DCBL...Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away....High Court orders Channel 5 to pay costs of £20,000.

[Bailiff Advice]

This thread has been picked up today by SCOOP:

 

https://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

[silverfox1961]

I get the fortnightly email from OFCOM and nearly all of the complaints were not upheld however, the one posted above differed in that the cameras worn by DCBL were supplied by the program makers meaning that the footage shown was not the property of DCBL but of the program maker.

 

If OFCOM were to revisit the other cases which were not upheld and discover that the cameras did not belong to DCBL, I feel that the outcome would have been different.

 

If it could be proved that DCBL wore the cameras then I can see others suing Channel 5 as well. I think it would be quite easy to tell just by viewing the footage gained by the EAs on the show. Poor quality images are likely to be the BWV owned by DCBL and the better quality images by Channel 5.

[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.

[ericsbrother]

Also, only touched upon asre things like them making stateemnts about the person being on housing benefit. Who gives the film people this info, the council? the DWP? the person beig evicted? no. It is priviledged information so Mr Ali still has another bite at the cherry if he wishes

[HCEOs]

DCBL may have other problems anyway. I spoke to somebody last week that claims most of the High Court writs used to evict people in the first few years of the show were obtained incorrectly essentially making them invalid. If true, that could see some fairly hefty claims being made, although given the type of people evicted I personally doubt it. Interesting nonetheless.

[Peterbard]

DCBL may have other problems anyway. I spoke to somebody last week that claims most of the High Court writs used to evict people in the first few years of the show were obtained incorrectly essentially making them invalid. If true, that could see some fairly hefty claims being made, although given the type of people evicted I personally doubt it. Interesting nonetheless.

 

Do you think he may have been referring to the lease termination rather than the enforcement, if so I agree.

[HCEOs]

Do you think he may have been referring to the lease termination rather than the enforcement, if so I agree.

 

No, I talk of the actual procedure for obtaining a 'writ of possession' which for many years has been confusing to say the least (different courts wanting different things) and it was only recently that the process was officially detailed and clarified by the current Senior Master. However, prior to this different HCEO firms used different procedures and from what I understand the route DCBL took, approved by Claire Sandbrook, was not the right one.

 

There is also further argument the the solicitor that signed the form N293A or other (in these cases Sandbrook), is not technically the solicitor of the claimant albeit this is an argument that has run and run for many years. I personally think that the legal procedure is flawed and unnecessary but the rules state that the 'transfer up' forms (Praecipe) can only be signed by the claimant or the claimants solicitor.

[Peterbard]

No, I talk of the actual procedure for obtaining a 'writ of possession' which for many years has been confusing to say the least (different courts wanting different things) and it was only recently that the process was officially detailed and clarified by the current Senior Master. However, prior to this different HCEO firms used different procedures and from what I understand the route DCBL took, approved by Claire Sandbrook, was not the right one.

 

There is also further argument the the solicitor that signed the form N293A or other (in these cases Sandbrook), is not technically the solicitor of the claimant albeit this is an argument that has run and run for many years. I personally think that the legal procedure is flawed and unnecessary but the rules state that the 'transfer up' forms (Praecipe) can only be signed by the claimant or the claimants solicitor.

 

Interesting. A problem easily enough remedied i would have thought, a simple amendment to the request procedure?

Would a court consider this a serious enough flaw to render the writ invalid? It seems to me that the HCEO is acting on the wishes of the creditor in the same way as their solicitor would be.

[Peterbard]

Ah i see

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/applications-for-transfers-for-enforcement-of-possession-orders-to-the-high-court/

[HCEOs]

Would a court consider this a serious enough flaw to render the writ invalid?

 

I am aware of several writs being deemed invalid by a Master at the RCJ through not obtaining them correctly and know that considerable damages have been paid by a few firms over the years. Some have been a blatant abuse of process and others have been genuine mistakes due to what was an unclear process. i would add that the courts used to transfer up a judgment to a HC writ have been at fault also.

[Peterbard]

I am aware of several writs being deemed invalid by a Master at the RCJ through not obtaining them correctly and know that considerable damages have been paid by a few firms over the years. Some have been a blatant abuse of process and others have been genuine mistakes due to what was an unclear process. i would add that the courts used to transfer up a judgment to a HC writ have been at fault also.

 

I suppose this is off topic, but i find very interesting nevertheless. I will be getting chastised if i pick your brains further on here.

[brassnecked]

So the link says that the writs called on N293A are flawed as they can only apply to Trespassers? Perhaps Sandbrook & co regard the overstaying tenant as a trespasser so that procedure is correct in their mind. Mind you it's Wine 'O Clock so I might be completely wrong.

[DragonFly1967]

So the link says that the writs called on N293A are flawed as they can only apply to Trespassers? Perhaps Sandbrook & co regard the overstaying tenant as a trespasser so that procedure is correct in their mind. Mind you it's Wine 'O Clock so I might be completely wrong.

 

Surely they can't be a trespasser until after the eviction notice has been served on them and they have left the property? That's kind of what the Judge said in this judgement and I'd have to say that I think he's correct.

 

They might be a tenant in arrears and with an eviction hanging over them, but until the eviction is complete then they are still a tenant and therefore cannot be a trespasser.

 

116 & 117 in the Judgement.

[DragonFly1967]

One thing that I'm not very clear on however is exactly what's been awarded.

 

The thread title for this thread is... "High Court orders Channel 5 to pay costs of £20,000."

The Judgement says "an appropriate sum of damages is £10,000 for each Claimant", but doesn't mention costs.

 

Have the couple 'won' £10,000 each and Ch5 have to pay their costs on top of that? Did Hamblins take the case pro bono and there are no costs? Or have the couple got to pay Hamblins out of their damages?

[brassnecked]

One thing that I'm not very clear on however is exactly what's been awarded.

 

The thread title for this thread is... "High Court orders Channel 5 to pay costs of £20,000."

The Judgement says "an appropriate sum of damages is £10,000 for each Claimant", but doesn't mention costs.

 

Have the couple 'won' £10,000 each and Ch5 have to pay their costs on top of that? Did Hamblins take the case pro bono and there are no costs? Or have the couple got to pay Hamblins out of their damages?

Yes a very pertinant question DF.

[Bailiff Advice]

One thing that I'm not very clear on however is exactly what's been awarded.

 

The thread title for this thread is... "High Court orders Channel 5 to pay costs of £20,000."

The Judgement says "an appropriate sum of damages is £10,000 for each Claimant", but doesn't mention costs.

 

Have the couple 'won' £10,000 each and Ch5 have to pay their costs on top of that? Did Hamblins take the case pro bono and there are no costs? Or have the couple got to pay Hamblins out of their damages?

 

I will contact the lawyers for clarification and I may then ask the moderators to amend the title of the thread.

 

PS: Thank you for raising such a good question...and even now, I have not had a moment free to even read the judgment for myself !!!

[London1971]

I used to work for a supplier for Channel 5, we had to ditch em as they couldn't pass a £2k credit check! The irony

[fkofilee]

As said earlier, I hope the claimants dont get paid... Then they can escalate to the High Court

Then they can enlist the services of a wonderful firm of Bailiffs calls DCBL

 

Could you imagine the footage...

 

Cant Pay we take it away - Corporate Special...

45 Mins dedicated to the removal of goods from Channel 5 HQ...

[DragonFly1967]

They could probably sell tickets to that one and do it as a "live special"

[fkofilee]

I heard they were going dirtcheap on Ticketmaster...

Might flog some myself...

 

No ad breaks in this one either... Channel 5 arent getting paid for the footage lol

[Peterbard]

Has there been any mention of repercussions regarding the licences of Bohill and Sandbrook?

[brassnecked]

Has there been any mention of repercussions regarding the licences of Bohill and Sandbrook?

Don't think so, they appear untouchable. They should both have any licence revoked. Sandbrook as a US Resident cannot possibly exercise due diligence over UK Enforcement.

[Bailiff Advice]

Has there been any mention of repercussions regarding the licences of Bohill and Sandbrook?

 

I have received a lot of enquiries since I started this thread asking the same question. It is a slightly complicated subject but I will attempt to answer:

 

DCBL themselves are not members of the High Court Enforcement Officers Association. However, writs of control passed to that company are endorsed to Mrs Claire Sandbrook (Shergroup etc) who is herself, a High Court Enforcement Officer. As such, Ms Sandbrook has personal liability for how the writs under her control are enforced and she too is the officer responsible for the actions of Mr Bohill.

 

If any member of the public has cause to complain about a visit that they had from DCBL Ltd, then in the first instance, a complaint should be made to the company and if the debtor is not satisfied with the response, they can ask that the High Court Enforcement Officers Association investigate the matter. The complaint is made to them because the High Court Enforcement officer with responsibility for enforcing the writ (Ms Sandbrook) is a HCEOA member. Their details are here:

 

https://www.hceoa.org.uk

 

If consideration was to be taken for Ms Sandbrook's certificate to be revoked, it would have to be for the High Court Enforcement Officers Association to make an application to the High Court Master (Fontaine) and outline their reasons. Obviously the contents of this dreadful judgment would assist in such an application. The fact that she is apparently resident in Florida would also be grounds.

 

Coming as it does just 3 years after the complete overhaul of the enforcement industry, this judgment has almost certainly not helped the public opinion of this industry.

 

In the case of Mr Bohill, the judgement is extremely important and does not show him (or DCBL) in a good light at all. A complaint about him would not be made to the High Court....it would be an EAC2 complaint to the County Court.

[HCEOs]

Don't think so, they appear untouchable. They should both have any licence revoked. Sandbrook as a US Resident cannot possibly exercise due diligence over UK Enforcement.

 

It's my understanding that Sandbrook claims to remain a UK resident to the HCEOA for the purposes retaining her HCEO authorisation. I don't know if this is true and wonder if an FOI request may confirm this. I'm sure Master Fontaine would be less than impressed if it was proved that Sandbrook lived in the US.

 

Whether this would lead to any formal action is anybody's guess but as far as I can see some of the rogue HCEOs seem pretty untouchable, even by their own Association, who unfortunately are pretty toothless in such matters.

 

Section 2 of the below is certainly of interest to any complainant.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/400/regulation/12/made

 

Termination of authorisation or assignment

 

12.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may at any time terminate—

 

(a)the authorisation of an individual to act as an enforcement officer; or

(b)the assignment of an enforcement officer to any one or more of the districts to which he is assigned,

on any of the grounds in paragraph (2).

 

(2) The grounds are that—

 

(a)it would be in the public interest to do so;

(b)any of the—

(i)information provided in the application for authorisation; or

(ii)documentation supplied,under regulation 5 is found to be incomplete or untrue;

©the enforcement officer or any person acting on his behalf who assists with his work as an enforcement officer has behaved in a manner which the Lord Chancellor reasonably considers to be unprofessional or unacceptable; or

(d)the enforcement officer has failed to satisfy one or more of the conditions of regulation 8.

 

(3) Where practicable, the Lord Chancellor when considering whether to terminate the authorisation or assignment of an enforcement officer shall firstly notify the enforcement officer of the reasons and provide the enforcement officer with a reasonable opportunity to—

 

(a)make representations about the Lord Chancellor’s reasons for proposing to terminate his authorisation or assignment; and

(b)remedy the circumstances giving rise to the Lord Chancellor’s proposal to terminate his authorisation or assignment.

Edited March 7, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[ploddertom]

I've always thought a complaint to the LCD is the way to go. At the very least it is informing them of what is happening.

Edited March 7, 2018 by dx100uk
quote