caledfwlch
-
Posts
1,922 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by caledfwlch
-
The arrogance of Channel 5 is astounding. In the BBC article I read summing this up, The C5 Producer claimed in Court that Mr Ali DID provide consent.. because he "talked to the production team" erm, yes, saying "what the hell are you doing in my house, please stop filming!" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43155289 From the wording, it also appears that Channel 5 believes talking to the Enforcement Agent who has turned up to evict you somehow constitutes consent to not only film you, but to then transmit it on a nationwide channel, at prime time to 10 million viewers.... I would love to know on what authority the C5 crews are entering Debtors properties under in the first place - I would also argue that where they are clearly ordered to leave by the Debtor, and do so, but then make a big song and dance of trying to get their cameras zoomed in from public land, and to try & get their mic's to pick up the conversation at distance, or have the EA's phone with an open call very much constitutes a breach of privacy.
-
Out of interest, which part of the law allows the filming, even by BWV on private property without the permission of the property owner/tenant or the people on site? And of course, which part of the law allows commercial film crews to attend enforcements with Enforcement Officers? I don't see the bits that allow an EA to have "assistance" would cover it - any sane mind reading that regulation would read it as assistance to enforce - the presence of a commercial film crew, making a tv show for profit is not in any way assisting the EA. It would just be nice if it turns out that film crews are indeed breaking the law, though I suppose they would try and hide behind the Administration of Justice Act. Though it occurs to me, that the argument Police use to be acompanied by commercial film crews whilst they deal with suspects, does not necessarily apply, nor was intended to apply to civil debt issues.
-
the thing that shocked me, is Dublin City Council appears to have re-established the post of Bailiff - people must be up in arms over it, there is a lot of baggage attached to both the Role/Name, Hence the Republic never having had them before. it's ironic that they have brought them in, thinking they are going to be Safe (Bailiffs were considered valid targets in the North by the IRA, no reason why they wouldnt in the South) Given all the problems and scandals in the UK over it, i am amazed they decided this was the right solution. New York City also has bailiffs now too - called "New York City Marshalls" and they are set up exactly like the High Court Enforcement system in the UK, and they appear to have learnt quite a bit from UK Enforcement, Agencies regarding how to break the law, act like Criminals etc.
-
Northern Irelands system seems to be a lot less painful, and works.
-
This is an interesting thread. And it has shown up that the rights, both real, imagined, and "nice to have" of the citizen have not been crushed by the Law, but simply ignored in favour of Profit primarily to private companies, and secondarily to LA's etc. It's why we wont get a Northern Irish style system, because NI's is efficient, and works. Efficient & Works does not = private profit.
-
Its the arrogance that still gets me!! Bohill was so sure he would not face sanction for illegal entry he was happy to have it shown primetime. If an EA acts beyond his powers/warrant then he surely commits a criminal offence? Assault and criminal trespass or something
-
No, they would have your name, address, any previous addresses, date of birth and any other information to hand! You cannot easily trace someone if all you have is "John Smith" and an old address. And it is logical that they would have to show where they received any information from, Credit Reference Agencies have to show where the data on you came from, the names of debt collectors, creditors etc. What if you suspected the Company of getting your info using unlawful means, or is selling your data to marketing companies without your permission? Only way to prove it is to demand the origination of the data. Equally, if a Company insists it has permission from you to sell your data to marketing companies, it is logical that they should provide a copy of your signed or ticked consent on a form signed by you, digitally or in pen, should you demand it.
-
For some reason, despite the fact that Judges are railing against, and are livid about them, the massive unjustifiable Fee Increases in the Civil Court System are not setting the media on fire like the Criminal Court Charge! And these increases need to be made as public as possible, as they are basically removing the ability of people on low, and real average incomes to get Civil Justice on things such as debt, making the County Courts the purview of the well off, and companies. I don't recall the specific figures, but 1 Judge has said the old fee of something like £250 for a simple uncontested Divorce was already making profit for the MOJ, as the cost of administering them was very negligible - clearly a contested Divorce requires a Court Room to be booked for x amount of time, and then a Judge needs to read all the submissions, interview both sides, witnesses, investigate assets, but in a simple uncontested case it doesn't even go to a court room AFAIK, a Judge will simply sign and stamp, in his chambers. But a simple Divorce has now gone up to something like £750!!!!
-
As far as I know, you are entitled to SAR any Company or Organisation that holds or has held your data, so Ace1 would break the law and risk fines if they refused to comply with a SAR, any and every organisation is liable to the Data Protection Legislation and must disclose Data, no matter if gathering that data will cost more than £10, only the NHS and GP Surgery's have a fee exemption that allows them to charge £50. Ace1 would of course be very, very silly if they tried to wing it and for whatever reason denied they have the details of the OP since he has a card from them! It occurs to me that Tracing Agencies have no special dispensations, and are not particularly covered by legislation to exist, they just supposedly have to comply with DP rules. So one could send a Cease & Desist letter to any tracing agency you can find that would prohibit them from trying to trace you. An Enforcement Agency sadly of course has the right to our data under "fair use" the same reason DCA's are allowed to, but I wonder if Fair Use can actually allow an organisation itself having had fair use passed to it by a creditor to pass it on to a 4th party.
-
This needs to be taken to the Supreme Court, it is totally unreasonable to expect people already having debt and payment problems to be the only people responsible for covering pension issues - if they added a similar figure to council tax for everyone, there would be absolute uproar. It would be like the MOJ decreeing that Magistrates add a £10 "MOJ Pension Deficit" Charge to anyone convicted of a crime, since expecting the poor to pick up the tab seems the new thing.
-
WHat is the legality of the "4th party" Ace1 passing private information such as phone numbers to Newlyns? And under what part of the DPA etc allows these tracing companies to accept private personal information and trace? What is stopping these tracing companies from selling the data they receive on behalf of the likes of Newlyn to other companies?
-
So basically, under the new regulations, there is absolutely no such thing as a "vulnerable" debtor anymore... That, no matter how vulnerable you are, or what health problems, it stays with the bullies. Er I mean Bailiffs...
-
This is extraordinary! Why should only debtors be, or at all responsible for Pension issues the Council is having? It's like when Banks tried to justify their Penalty Charges by claiming "shoe leather" for staff walking from their computer to the office printer, and "light bulbs" Clearly another member of the Judiciary has sadly been bought, or quietly encouraged to give the "right" judgement, regardless.
-
It is possible that the CPS simply could not prove "Mens Rea" - Guilty Mind, that the Defendants claimed they didn't believe they were committing a theft, as they believed they still lawfully owned the car, therefore were not intending to deprive a lawful owner of his or her property, its possible. It's why specific legislation like "Taking without Consent" was introduced, in the 60's people would often "borrow" a car to get home and claim they were only borrowing and intended to return the vehicle, and thus under the existing legislation of the time, Guilty Mind/Intent to permanently deprive could not be proven.
-
The EA Firm presumably became aware very quickly that the matter had become a Police issue, they should be done for disposing evidence of a crime if the footage has been deleted. The Police Non Help and indeed refusal to even investigate as is standard when a Bailiff is involved means that I think anyone in a similar situation should covertly record their attempts at reporting the alleged crime, and hopefully the Constable, Sgt or Inspector claiming its a "civil matter" when it is clearly not, and imediately try and escalate it to a higher authority at the Station, and also straight in contact with their MP and local Councillor, in the hope of getting 1 or both to attend the station with you, and see if an alleged criminal offence committed by a Bailiff is still a "Civil Matter" in front of the MP and/or Councillor. Or perhaps even better, turn up with a journalist and photographer, or camera crew to make your complaint.
-
Aye, that is the real reason its being deleted so quick, which is why it needs to become a legal requirement to use it, and to hold it for the typical time it takes for a civil or criminal case to go to trial, whichever is longest, with penalties that are financially horrific for "losing" Data, or it being "accidently" deleted. Given the trouble with getting the Police to even investigate Criminal Offences committed by EA's, it is vital they be obliged to keep the Footage for a much longer period.
-
I imagine it depends on what paperwork the Ex Wife actually signed - just because as a married couple her income was included in the means testing does not necessarily mean she signed anything that makes her liable, especially after a divorce. I have to say, why should the Wife in her new life be forced to pay for the OP, when the OP committed a criminal offence, In all honesty it sounds like the OP is just trying to use this maliciously as a weapon against her, we would need to see what documents were signed to know if she really is liable. Something is not adding up - how could Rossendales have been chasing a Legal Aid bill, before the Magistrate or Crown Court Hearing, ie before the actual costs of the Legal Aid were known? Also, hiring a Barrister for what sounds like a straight forward driving offence is a bit extreme. Something just smells funny.
-
Just because she has misbehaved in the past does not mean she has this time. I would point out that it is entirely possible that the Insolvency Practitioner may well have been informed about the car, and decided not to order it sold and a cheaper car bought due to the owners disabilities. It is equally possible that her husband or partner is on a good wage and bought her the car after she went bankrupt. No mention in the links of a Private Investigator being kidnapped and threatened, though since they have no legal rights or powers, I wonder why they sent one to the house, given there could have been a risk of the woman claiming harassment. I am absolutely astonished this company kept her on the books, as sick for 12 years though - not even a Council Employee with the stronger protections they have could get away with that, all employers have a right to dismiss after a certain length of time - they must have just forgotten about her.
-
I would point out that the HCEO's who appear on "Can't Pay" use covert audio recording, and doing so on private property without the permission of the Occupant is almost certainly against the law - at the very least Data Protection Act, since they are acting as Agents of a Private Company. But you often see on the show when the debtor demands the cameras leave, they play the audio which one of the HCEO's is continuing to record, despite the fact the Debtor has clearly and since its been transmitted on television, unarguably used his right to not be recorded and demanded they stop. I personally think EA's and HCEO's should by Law wear BWC that is clearly indicated as such - Police Officers often have the equipment painted bright yellow with a little sign for example and they should also verbally indicate they are recording - if Debtor requests not to be filmed, then they will have to respect that, as they are on private property and thus don't get to make the rules. When footage is recorded it should be stored for up to 12 months, in case an aggrieved Debtor triggers either a Civil or Criminal case. At the end of the day though it would be daft asking an EA to turn his CCTV off, as BWC offers far more protection to the Debtor than the EA. I don't understand how they are even allowed by the ICO to dump the footage so quickly - all other Data is treated under principle 5 which requires you to retain personal data no longer than is necessary for the purpose you obtained it for - and since it is there as proof against, or for claims of criminal or civil wrongdoings it is clear that AV Data is NOT being kept as long as the purpose it was obtained for, since Police Forces and Civil Courts are much, much slower than the timeframe within which footage is being destroyed.
-
Make sure that even when your home, that all doors are kept locked, as if unlocked they will just walk in. No matter what rubbish they tell you about coming back with a Locksmith, or claims you will be arrested, either for non payment or for "obstructing" them by not letting them in are complete lies. They often will claim powers, or possibilities of what could happen to you that are complete fabrications.
-
There probably is not another view on the case, Council's and EA's contest every case as a matter of principle in the hope the complainant goes away, and Council's tend to have the attitude of "we are the Council, we cannot possibly be wrong" We have seen Council's losing court and ombudsmen cases over all sorts of issues and problems where their guilt, or wrongdoing was evident, but because they know more than us, they took it all the way, costing their Taxpayers a fortune in legal costs. Their might be a light in the Capita tunnel. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/02/councils-outsourcing-cumbria-public-private-partnership-in-house Council's are discovering that outsourcing services is actually costing them far more than returning services inhouse. With luck, councils will start realising the same applies to council tax .
-
Found a Law Society Gazette article on the family court incident last year, where whilst representing a Mother, one of these guys unleashed foul mouthed tirades in court, and cornered the Barrister in the corridors http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ex-bouncer-mckenzie-friend-banned-after-calling-lawyer-a-lying-slag/5049010.fullarticle
-
I suspect that if they did have such a Database and its existence was proven, RLP could well end up facing massive fines and possibly Prosecution - imo they are on dodgy ground even holding a database to issue threat letters - they would likely argue fair usage, but proving an offence was committed would be near impossible for the vast majority of cases - you can guarantee that any CCTV is not kept, unless Police are called, and signing paperwork is not necessarily lawful if pressured into it, guilty or not guilty.
-
One thing I have always felt was unfair is if you show an I&E and have for example Sky, the Court or Creditor will say its a luxury, and ignore it - fair enough if you took it out when in financial difficulty, but if you took it out before your troubles, then being made by Court to stop paying it, or your finances being worked out so the Court is taking so much you cannot pay it is also unfair, as most things like Sky are under a Contract, and you will incur sometimes large penalties for not paying , so the Court is forcing you into further debt - like if your 11 months into a 24 month contract, Sky will be expecting 13 months x monthly payments and late payment fee's and so on.
-
Oddly enough, my ex fiance had all that hassle with her debt to them, but mine when I got behind after redundancy I too had a relative phoned and her windows threatend with being broken but that was it. That was after the ex's problems though, and the Leeds Branch likely did not dare go any further after what happened between me and their doorstep collectors over her debt. They did add around £11,000 in fees mind! Which vanished when it was discovered Managers were defrauding the accounts to make the company look in profit to the shareholders, when the reverse was true, and the Ombudsman took over direct running.
