

Thank you. I took a look at the site, and did not find the solicitations (and fees) that are apparent on http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/. Don't you think that it makes a difference that one site appears to be purely informational and the other solicits business?

Well sadly it appears that Sheila Harding is not able to answer the questions put to her. Perhaps we can ask them one more time.

• Do you have any legal qualifications?
  
  Did you used to charge £10 for someone to submit a question via your website?
  
  Was this increased to £15 if they wanted a call back?
  
  Did you use an 090 premium rate number for debtors to call you?
  
  If yes to the previous 3 questions, have you now stopped charging these fees and why?
  
  If yes, how does your business now gain income?
  
  Do you have indemnity insurance?

I know from another forum that was directing business to bailiffadviceonline that a fee was being charged although that is a couple of years ago.

This link was posted in the now locked thread, but I am bringing it over here, because it is direct and to the point http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press ... w-society/

The logic of this letter applies to JasonDWB, Shelia, or anyone else charging for legal type services, and navigating procedures, and court filings are legal services in my mind. It states in part emphasis added by me

Clients of fee-paid McKenzie Friends have no assurance of their legal knowledge, and are left with no redress if things go wrong. They are not necessarily cheaper than solicitors, who are highly regulated and deliver a high standard of quality service. Our members have witnessed the damage done by the unscrupulous, so we very much welcome any steps that bring clarity to the support that a McKenzie Friend can give.'

Jonathan Smithers added:

'Cuts to legal aid have left many people unable to afford professional legal advice when they need it. But it is wrong to say that the best way to mitigate the damaging consequences of legal aid cuts is to allow non-professionals, who do not need to meet any standards of knowledge or performance, and do not offer clients the same rights of redress if something goes wrong, to charge vulnerable clients a fee. Non-professionals who charge for legal services should not view such exceptional circumstances as being a business opportunity.'

'Legal professionals must abide by an ethical framework that puts the needs of the client first. They also have obligations as officers of the court. McKenzie friends are not bound by these important professional responsibilities, and if they mislead their client there is no recourse. Those who can afford legal advice will always get better value for money by instructing a solicitor or other legal professional.

McKenzie Friends are non-professionals who offer their services in court proceedings and some, despite having no formal legal qualifications, charge for their 'services'. The name McKenzie Friend name comes from a 1970 divorce case - McKenzie v McKenzie.

NYGman wrote:This link was posted in the now locked thread, but I am bringing it over here, because it is direct and to the point http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press ... w-society/

The logic of this letter applies to JasonDWB, Shelia, or anyone else charging for legal type services, and navigating procedures, and court filings are legal services in my mind. It states in part emphasis added by me

Clients of fee-paid McKenzie Friends have no assurance of their legal knowledge, and are left with no redress if things go wrong. They are not necessarily cheaper than solicitors, who are highly regulated and deliver a high standard of quality service. Our members have witnessed the damage done by the unscrupulous, so we very much welcome any steps that bring clarity to the support that a McKenzie Friend can give.'

Jonathan Smithers added:

'Cuts to legal aid have left many people unable to afford professional legal advice when they need it. But it is wrong to say that the best way to mitigate the damaging consequences of legal aid cuts is to allow non-professionals, who do not need to meet any standards of knowledge or performance, and do not offer clients the same rights of redress if something goes wrong, to charge vulnerable clients a fee. Non-professionals who charge for legal services should not view such exceptional circumstances as being a business opportunity.'

'Legal professionals must abide by an ethical framework that puts the needs of the client first. They also have obligations as officers of the court. McKenzie friends are not bound by these important professional responsibilities, and if they mislead their client there is no recourse. Those who can afford legal advice will always get better value for money by instructing a solicitor or other legal professional.

McKenzie Friends are non-professionals who offer their services in court proceedings and some, despite having no formal legal qualifications, charge for their 'services'. The name McKenzie Friend name comes from a 1970 divorce case - McKenzie v McKenzie.

I don't know whether you have trouble reading or understanding but I will say this one more time.

Neither Jason nor Sheila act as MF's.

They both operate help and advice businesses. The majority of cases involve guidance on process, negotiating repayment plans, help advising of vulnerability, complaints procedures etc.

You all keep asking for proof every 5 minutes but until you are able to comprehend the situation, there is little point offering any.

I think someone is missing the point here.

Many people give advice without any formal qualifications, I worked at the CAB for a while (as did Sheila incidentally) and few of us had formal qualifications. We sat through training courses etc but there were no diploma issued. In 99% of cases there is no need to engage in litigation, most matters arising from enforcment issues have remedies available that do not require it.

We have to look at background and like it or not, she has spent a lot of time in the higher echelons of enforcment and worked with some of the top people, all of whom respect here advice and input.

But all this is bye the way.
The first rule of debt advice is a little like the Hippocratic oath, "do no harm". The advice given on BHF does, and they do not seem to care, as long as it raises a few quid.