Hello my name is Matthew Wright - in Slough and I was featured on this programme

On the 3rd of June there was a loud banging on the front door

and upon opening it I was confronted by what appeared to be a police officer

but who I later discovered to be Paul Bohill with a Channel 5 Film Crew.

Paul Bohill told me he had a warrant from the High Court to enter the home

and collect items to settle for an on going claim made against me by a former contractor to my small business.

Paul Bohil then put his foot in the door and using his body weight pushing his way into the house against my will,

even after I asked him to remove his foot.

He then tried to goad me on by saying "hit me go on hit me", which was a very tempting proposition at the time.

I was not given the opportunity to check the so called "High Court Warrant "or validate his identity before he used force to enter the property.

Dressing as a Police Officer is false impersonation and misrepresentation of powers.

I also noticed in the programme that he went on to say "Mr Wright owes this money" like he is the judge and jury,

but Paul Bohill knows nothing of the facts of the case and is simply deluded from TV publicity.

A complaint is going to be made to the HCEOA and made public so your advice would be appreciated.

Hi Matthew welcome to the Forum.

I didn't see the program that you were unfortunately involved in but am appalled [but not surprised] at your story. So many things were wrong that happened to you on that day and am pleased to see that you are now taking steps to redress the situation.

It would help to know what the debt was for-a Motoring offence, a business debt etc for example and whether you knew that bailiffs had been called in to collect

money from you. It is possible that you were overcharged by the HCEO since the ones who usually play fast and loose with the Law in one respect tend to do the

same with other areas of their job. If there has been overcharging it is possible to reclaim it.

Have you done anything about it so far or are you just starting to gain information about what happened on that day?

Have you asked Channel 4 for a copy of your tape as there will be a lot of things that may have been missed during the program that could help your claim.

If i remember rightly, he was the one that didn't pay the wages of someone that worked for him, he didn't come across as a very nice person

No good him complaining about Bohill to the HCEOA as he is not an authorised HCEO but he acts on behalf of Simon Williamson who is - and remains responsible for the actions of his Agents. Any complaint against Bohill would have to be made to the Court that granted is Certificate but rather than submit an EAC2 which could expose him to costs then a letter that may lie on his file would be better.

Matthew,

Which episode were you featured in?

As they have a warrant of entry, the foot in the door is allowed as trying to push them out and close the door is an obstruction of a lawful officer with a warrant. He was legally allowed to break the door down.

They wear the body armour as there are some rather unpleasant people out there and it is for their protection as are the body cameras. The tapes are edited so the full episode will be on record as well as what was shown on TV.

Personally I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

All episodes are available to watch - http://www.channel5.com/shows/cant-pay-well-take-it-away/episodes?season=17420

Firstly, I wonder if this should be a new post in its own right.

Secondly, Coniff you are completely wrong!

I have seen this episode and it is episode 1 of series 2 and the part referred to can be seen in the link below at 31 minutes - Illegal forced entry at 31 mins

If you haven't seen it you really should.

Bohill did not have a 'warrant' and it is widely believed that he uses this phrase, along with his Police uniform to misrepresent his powers to gain entry to property. However, he didn't need that on this occasion as he put his boot in the door and then illegally forced Mr Wright in against the wall. All of which is completely illegal and there for everybody to see on TV.

MW, have you asked for a breakdown of the fees you were charged?

I absolutely agree Colin and it is my fault for not telling the viewers that in fact The Claimant had already appealed through the contracting company we both used but lost and then decided to file papers through the courts based on a fictitious amount on money.

Of course I sent a response to the court (IE copies of the invoices from the claimant) but the court refused to hear my appeal in my absence as requested on my reply saying "It would be inappropriate"

The fact of the matter is the court is 400 miles away from my base and I just assumed it was clear cut.

Since then the claimant has issued final demands court baliffs and then most recently Mr Bohil (IE she has made a meal out of it)

Hi,I did check the Baliff charges and they appear to be the maxim amount they can charge.

I am applying once again to get the SD set aside.

No I have not asked for a breakdown of the fees,what will this achieve as I looked into this before and they could charge up to the amount that was on there (Please PM me about this) Tx

If you detail the charges made you will be advised on whether they are legal or not.

Judgement £1717

Execution £111.75

Sheriff Fee £410.93

VAT £82.10

Total £2322.62

Its not clear what you are actually disputing ?

You've listed the fees and they appeared to be allowable.

The bailiffs are not pretending to be policemen, yes there are similarities but this applies to all sorts of uniforms and cars/vans with luminous chevrons, etc (If they genuinely were pretending to be the police you would have a strong criminal and possible civil case).

As Conniff has pointed out he was using legal powers to gain entry.

You say "I also noticed in the programme that he went on to say "Mr Wright owes this money" like he is the judge and jury,

but Paul Bohill knows nothing of the facts of the case and is simply deluded from TV publicity. " but you have to remember that at this stage, the case has been to court and judgement has been given, a bailiff doesn't need to be a judge and jury because that part has already been done.

andydd, you and Coniff are both completely wrong!

He DID NOT have a warrant to enter. He put his boot in the door and then forced his way in. Completely illegal.

If MW has cause for complaint he should make a complaint to the court that certificated Mr Bohill, to the company he works for and to the HCEOA. MW may have to ask Bohill/his company which court certificated him.

On the face of it the fees look reasonable but a further breakdown would at least details what exactly has been charged and this should be requested by MW.

HCEO's is spot on....Mr Bohill did not have a warrant, he had a writ of Fi'Fa. A writ is an order from the Lord Chancellor to seize the debtors goods for sale at public auction in order to satisfy the amount owed to a creditor but, it does not automatically authorise the HCEO to force his way into a domestic dwelling to seize the said goods.

'peaceful' means of entry are still required.

Absolutely as per HCEOs and WD, a writ of fi-fa does not carry a right of forced entry.

How do you know he didn't have a warrant ?

All the ones I've seen he had a warrant.

Writs of Fi Fa are not classed as warrants,

they are an order from the high court commanding the appointed HCEO to sieze goods to the value of the debt.

Writs can (and frequently are) challenged in the high court eg. stay of execution,

a warrant cannot be challenged in the same way.

Mr Bohill used the phrase 'warrant' a number of times,

he was wrong to do so as there is a vast difference between a warrant and a writ.

A quick google shows that as of April 2014, writ of Fi Fa was disbanded and turned into writs of control.

The only issue as far as I can see is that an enforcement officer doesn't have a right to force entry although this may be hard to prove if you have already opened the door to him, they are also allowed to "Enforcement Agents can enter where a door is open, opening further to aid entry if required. "

How do you know he didn't have a warrant ?

 

 

All the ones I've seen he had a warrant.

So how do you know he didn't have a warrant ??????

That is correct, the writ of fi'fa is now referred to as a writ of control, not a 'warrant' as given by Mr Bohill. When attending to serve a writ should the EA try the door and find it unlocked or if it has been left ajar, he is entitled to enter/open it further to gain entry to the premises (peacefully) and seek out the debtor named on the writ, if however the door is opened to him by the debtor and he is not 'invited' to step over the threshold he cannot force his way in as Mr Bohill clearly did.

Warrants are not issued as part of civil recovery action, they are more commonly associated with criminal matters, repossession etc.

For Mr Bohill not to be able to differentiate between the two is imho a matter that needs to be looked at closely, of course attending a debtors home with the telling he has a 'warrant' will without doubt lead the debtor to associate the meaning to be the 'warrant' could carry an imminent arrest.

Warrants are not issued as part of civil recovery action, they are more commonly associated with criminal matters, repossession etc.

 

For Mr Bohill not to be able to differentiate between the two is imho a matter that needs to be looked at closely, of course attending a debtors home with the telling he has a 'warrant' will without doubt lead the debtor to associate the meaning to be the 'warrant' could carry an imminent arrest.

And prima facie evidence for all to see that Mr Bohill was ultra vires his powers. He has left himself wide open with no defence,

Warrants are not issued as part of civil recovery action, they are more commonly associated with criminal matters, repossession etc.

 

For Mr Bohill not to be able to differentiate between the two is imho a matter that needs to be looked at closely, of course attending a debtors home with the telling he has a 'warrant' will without doubt lead the debtor to associate the meaning to be the 'warrant' could carry an imminent arrest.

I know nothing about this so I am asking to learn. You say 'more commonly', does that mean that a warrant of entry 'could' be issued for a debt collection ?

I've heard him say on more than one occasion, "I have a warranty of entry", but that might well have been on the repossession visits, I can't remember ?

If what you say is correct, then it looks like the op has a good case.

Those working for High Court Enforcement Officers deal with Writs - used to be Writ of FiFa, now Writ of Control, Writ of Possession or delivery are the most common although there are others. What you have alluded to is that in this case it was being deemed to be a Court Fine - HCEO's do not deal with criminal matters only civil.

Warrants of Execution are still carried out by the County Court Bailiff and it was also similar that Bailiffs used to use for unpaid Parking Fines through the Traffic Enforcement Centre.