Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

The Enforcers Tv show


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3174 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

This weeks show included several evictions and a Taser deployment, eviction involving pregnant lady. The Tasering situation was not helped by the HCEO standing there smirking either. Thanks to new rules involving the eviction of disabled people has started to come in to play.

 

 

The scary thing is as was stated 350 evictions almost daily or was it weekly? If you see how this is going in the press now it looks like things are going to get worse for some time to come.... Your thoughts please!! This is only a two part mini series BTW...

 

 

Also you get to see a live arrest for obstructing a HCEO as well see here at the 20 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6O-2nnOy2k

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the second parts this evening but watching the clip you linked I have two questions, in the voice over the guy states

the following:

 

1) they have more authority than bailiffs....

I thought bailiffs no longer existed and are now Enforcement Agents, this being the case then they should do their research better.

 

2) The voice over also states they possess more power than the police../..

Is this correct

 

Small points but just want clarification.

 

Regards to all

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the appropriate forum.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what they see themselves as yes they are now Enforcement Agents (EA) A bailiff is still a term we all know so it will take time to get used to this.

 

 

Note to andyorch this would have been the right place for you but the content of this particular show has some very interesting points to discuss, and the points needed for discussion hopefully will still be picked up by regular posters in the original location. Due to the show giving wrong information through out.... The show the Enforcers is a continuation of a series of shows still listed in the bailiff section of CAG this follows on from parking mad and the other HCEO shows too, which are still in the main area of the threads.....

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is the place for TV program listings related to consumer problems...The Bailiff forum is for genuine assistance and advice to posters in need of advice....not discussions on TV programs.

Your free to discuss here with your fellow compadres :wink:

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for letting me know this section was here I had no idea this was even here, so tomorrow I will spend more time looking at our great site and see just how many topics are covered on here....

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for letting me know this section was here I had no idea this was even here, so tomorrow I will spend more time looking at our great site and see just how many topics are covered on here....

 

Absolutely....there is a lot more to CAG than being stuck in the Bailiff Forum...move around and assist posters:wink:

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the second parts this evening but watching the clip you linked I have two questions, in the voice over the guy states

the following:

 

1) they have more authority than bailiffs....

I thought bailiffs no longer existed and are now Enforcement Agents, this being the case then they should do their research better.

 

2) The voice over also states they possess more power than the police../..

Is this correct

 

Small points but just want clarification.

 

Regards to all

 

Yes I heard that and thought it was misleading. HCEOs operate using the same procedure as any other enforcment officer (schedule 12 of the tribunals courts and enforcment act).There are differences within that act in that they have an extra stage on the fees regulations which is chargeable at an increased rate. HCEOs can also charge VAT despite what you may hear elshere. They do not have any power to use force against the person, if the debtor resists the enforcment however they can inform the police who should attend and may arrest for obstructing the EA in the execution of the writ under section 68 of the act.

 

They also can force entry into business premises under the act, it was hinted at that they could also do this in domestic premises, they cannot, in that respect they have exactly the same powers as any other bailiff, and less than a bailiff enforcing a magistrates court fine.

 

HCEOs enforcing civil debts do not have the power of arrest and if any criminal charges are to be made they have to involve the police.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you will find the filming for this was done more than a year ago, possibly about the time the new rules came in.

 

Ahh possibly.

 

I was rather uncomfortable to see that people were being "moved on" particularly from unused council property, when really the ground or premises were not being used for anything else, and in the case of the travelers where the places seem to be in the middle of nowhere and they did not seem to be doing any harm to anyone.

 

I know that it is not a simple matter and there are the rights of the people who own the property to take into consideration, it just seems unjust that in this day and age people are turfed out into the street and not given any option but to sleep in doorways, when the property just sits there doing nothing.

 

I found it interesting when the HCEO said that he tries not to think about what he is doing because if he did he wouldn't be able to sleep at night. It is a social problem which IMHO seems to have been ignored by successive governments over many years.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

not same programme but has anyone watched, " Can't pay, take it away ? "

R.I.P my beautiful grey ghost, gone but never forgotten, taken so suddenly, 04/07/2004 ~ ~ 02/03/2017

Gone but never forgotten,Little Miss Sunshine, Alisha Marie. 15/12/2005 ~ ~ 13/02/2006

Our  beloved Dalmatian Jazz,  gone to join Wal at Rainbow Bridge, hope you are now pain free .  20/9/2005 ~ ~ 24/3/2019

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recognised the face of one of the hceo last night

Had a visit from him in the past 12 months

 

Nothing like what the tv shows he went away failed to collect and heard no more

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

90% of our cases are like that. If you refuse to pay and have no assets, then we are powerless.

I think that the realities are usually very different to what is depicted on these shows, many bailiffs and HCEO, or more correctly EA's are quite compassionate within the limitations of their roles when dealing with a delicate or situation of vulnerability.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality for a bailiff is different, I know because I have a close friend who is a bailiff. He goes out collecting council tax debt and other debts and sometimes ends up working from 7am in the morning to 8pm at night and not ending up getting a single collection - mostly because the paperwork given to him hasn't been completed properly by people further along the chain, or that the people he is looking for have moved on ages ago and again details aren't updated.

 

He's also contacted social services on several occasions where people are clearly vulnerable and haven't had support which they badly need, been verbally and physically abused and had threats made against his family.

 

There are probably more good bailiffs around than bad ones, yet it is the bad ones who end up on tv shows and in the press.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think shows like this mostly show 'the good ones', they certainly would show someone acted totally unlawfully and its likely that an EO wouldn't act unlawfully if he knew he was being filmed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think shows like this mostly show 'the good ones', they certainly would show someone acted totally unlawfully and its likely that an EO wouldn't act unlawfully if he knew he was being filmed.

 

If that is the case then I had better refrain from posting about this lot.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is the case then I had better refrain from posting about this lot.

There are bad apples in every barrel.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

What annoys me with these shows, apart from Evictions, is they cherry pick the cases, so rather than seeing them looting the household contents of a single parent not long made redundant on behalf of X County Council or a CCJ shifted up to High Court on behalf of Natwest or NPower over a debt that probably has lots of charges for example, it is always poor ordinary everyday people they are enforcing for, people who won employment tribunals, and so on.

 

Seeing terrified and sobbing kids watching as their games console is taken away because 1 adult game was amongst their games, on behalf of a nationally known banking corporation that helped cause the economic crisis simply doesn't fit the narrative these shows want to show.

 

Equally they will show people who have tried to "levy proof" their assets but have messed up and get caught out, but they don't show the people who understand the law and know exactly how to keep the EA away from their stuff.

 

In that episode of Can't Pay with the Cab Driver who was wrongfully named on a writ, and his cab seized, though Bohill and Pinner in fairness to them, did nothing wrong themselves, it felt like a very grudging bit of info at the end given to point out that the Claimant later had to pay the cab driver a small fortune for lost work etc. I don't think they gave a figure, but given how much Cabbies claim via "no win no fee" companies when someone is unfortuanate enough to hit them, I imagine the Claimant will be bloody careful next time he files for legal action!

 

Was I the only one who got the feeling that the Claimant very probably did it on purpose, thinking he would get away with it - I got the impression that the Brother was probably very unlikely to pay, or even have assets, and given the cabbie and his brother were Asian, they aren't going to be easy names to mix up - not like being after Jon Smith, and accidently putting his brother Jay Smith for example - the Claimant knew the innocent Brother was a Cabbie and thus would in theory have done anything to keep his cab, a very expensive bit of theory for the Claimant! :violin:

 

This Sue lass in the Enforcers, I wonder if she is intelligent enough to be in such a demanding role - "We have more right of entry than Police" err no. The Police have a right of entry via a Court Issued Warrant, an EA and a HCEO have a right of entry via a Court Issued Warrant, I would assume a HC Writ is another name for warrant, so no, she doesnt have more rights of entry, she needs a Warrant/Writ same as they do. And the Police can enter a property without Warrant if they believe a wanted suspect is inside, or a crime is taking place. Oh, and of course, for suspicion of Drugs Dealing "out of hours" a Duty Inspector can authorise Officers to force entry into the home of an arrested suspect to perform a drugs search. An EA/HCEO can't get authorisation from their duty manager to do same, so not actually as many powers at all!

 

But again, its the narrative of these shows on behalf of the Tories, I suspect, they want people to fear EA/HCEO's, to believe they have greater powers than they do.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
What annoys me with these shows, apart from Evictions, is they cherry pick the cases, so rather than seeing them looting the household contents of a single parent not long made redundant on behalf of X County Council or a CCJ shifted up to High Court on behalf of Natwest or NPower over a debt that probably has lots of charges for example, it is always poor ordinary everyday people they are enforcing for, people who won employment tribunals, and so on.

 

Seeing terrified and sobbing kids watching as their games console is taken away because 1 adult game was amongst their games, on behalf of a nationally known banking corporation that helped cause the economic crisis simply doesn't fit the narrative these shows want to show.

 

Equally they will show people who have tried to "levy proof" their assets but have messed up and get caught out, but they don't show the people who understand the law and know exactly how to keep the EA away from their stuff.

 

In that episode of Can't Pay with the Cab Driver who was wrongfully named on a writ, and his cab seized, though Bohill and Pinner in fairness to them, did nothing wrong themselves, it felt like a very grudging bit of info at the end given to point out that the Claimant later had to pay the cab driver a small fortune for lost work etc. I don't think they gave a figure, but given how much Cabbies claim via "no win no fee" companies when someone is unfortuanate enough to hit them, I imagine the Claimant will be bloody careful next time he files for legal action!

 

Was I the only one who got the feeling that the Claimant very probably did it on purpose, thinking he would get away with it - I got the impression that the Brother was probably very unlikely to pay, or even have assets, and given the cabbie and his brother were Asian, they aren't going to be easy names to mix up - not like being after Jon Smith, and accidently putting his brother Jay Smith for example - the Claimant knew the innocent Brother was a Cabbie and thus would in theory have done anything to keep his cab, a very expensive bit of theory for the Claimant! :violin:

 

This Sue lass in the Enforcers, I wonder if she is intelligent enough to be in such a demanding role - "We have more right of entry than Police" err no. The Police have a right of entry via a Court Issued Warrant, an EA and a HCEO have a right of entry via a Court Issued Warrant, I would assume a HC Writ is another name for warrant, so no, she doesnt have more rights of entry, she needs a Warrant/Writ same as they do. And the Police can enter a property without Warrant if they believe a wanted suspect is inside, or a crime is taking place. Oh, and of course, for suspicion of Drugs Dealing "out of hours" a Duty Inspector can authorise Officers to force entry into the home of an arrested suspect to perform a drugs search. An EA/HCEO can't get authorisation from their duty manager to do same, so not actually as many powers at all!

 

But again, its the narrative of these shows on behalf of the Tories, I suspect, they want people to fear EA/HCEO's, to believe they have greater powers than they do.

 

Yes i hate this show, now of course HCOs have exactly the same powers that any other bailiff has, except they can force entry to commercial premises, all bailiffs are constricted by the TCE no matter what they are enforcing.

 

What really makes me want to throw up are the crocodile tears they shed on throwing mother and children out on the street, if they feel so bad then they should get another job.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i hate this show, now of course HCOs have exactly the same powers that any other bailiff has, except they can force entry to commercial premises, all bailiffs are constricted by the TCE no matter what they are enforcing.

 

What really makes me want to throw up are the crocodile tears they shed on throwing mother and children out on the street, if they feel so bad then they should get another job.

One day they will get a comeuppance.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...