Seniors fear for missing savings
A frustrated pensioner who was left waiting nine months on a court-ordered repayment after losing thousands in a savings scheme has called his plight “senior abuse”.
Another victim – a woman in her 60s who claimed she lost thousands to the same scheme – said she believed there were “a lot of people out there in the same situation” when it came to waiting for the enforcement of court orders.
The 72-year-old man said bailiffs at Magistrates’ Court had failed for close to a year to crack down on an order for him to be repaid $7,075 outstanding from $8,575 – initially citing Covid-19 risks for the delay, followed by short staffing and a backlog of cases.
“This whole episode has been frustrating and depressing,” he added. “I wonder how many other people out there are in the same situation I am.”
But the operator of the scheme said last night that she had been unable to repay him because she in turn was fighting in court to recover a large sum of money from someone else.
The senior went public after the woman owing him money failed to show in the wake of a March 2021 court summons, followed by a June, 2021 judgment summons, with bailiffs only bringing her before a magistrate the next March.
Court documents show she repaid $1,500 of the $8,575 owed: $500 in March of 2022, a further $1,000 that May, followed by nothing – flouting an order from the Magistrates’ Court to pay back $1,000 a month.
The senior, who requested not to be named, said the seeming inability of bailiffs to compel repayment left him feeling like “I was beating my head against the wall”.
Others involved in the savings scheme had managed to regain their funds, he added.
“You don’t know how furious I am – there were at least four others in the same club. As far as I know, they got their money.
“One of them who heard me constantly asking for my money back actually went to her house and got the cash from her. My other colleague who didn’t get paid is even more upset than I am.”
He added: “I don’t understand why she chose us two. It has to be because we are more senior. She feels she can just roll over us.”
A second victim of a saving scheme that never paid out echoed the experience of an older complainant owed more than $7,000.
Also requesting anonymity, she said she had begun paying Margaret Sweeting-Grant $50 a week in 2020 until February 2021.
“At that time she owed me $2,950,” she said. “I contacted her and kept getting told that she would get the money to me.”
When the payout never came, she said she filed an ordinary summons in civil court and got a July court date – but “she was a no-show”.
She then filed a judgment summons – a document stating judgment has been made because the defendant has not been paid as agreed, and ordering the recipient to once again appear in court.
But she said Ms Sweeting-Grant skipped court again that August.
That same date, she filed an Order for Committal to Prison. Court fees combined with the unpaid money raised the outstanding debt to $3,095.
She said the defendant was finally arrested and brought to court on March 21, 2022 – the same date as her colleague’s case.
The defendant paid $200 on the day and settled for $500 per month.
“To date, I have only received $700 – which left her with $2,395.”
She said she filed another Committal to Prisons form last August and that she was now owed $2,460.
“I feel like the moment she missed that first payment, the court should have held her in contempt.
“She only went to that one court appearance because she was arrested.”
The defendant in the case, named in court documents as Margaret Sweating-Grant – seemingly a misspelling of the surname Sweeting, according to a social-media profile – was described as a work colleague running a savings club for other staff members.
“This type of club is very common in Bermuda,” the senior said. “It’s like having a savings account but you can’t dip into it.”
He added: “After a certain period of time, you’re entitled to a payout. The amount we agreed on in this case was at least $8,000. You agree to pay a certain amount to the person running it, every week.
“When I started, I religiously gave her $400 a week. I viewed it as building up a nest egg. I also have two grandchildren.”
He said red flags started in August 2020 when he requested his money.
“I asked for it, and she kept saying, I have it, it’s in my safe at home. This went on and on, every time I saw her, for a couple of months.”
Meanwhile, he said the woman left their shared workplace for a different job.
“I was calling her. When I finally thought, something’s not right, I stopped making contributions in October 2020. She didn’t say anything.
“I said, something’s not right with this picture and I need to consider taking action. I didn’t go to a lawyer. I sent her a registered letter saying she owed me money and if I didn’t get it I would take her to court. I also gave a copy to her by hand.”
A March 2021 summons cited a court order for repayment, with an appearance for June 2021 that the defendant did not attend.
The man said his former colleague was not brought to the courts until March 2022 – directly after he spoke with police and threatened to go to the press.
“I was making numerous calls and visits to the court building,” he said. “They kept saying they were still working on it. They were saying because of Covid, they weren’t keen to have physical interactions.”
He said a bailiff enforced the warrant for Ms Sweeting-Grant on the day he spoke with police.
She was brought to Magistrates’ Court and ordered to come up with a monthly payment plan enforceable by imprisonment.
He said he was satisfied and dropped his criminal complaint but only recouped a small portion of the missing money.
“I didn’t hear a peep from her since the last time she paid. Nothing. She’s blocked me on WhatsApp.
“I was back and forth to the bailiffs and they were saying they were still working on it, there’s a backlog, they’re short on staff.”
The Royal Gazette approached bailiffs with queries on their resources, as well as the typical timespan for enforcing a court judgment.
Questions were directed to Alexandra Wheatley, the Registrar for the Courts of Bermuda, who declined to comment.
According to Magistrates’ Court, bailiff services are scheduled by the order in which cases are received.
The court website says that, other than expedited domestic violence orders taking top priority, “no request for priority of an execution will be considered”.
The senior who spoke with the Gazette said he feared he would never get his money.
“When it first happened, I lost sleep. How could she do this?” he said. “There were things I had planned to do with that money that I haven’t been able to do. I’m managing – thankfully it has not left me in a dire situation, but it’s certainly had an impact on the plans I had.”
Meanwhile, he showed a receipt for his payment of civil court fees for the serving of the ordinary summons initiating the case, and the judgment summons, as well as the bailiff’s service fee.
Nine months on, he said he was still waiting for bailiffs to “apprehend her and bring her in to court to find out why she’s not paying”.
The Gazette contacted Ms Sweeting-Grant regarding the allegations, and shared copies of the court file for the case.
She said she had been unable to make payments because she was embroiled in a case of her own, in which she had to bring someone to court for failing to pay a substantial sum into the savings scheme.
Ms Sweeting-Grant insisted she was working to repay “every dollar” owed to the senior, adding it was “never” her intention not to.
She admitted: “I can say on my part that I could have communicated with him about the situation a lot better than I did.
“Again I am working towards giving all funds owed within this year.”
• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.
