In the main though, Bohill conducts himself very well, especially in the eviction side of the business but even that is now being questioned as the writs of possession may have been gained without the proper leave of the court making every eviction unlawful (not Bohill's fault but the company he works for). A separate can of worms altogether and one where TV fame certainly can have it's pitfalls

I did post about this a few months ago on a different thread I wonder what will happens with these cases?

Nothing will happen unless those evicted realise they may have been evicted unlawfully and complain.

I'll second (or third) that! Thank you HCEO's. I believe you're right that HCEO's fair better than your 'normal bailiff' for want of better words. There will always be good and bad in any job, profession, call it what you will. Bohill used to be a police officer I believe, so it is unsurprising he uses skills learnt there in his work. I've noticed how good he appears after any editing at turning a hostile situation round to a positive one, especially with evictions. The unlawful entrance which is the subject of this thread is unfortunate, but clearly evidenced. If other footage shows similar misconduct there may be problems. As in any walk of life, one is accountable for one's actions.

If Bohill was a police officer, he should know better than to unlawfully evict someone and dress in a manner that gives the impression he is a police officer or could be construed as being a police officer.

It is my understanding that landlords cannot go directly to the High Court for a Writ of Possession other than in the case of occupants not known to the landlord. If the occupants are known to the landlord, then they must obtain the necessary Orders from the County Court and have the matter transferred up to the High Court. If I am incorrect, then I am certain HCEOs will be among the first to correct me.

If Bohill was a police officer, he should know better than to unlawfully evict someone and dress in a manner that gives the impression he is a police officer or could be construed as being a police officer.

 

It is my understanding that landlords cannot go directly to the High Court for a Writ of Possession other than in the case of occupants not known to the landlord. If the occupants are known to the landlord, then they must obtain the necessary Orders from the County Court and have the matter transferred up to the High Court. If I am incorrect, then I am certain HCEOs will be among the first to correct me.

I had pointed that issue in a thread a while go about the need to have the permission of the Court to move it up

Surely the EA needs to find a different style of uniform? certain people cannot distinguish the difference between them an the real cops. The partially sighted for one or those that are unable to know the difference, the sameness between the uniforms are designed for one purpose only and that is to misrepresent yourself end of, why do they want to do that then? The only reason is to fool the public imho

If Bohill was a police officer, he should know better than to unlawfully evict someone and dress in a manner that gives the impression he is a police officer or could be construed as being a police officer.

 

It is my understanding that landlords cannot go directly to the High Court for a Writ of Possession other than in the case of occupants not known to the landlord. If the occupants are known to the landlord, then they must obtain the necessary Orders from the County Court and have the matter transferred up to the High Court. If I am incorrect, then I am certain HCEOs will be among the first to correct me.

Yes old bill you need the permission to do this otherwise the eviction becomes illegal and the person losing their home can then seek redress for those concerned.

see Here

oldbill is correct that HCEOs can usually only enforce against 'trespassers' (usually squatters) and this is clearly detailed on the form N293A which is used to obtain a High Court writ of possession.

However, due to cuts in court staff and the severe delays for evictions of tenants to be carried out, many landlords have been applying to transfer their County Court order for possession to the High Court for enforcement. This is done under S42 of the County Court Act 1984 and the only reason it is granted is if it can be proved that the County Court delays are unreasonable causing the landlord significant losses. The issue has been some new small HCEO franchises skipping this part making every eviction illegal.

The issue is highlighted here: Beware of HCEOs offering 7 day evictions

 

 

However, due to cuts in court staff and the severe delays for evictions of tenants to be carried out, many landlords have been applying to transfer their County Court order for possession to the High Court for enforcement. This is done under S42 of the County Court Act 1984 and the only reason it is granted is if it can be proved that the County Court delays are unreasonable causing the landlord significant losses. The issue has been some new small HCEO franchises skipping this part making every eviction illegal.

I am glad to see that you have brought this subject up I intend to write to ML on this matter after seeing a couple of these programmes over the Christmas break.

I was horrified to see this happening. In one case the debtor had a copy of the letter from the County Court confirming the date on which his application to suspend the eviction was to be heard and was completely in the dark about the way in which a landlord can bypass the County Court and go straight to the High Court.

I'd say that is another thread Bailiff Advice. I would imagine that the Writ used in MWs matter was indeed legal but until he has a copy of it we will have to wait and see.

Interesting media story about the TV series on SCOOP today:

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/opinion/denise-robertson-cant-pay-well-8383162

Is this not misleading "I accept that landlords need redress if they don’t get paid but, until I watched ‘Can’t Pay’, I didn’t know a woman with two children, who, until she was made redundant, had always paid her rent, could be put on the pavement, together with the contents of her home, at an hour’s notice."

She would of had notice from the courts with a date and a whole process will have had to have been followed. Saying no notice is misleading.

However, the issue is that an HCEO does not need to give notice of the actual eviction date whereas the County Court Bailiff always will. Therefore, it is likely that the person mentioned did not have notice of the actual eviction date, even though she would have known that an order for possession had been granted which is when she should have left.

The issue is often exacerbated further by the Council continually advising tenants to stay in property until the bailiffs arrive. Then when the HCEOs arrive without notice it is the Council that have to re-house the tenants at short urgent notice. They are a victim of their own poor initial advice.

In any event, it is likely that the eviction was unlawful as the required legal transfer to the High Court was often skipped by the companies featured on this show. There's a lot of flack to come it would seem which could be damaging to the enforcement industry again.

Would the onscreen evidence be prima facie proof that the eviction was ab initio unlawful, if the companies indeed had not followed correct procedure, or will MOJ sweep it under the carpet on floodgates grounds, and not in the public interest to undermine the Enforcement industry?

Indeed could the programme material be used in a court against the EA companies involved.

I fear as HCEOs does that this will cause some issues very soon.

I've tried to split the previous thread and move those posts where "dubious" Eviction processes are being mentioned. If I've missed any let me know.

Would the onscreen evidence be prima facie proof that the eviction was ab initio unlawful, if the companies indeed had not followed correct procedure, or will MOJ sweep it under the carpet on floodgates grounds, and not in the public interest to undermine the Enforcement industry? Indeed could the programme material be used in a court against the EA companies involved. I fear as HCEOs does that this will cause some issues very soon.

The evidence of the eviction is there to see on TV but there is no proof as to whether the Writ used was obtained lawfully. The truth will only out if a complaint is made to the powers that be and this would likely come from those evicted. The problem is, they probably aren't aware of any potential issue and therefore haven't enquired as to the lawfulness of the eviction. It may be that the ones on TV did have proper authority but it is quickly becoming clear that many carried out by the same firms have not.

The fact is that there is nothing wrong with an HCEO enforcing an order for possession if the correct process has been followed i.e. the transfer of enforcement from the CC to the HC.

The evidence of the eviction is there to see on TV but there is no proof as to whether the Writ used was obtained lawfully. The truth will only out if a complaint is made to the powers that be and this would likely come from those evicted. The problem is, they probably aren't aware of any potential issue and therefore haven't enquired as to the lawfulness of the eviction. It may be that the ones on TV did have proper authority but it is quickly becoming clear that many carried out by the same firms have not.

 

The fact is that there is nothing wrong with an HCEO enforcing an order for possession if the correct process has been followed i.e. the transfer of enforcement from the CC to the HC.

Agreed, it is where the companies have acted unlawfully where the problem lies.

I have been astonishes by 2 incidents in this show recently both iirc by the same guy.

The first, the hceo forced entry into a residential property for the enforcement of a civil debt I think a wages tribunal, the entry was made via the hceo charging down the debtor who was in the doorway forcing past him. Fortunately for the debtor It was not his home and that was provable. Surely an unlawful action and shown off before the cameras bold as brass knowing the courts are unlikely to punish them. Or is forced entry into a residential property allowed for a wages tribunal judgement against a company?

The second the hceos forced entry into a luxury flat and found a box full of dollar bills. Whhen A tenant arrived our friendly ex copper who surely should thus know the law refused to allow the tenNt to go, stole his phone and acted generally menacing.

Funnily enough the police took no further action probably due to the hceos contaminating the crime scene and evidence not to mention how the tenant came to be in police hands.

What is amazing is the hceos were not arrested as they very clearly did not have the protections provided by Any Persons Arrest!!!

They had not witnessed a crime being committed The legislation is clear that you may not perform a citizen arrest purely on suspicion only a serving constable or a PCSO can do that, apa only applies to the witness of an actual crime happening before them.

Even PCSO's who have slightly more power's than apa can only hold suspect for thirty mins and if a real policemN has not turned up by then they must let go the suspect.

The tenant was held by the hceos for something like one hour.

Its the met so arresting their Pals from the high court is unlikely but I should think the tenant has just cause to sue esp as never charges etc

As they were there as commercial employees and had no legal powers to hold the guy doesn't that call into question health and safety, did they risk assess holding a prisoner to safeguard him whilst under their unlawful control? Were they acting under training and guidelines from their employer and the ministry. Of justice? Had he or indeed they been covered by their employers public and staff liability insurance?

Caled those two EAs should have been arrested and banged up, probably Common Purpose at work,? As to Bohill the Barger he must think that the section allowing force against a debtor in the TCGA has not been taken out and he is free to assault a debtor with impunity.

Slightly 'off topic' I know but yesterday I spoke with a debtor whose vehicle was clamped by one of the companies that featured in this series and I have serious doubts at the training provided to these officers. The debt is a simple CCJ for around £3,000. The officer immobilised the debtors car at his home and left a sticker on the car but did not knock at the door and the statutory Notice of Immobilisation was not left with the debtor (this was the same situation that I encountered with three different debtors yesterday).

The Enforcement Agent spoke with the debtor and was told that the vehicle (which is two years old) is on Hire Purchase. The officer confirmed that he was already aware of this from an HPI check (he had seen the vehicle at the Stage 1 visit a week earlier). The officer stated that despite knowing that he could not take the vehicle he could still 'secure' it for as long as he wishes (wrong). Of serious concern was that the officer was insistent that the 'Sale Fee' of £525 is now due as well (wrong).

The 'Sale Stage' fee is to cover all the 'preparations' for the sale (and removal) of the car and given that he knows that he cannot take the car it is clear beyond any doubt that this fee cannot and must not be charged !!!

Looks like they are trying to lie and cheat under the new Regs as they did under the old ones.

What is of concern is that he clamped and stickered but didn't knock or leave the correct notification. He also clamped the vehicle in full knowledge that it was on HP so all his fees for clamping and sales fees applied are unlawful.

What would MOJ make of this one?

Looks like they are trying to lie and cheat under the new Regs as they did under the old ones.

 

What is of concern is that he clamped and stickered but didn't knock or leave the correct notification. He also clamped the vehicle in full knowledge that it was on HP so all his fees for clamping and sales fees applied are unlawful.

 

What would MOJ make of this one?

If no complaint made then MOJ would not be aware. After all in the majority of cases very few are evr questioned - surely a person turning up in a quasi policeuniform driving a quasi police van would certainly know & charge correctly.

It would make sense for CAG to make sticky on the Repossession section of the site regarding checking that if you are evicted by an HCEO that the correct procedure has been followed transferring the matter to the HC via s42. I'm sure Bailiff Advice / ploddertom can put something together.

It would make sense for CAG to make sticky on the Repossession section of the site regarding checking that if you are evicted by an HCEO that the correct procedure has been followed transferring the matter to the HC via s42. I'm sure Bailiff Advice / ploddertom can put something together.

Good idea HCEOs