A case from "Can't pay we'll take it away"

[unclebulgaria67]

This TV programme features HCEO activity.

 

Does a HCEO have greater rights of entry ?

 

Does it depend on debt ?

 

Does it depend on type of property e.g private only, private but business from home activity, business premises with shop door, business premises not open to visitors ?

 

From what i understand, it depends on many factors, as to whether enforcement agents have rights to enter and how they gain entry.

[Peterbard]

HCEO have no more powers to enforce against an individual in his home, than any other bailff recovering a civil debt.(as long as be does not carry out a trade or profession there.)

 

 

The writ " confers the power to use the schedule 12 proceedure" TCE part 3 section 62.

The methods he uses are contained in that proceedure, the same as any other enforcement.

 

The forced entry provisions and how they apply to different kinds of enforcement are contained in sections 17 to section 19A of schedule 12.

[daverules]

Daverules, they definitely cannot use the Boast Technique of ladder through window any more, so wonder how far plod will go with the burglary angle? Certainly breach of current regulations that disallows entry through a window.

 

Will certainly update when I hear more, will be back home on Sunday so should

be able to catch up with what is happening.

[Peterbard]

I think you need to find out what the enforcement relates to and if forced entry is authorised by either a warrant or by the TCE.

[daverules]

I think you need to find out what the enforcement relates to and if forced entry is authorised by either a warrant or by the TCE.

 

If this relates to my post then it was CT and if it was authorized the EA's certainly did not hang around to prove they had the right to enter.

 

Regards

[Peterbard]

If this relates to my post then it was CT and if it was authorized the EA's certainly did not hang around to prove they had the right to enter.

 

Regards

 

 

Your probably right, ctax bailiff can force entry if they have a signed control agreement of course

[tiger265]

I love this programme and I could watch it for hours. It intrigues me to see this inside look on human nature and how people react when cornered. It makes me think we are not too far removed from nature and the animals.

 

The psychology (have I spelt that right?) is really interesting. The initial encounter when the debtor denies all knowledge of the creditor is priceless, and as the story unfolds they very slowly reveal the real truth. There are excuses and sob stories. Probably about ten percent of the cases are true, hardship, fallen on hard times, trying to do the right thing, cases. The majority seem to be bull****, try to live off everyone else in society and not pay their way cases. Again, the animal instinct, "look after number one, **** eveyone else".

 

These debtors who do not pay just push up the prices for everyone else. The companies have to get their money back somewhere. Their attitude is, "He won't pay us, so we'll just charge double on the next customer". It's changed my attitude. For instance if there's nobody on duty at the train station I'll just take a chance and travel with no ticket.

 

I used to use the self service. Now I just don't bother. If I get questioned (very rare, it's not happened yet), I'll just say "There was nobody in the office. I couldn't work out how to use the machine, can I pay you now?" This avoids the fine (They have to prove you tried to travel without paying.). I haven't paid a Saturday night train fare for nearly two years now. I am encouraged by this programme.

 

Take what you can, when you can, and let someone else foot the bill. You only live once, why not let somebody else pay for it...

[ericsbrother]

I suggest that you read up on the Railways Act and subsequent byelaws. If you are stopped then you arent automatically allowed just to buy a ticket, the staff will be within their rights to chuck to book at you and if that happens they will be looking at their CCTV for the same train times and if you are spotted in their footage you wont get any sympathy from anyone regarding this.

[Matthew Wright 21c]

I used to work for the post-production company who edited this series of the program.

My job was to review the assets for tech faults as opposed to factual QC.

 

However,

from my memories from this episode,

also available on channel 5 iplayer,

at the end of the day he lost this case fair and square at the county court

because he failed to pay a freelancer/contractor her wages which she was entitled to without question.

 

When approached by Paul Bohill and his colleague his exact words were.

'No, no she's not getting a penny out of me!'

 

 

The bailiffs then advised him calmly and clearly without the use of physical force

that they had a high court writ to enter the property to seize goods to cover the debt,

he insisted he would not allow them into the property.

 

 

Mr Bohill calmly restrained him and used fair physical force to enter the property

by simply using bodyweight and nothing more.

He continuously reassured this man to take it easy and that they were legally obliged to enter.

 

 

He told the bailiffs that he was calling the police to report use of physcial result,

however as the bailiffs had a camera on their chests to clear them of any wrong doing,

i.e.: did not punch, kick, aggressively shove him or verbally abuse him by calling him names and mocking his situation,

they were not threatened by MW's accusations.

 

 

MW then continuously demanded they do not take anything from the flat,

but failed to make an offer which would satisfy his high court writ.

 

 

He then called a friend and asked him to confirm all goods in the flat were not his and belonged to someone else.

MW then reluctantly agreed to an instalment plan.

At the end of the episode it was announced that MW failed to make his first instalment.

 

 

As opposed to giving up the case,

the lady who was owed the money allowed the bailiffs to file a bankruptcy petition against him

in a bid for her to retrieve her money.

 

In terms of whether Paul Bohill did anything wrong, no he didnt. Nor did his partner.

They have a camera to prove their innocence and even if MW had called the police

it would have gone against him and would've felt more pressure to pay the balance.

 

 

I'm assuming he has either been declared bankrupt by now or has paid the balance.

If he's managed to delay payment further the balance is likely to rise even further and he will just make it worse for himself.

 

I would like to clarify having worked on this episode as I work in TV

and the company I was employed by edited the program

that Mr Bohill did not impose himself as a police officer or special constable.

 

The writ he showed him allowed him with permission of and as an employee of the high court

to use forced entry to claim goods worthy of the debt should the owner not be able to or want to pay,

not to enter his property for pleasure or any other matter.

 

 

MW chose not to read the writ and tried to delay the bailiffs by not doing so.

The only time they are not allowed to force their way in is when its a form of rental agreement,

I.e.: Finance on a Car that someone didnt keep up with,

they can repossess the car but can't enter the property to claim something of equal value.

 

The allegation that Bohill said 'hit me I dare you!' or anything similar

has been taken out of context by MW on this thread.

 

 

When Bohill used physical force to enter the property he only used bodyweight

and remained civil with him asking him to 'take it easy.'

 

 

MW then threatened to call the police telling them he had hit Mr Bohill.

Bohill misunderstood this in the heat of the moment

and took MW's words as threat that he would hit Bohill in a bid to get him off the property

and responded 'go on then hit me!'

 

 

Had he done so Bohill would use the police presence to have MW arrested

and carry out the writ without his presence.

 

 

Anyone claiming the goods did not belong to MW wouldve made their journey to the High Court within 2 weeks

to reclaim the goods or have them returned,

 

 

it takes around a fortnight for them to auction goods off and for the record upto an hour for the collection van to arrive.

 

 

Bohill did not use the term 'hit me' as a bid to intimidate MW,

it was self defence in response to MW's behaviour and innuendo that Bohill had attempted to hit him.

 

If I remember correctly this was Series 2 or Series 3 of the show,

S3 is still available on Channel 5 iplayer.

 

 

You might catch S2 on the channel Spike TV.

 

Hello Izzy,I am still here, but have not looked at this thread since 2014 and am up to June 16

It is surprising you are still trying to defend the actions of the show since you longer work in TV Production or for the show !!??

..You seem to be changing your story, as you say "I phoned the Police and said I had threatened to hit PB", then in a later comment that "I phoned the Police because he had threatened to hit me"

...Although this is not clear from you text!?...Either way "go on hit me " is goading, so a bit silly to say otherwise really ??

...Please also see my first statement on this thread as to why I did not pay these so called wages.

 

(You are also deluded in your statements, and your Grammar and listening skills are poor)

 

Your program tried to make a mockery of me, and you know that PB acted illegally with his mini assault,along with the other things.

 

Maybee I should report him,what do you think !?

[Matthew Wright 21c]

No this is not a wind up.

First

it was illegal for MW or anyone to obstruct a High Court Enforcement Agent.

Which is what he was doing, attempting to obstruct them to avoid paying the balance.

 

Secondly,

you need to watch more eps for this series. Try Can't pay 'final demand.'

 

 

There was a guy who owed money to a car leasing company and the bailiffs came to collect the payment or return the car.

The writ they had did not allow them to enter the property or use forced entry

whether it be knocking down the door or physically moving him.

That is the kind of writ MW is trying to insinuate was active.

 

 

This wasn't it was something completely the opposite.

(Having said that though, the baliff through force of habit kept his foot in the door and may well have got in trouble for this.)

 

3rdly,

as I said before Bohill only used body weight and continuously tried to calm MW down.

His accusation that Bohill tried to hit him is not true.

 

 

He threatened to hit Bohill and Bohill said go on then hit me implying he would then call the police

knowing he had done nothing wrong.

 

 

Like it or not MW owed somebody their living wage and was refusing to pay it.

He feels bullied by the high court as they were going to get the money one way

or another and he didn't want to pay it.

 

Like I said by now he is either bankrupt as a result or has paid the balance off.

The police on the side of the high court unless the baliffs physically kick punch slap shove choke spit and swear.

 

 

Their jobs are then immediately on the line and the court will be prosecuted by the police.

It may be 'tabloid tv' as you put it, but Ch5 would never have broadcast it

if he did anything wrong as they would've got in trouble too.

 

Ah Izzy,I just replied to your silly statement you made on here in June

 

(You should never assume if you know very little !)

 

After the claimant lost her claim through the contracting party we were dealing through she issued papers which I did not deal with in a timely manner!(She had never issued invoices for more than she was actually paid,and if I had replied to the papers in time this would never have escalated

 

Now I will say that what has happened since is none of your business, as you have clearly been paid as a stooge in the facade of that program that all the other brain dead doughnuts watch.

[Matthew Wright 21c]

Izzit your company is lucky that it was not me who was on the receiving end of a shove at my front door as CH5 and Bohill would gave been in Court as quick as I could get you there. I have already taken one bailiff to Court and won and this case is much clearer as to the guilty party than my one [his word against mine]. It is not an offence to owe money but it is an offence to masquerade as a Police officer and it is an offence to use force to gain entry.

Perhaps to avoid possible litigation if you decide to have another series would be to hire the use of a proper HCEO [we have one on our Forum] to keep you straight. Bailiff law is complicated and

Bohill and his ilk either do not know the Law or think they can get away with breaking it. Your series is treading on thin ice -it is only a matter of time before that ice cracks.

 

Thank you for confirming my doubts about Channel 5.Please can you let me know exactly what you did as I may well do the same,even after all this time !

[Matthew Wright 21c]

And there is your problem. As I've said before the are many many laws and its impossible to prosecute every time one of them is violated by the public or civil servants.

 

Just like a guy in Chiswick a few years ago who had cctv of some nutcase driving towards him and he climbed on the car to get away. He took her to the police and even gave in the answerphone message telling him upfront she was coming to his office to attack him, and in the eyes of the court all she did was smash his 500£ specs, swore at him in front of staff and then took off with him in front of the car.

 

When the case got to court the judge asked if he thought she would do it again, he said yes, the judge said 'no I'm sorry I don't believe you, you're using this as an excuse to get one over her.'

 

MWs case is no different, even if Bohill tries it again he'll get away with it. As I said before, if you don't want bailiffs at the door, pay your debt. Simple.

 

Izzy,you are controlled by and are a puppet of your environment IE your adverts.Please go and have a word with yourself.M

[BazzaS]

 

I used to use the self service. Now I just don't bother. If I get questioned (very rare, it's not happened yet), I'll just say "There was nobody in the office. I couldn't work out how to use the machine, can I pay you now?" This avoids the fine (They have to prove you tried to travel without paying.). I haven't paid a Saturday night train fare for nearly two years now.

 

When you do get questioned you may well find that "I couldn't work out how to use the machine" might be a defence against a Regulation of Railways Act prosecution, but isn't one of the statutory defences against a Bylaw 18 prosecution.......

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Mathew, I am pleased you have come back.

 

My case was totally different from yours as there was no violence used and it was a case of his word against mine and the Judge preferred my version to his.

 

As far as your case is concerned,

my understanding is that too much time has elapsed for you to take action against Bohill for assault,

however others on here may confirm that you could still get him for an illegal entry:

implying he had a warrant, when all he had was a writ of control and impersonating a Police Officer.

 

 

You have the advantage that Ch5 will still have the tape of that episode that could be used in Court.

 

If the opinion on here is that you are out of time on those,

then you could always oppose his licence the next time it comes up for renewal.

 

 

I don't think sadly that you could do much against Ch5 since ignorance doesn't appear to be an offence and aiding and abetting may be too difficult to prove.

 

Good luck with whatever you decide.

If you need help or advice there are quite a dew knowledge people on here who could help.

[MyronAub]

you could still get him for... impersonating a Police Officer.

As a fan of the show, it's difficult to see how anyone could accuse them of impersonating a Police Officer when they ALWAYS introduce themselves "Hello, we are High Court Enforcement Officers!" Edited November 26, 2016 by MyronAub

[brassnecked]

As a fan of the show, it's difficult to see how anyone could accuse them of impersonating a Police Officer when they ALWAYS introduce themselves "Hello, we are High Court Enforcement Officers!"

It's the clothing they wear, they look like coppers.

[lookinforinfo]

"They ALWAYS introduce themselves as High Court Enforcement Officers". REALLY? ALWAYS?

I don't watch many of these programmes as I think it is a disgrace to name debtors in these circumstances-it is a breach of the Data Protection Act and their Human Rights.

That being said I saw one episode where they walked into Swindon football Club and the only introduction was "we want to speak to your Accounts Department." No mention who they were at all.

[MyronAub]

It's the clothing they wear, they look like coppers.

 

Do coppers wear jackets that have "HIGH COURT ENFORCEMENT" in huge white letters on their backs?

 

"They ALWAYS introduce themselves as High Court Enforcement Officers". REALLY? ALWAYS?

 

Every one I've ever seen, yes, when they actually meet the debtor they always introduce themselves as such. I can imagine there are times when they may be discreet with non-management staff and I guess there may be some editing of the show such that the initial introduction is not always shown.

 

I do get that bailiffs are not the most popular people in the world but the "impersonating a police officer" is a total non-starter in my opinion and more likely to get the accuser in trouble than the accused. From what I've seen on the show the HCEO is a necessary evil and the vast majority of cases are of people who "won't pay" rather than "can't pay" and the real victim is the hapless claimant who has been out of pocket to the tune of several thousand pounds for months and months.

[lookinforinfo]

A couple of points MyronAub.

Whatever is written on the back of their jackets cannot be seen when the EAS arrive and it is the initial meeting that gives the impression that they are Police rather than Bailiffs.

 

You cannot have it all ways. Either they always say it or they don't. You cannot then turn round and say " I guess there may be some editing of the show such that the initial introduction is not always shown."

And were they just to introduce themselves as HCEOS to the debtor [or alleged debtor since sometimes they have the wrong person and at other times the debt has been paid] that would be fine. However they often blurt out who they are when they have no idea who they are talking to. From a Data Protection point of view surely it would be more correct to ask for the individual or individuals by name?

 

While I have no friends who are EAS, I do understand that they have a job to do. But I do object to the ones who break the Law to get results .

 

I would also query your statement that the vast majority are won't pays. Certainly not those about to be evicted. As I said in a previous post I don't watch the series very often but I cannot recall an eviction that has not gone ahead because the tenant has come up with the rent. And with other debtors many of them have to borrow from their parents etc to pay the debt so one assumes they are can't pays too. Which rather questions your statement that the vast majority are won't pays. I do agree that there are some won't pays on the programmes but they are more likely to be traders rather than private individuals.

It always seems a strange way of doing things that a person who cannot repay the original debt is saddled with another pile of fees and costs to add to their misery. I do hope that Ch5 paid all those people who made the "entertainment" possible.

[MyronAub]

You cannot have it all ways. Either they always say it or they don't.

 

As I said, in every show I have watched they ALWAYS clearly identify themselves as HCEOs. My guess was based on the episode you quoted which I haven't seen. I completely disagree with your conclusion regarding editing; each episode is only 60 minutes long yet they cover at least 2 or 3 debtors, each visit being normally at least an hour long, so there is obviously a huge amount of editing before we see the finished show.

 

From a Data Protection point of view surely it would be more correct to ask for the individual or individuals by name?

 

Agreed for a personal debt and again they always do ask for the individual by name in the shows I've watched. Looking at the HCEO Code of Practice it says "so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to anyone other than the debtor" which suggests they did exactly the right thing in the football club example you mentioned.

 

Which rather questions your statement that the vast majority are won't pays. I do agree that there are some won't pays on the programmes but they are more likely to be traders rather than private individuals.

It always seems a strange way of doing things that a person who cannot repay the original debt is saddled with another pile of fees and costs to add to their misery.

 

In the case of evictions I'd alter my statement to "won't leave" rather than "can't leave", very often as a result of the outrageous Council tactic of "Gatekeeping." I stand by my assertion that the vast majority (on the show) are due to people either burying their head in the sand hoping the debt will go away or chancers who just think they shouldn't have to pay what they owe.

 

I think that what you are also forgetting is that when a debt gets as far as a HCEO then for many creditors this is a last resort and last chance for them to get what they are owed. To get to that stage they've normally gone through a number of hoops, been out of pocket regarding the original debt for 6 months or more and had to pay out even more money to try to get their monies back. You need to remember who the real aggrieved party is here!

 

There will always be exceptions but in the majority of cases where it is won't pay rather than can't pay what would your suggestion be other than to hurt them even more in the pocket? Prison for ignoring the original court order? Community service? Write out 100 times "I must pay my debts?" If there is no further financial penalty then who is going to pay to enforce the court's order? Or should people in debt be allowed to ignore a court's ruling?

[lookinforinfo]

I did say that it was people who could not afford the original debt I was talking about. I have no sympathy for those who do not pay because they don't want to.

Most people do not enter into agreements especially long term ones with the intention of not paying. So when they stop, it is usually because something has happened to their finances or health or both. So rather than sending round bailiffs at a drop of a hat -are you listening Councils, or charging way over the odds to send a letter -are you listening Banks, try a different approach if letters are not being answered. All Councils have social workers for instance who could call and find out how the Council could help rather than sending in bailiffs as their first response. I have chosen Councils principally because they keep increasing CT every year without any care for how the residents can afford to pay.

 

I still maintain that the majority of people are can't pays rather than won't pays. With regard to tenants, once they can no longer afford to pay their rent they are stuck there since they need a

high deposit to move into another flat. I have no idea what the solution for that is as there are far too many people chasing a Council flat as it is. But it is a sad reflection of our Country these days. As is filming people who are on the bread line and making their plight even worse for the enjoyment of others with no attempt to understand matters from the debtors angle.

[Guest Dave Evan]

"The real issue was that neither Bohill or Pinner knew the law"

 

It was mentioned in one of the episodes that Paul Bohill was a former Police Detective, if true then he certainly knows more about the law than anyone here.

 

 

He first started his career in the West Midlands Police where he tried his hand at a number of different departments before becoming a fast response driver and co-founder member of the police underwater search unit.

[ploddertom]

 

"The real issue was that neither Bohill or Pinner knew the law"

 

It was mentioned in one of the episodes that Paul Bohill was a former Police Detective, if true then he certainly knows more about the law than anyone here.

 

 

He first started his career in the West Midlands Police where he tried his hand at a number of different departments before becoming a fast response driver and co-founder member of the police underwater search unit.

 

 

He certainly knows very little about the Laws of Enforcement choosing to bamboozle people by hiding behind the Writ.

[brassnecked]

He certainly knows very little about the Laws of Enforcement choosing to bamboozle people by hiding behind the Writ.

Exactly PT, in fact coppers are very much in the dark and naive about the laws around enforcement ands will back the bailiff by instinct and default even where the bailiff is breaking the law and trying it on, so clueless is the copper usually.

[Guest Dave Evan]

Exactly PT, in fact coppers are very much in the dark and naive about the laws around enforcement ands will back the bailiff by instinct and default even where the bailiff is breaking the law and trying it on, so clueless is the copper usually.

 

 

Oh for gods sake - the guy knows the law inside out and isn't going to risk losing his licence by assaulting someone. The past debtors (who clearly lost in Court) on here, do realise that these reality shows are staged right lol. Lets take a close look at that:

 

 

shows like Storage Hunters, The Sheriffs are Coming, Pawn Stars etc are all staged for TV ratings, infact its laughable some of the fight situations that went on - its all fake guys.

 

 

There was an episode on Cant Pay, Well take it Away - that highlights this fakeness for sure, it was the one where the Son and Irish father - the Son owed money for a Car accident or something and some conflict went on. The Son says "You need to leave or I wont be responsible for what he's going to do" - "I cant stop him" etc etc lol - never laughed so much at such ridiculous threats.

 

 

Now, if someone was seriously hurt by various strikes (punches), then no way would those scenes been aired, no way. Its just TV ratings, and many got taken in by it all, so if it wasn't true, then why wasn't the Police called earlier? Why the long wait until it kicked off? See the Enforcement agents and especially Delroy Anglin (a former Police Officer) know how to judge a conflict situation and see if its about to escalate, so knowing this Police would be on scene straight off and not 10 minutes after someone has been badly hurt. See fake conflict....