Given the seriousness of this thread, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain on this section of the forum.

Sadly, this is not the first time that I have taken issue with documentation from DCBL. There is a long thread on here regarding this firm and their letters regarding private parking debts (more later). This firm are also behind the TV series....Can't Pay...We Will Take it Away.

Yesterday, I was contacted by a gentleman who had received a letter from DCBL the previous day. The letter was received by post and was on headed notepaper from DCBL and clearly stated at the top of the letter (beside the word DCBL) the words: Certificated Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Officers.

The letter referred to a 'debt' in excess of £10,000. Interest of 8% (since May 2016) had also been added.

The letter stated the following:

The person receiving the letter knew about the 'debt' and knew that it was heavily disputed. More importantly, he was adamant that court proceedings had not been undertaken against him and that a judgment had not been obtained. He intended writing to DCBL. Before being able to, he had a visit at his home from a High Court Enforcement Agent from DCBL.

It is fair and accurate to state that an argument broke out. The 'debtor' called the police. Astonishingly, the police refused to attend stating that they were satisfied that DCBL had authority to attend his premises to enforce the debt.

The High Court Enforcement Agent from DCBL refused to leave the premises unless he received payment. Under duress, the debtor borrowed a sum of £2,000.

DCBL yesterday confirmed the following:

Members of the public receiving letters such as these will no doubt be hoodwinked into believing that the debt was legally due and that a court order exists. They would be wrong.

same stunt as what Philips used to put years ago on DVLA 'debts'

insinuating [or leading the debtor on to believe] they have bailiff powers when they are infact only operating as a powerless DCA.

The 'High Court Enforcement Officer' was at the debtors' premises for three hours. He stated that if he did not receive full payment, that he would return after 5 pm and that he would have a film crew with him. Presumably, this 'film crew' would be from the makers of the TV series...'Can't Pay...We Will Take It Away'.

same stunt as what Philips used to put years ago on DVLA 'debts'

insinuating [or leading the debtor on to believe] they have bailiff powers when they are infact only operating as a powerless DCA.

I seem to remember though that Philips (who are no longer around) sent their letters from their debt recovery arm of the business.

Of serious concern with DCBL is that in the case yesterday....they were attempting to also charge 8% interest.

but return after 5pm to do what?

which ofcourse a doorstep DCA can do unless told otherwise by the property owner.

I wonder if DCBL actually ever said they were their as an HCEO bet they didn't

but the debtor 'assumed' they were with such powers

what is the debt you haven't stated.

as for Philips [now collectica] the early letters were the same letterhead as the bailiff division until they changed them.

I seen to remember the authorities had a hand in forcing that one?

Nothing new really. What did you advise the debtor to do?

DCBL are hoping no one will challenge their shenanigans.

but return after 5pm to do what? which of course a doorstep DCA can do unless told otherwise by the property owner.

 

I wonder if DCBL actually ever said they were their as an HCEO bet they didn't but the debtor 'assumed' they were with such powers

 

what is the debt you haven't stated.

The Officer advised that unless full payment was made that he would be returning after 5pm with a film crew. This was a clear enough reference to the TV series, 'Can't Pay We Will Take It Away' , which again, is a clear enough indication that if the individual were not to pay by 5pm, that his goods would be taken away !!

You have correctly stated DX that as a Debt Collector, the officer could return UNLESS told otherwise. In this particular case, it was made very clear to the enforcement agent that the debtor did not want him at his property and the police were even called. The officer refused to leave and remained at the property for three hours!!! He only left when a payment was made to him.

In this particular case, the letter that arrived the day before the visit clearly states DCBL Certificated Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Officers. The officer was dressed in the same way as the officers in the TV series, (i.e. closely resembling a Police Officer).

The debt being enforced was not one that was covered by the CCA.

Sounds like an illegal act and they would have had no protections as an enforcement officer, if the householders used reasonable force to remove them.

Under section 40 administration of justice act, it is an offence to pretend to be exercising powers given by a court.

but did they UB?

how about requesting the body cam footage?

prove they used the word bailiffs and that they said they could take goods etc etc

sorry but it sounds like to me he let himself get 'had'

and they let him think they were operating a bailiffs - not simply a DCA.

so what ...

returning with a TV crew

- doesn't prove they were acting as bailiffs.

- doesn't prove they could take goods.

The officer refused to leave and remained at the property for three hours!!! He only left when a payment was made to him.

- - doesn't prove they were acting as bailiffs. simply that the police got spoofed too

neither does the letter.

clever ploys?.

wonder how he paid..debit card..chargeback...that should put the cat amongst the pigeons...?

Given the seriousness of this thread, it really does need to get wide coverage. Accordingly, I would hope that the moderators allow it to remain on this section of the forum.

 

Yesterday, I was contacted by a gentleman who had received a letter from DCBL the previous day.........

What did you advise them?

If this is sufficiently serious to warrant a thread of its own, debtors should know exactly what they should do in the situation.

wonder how he paid..debit card..chargeback...that should put the cat amongst the pigeons...?

Payment was made by debit card unfortunately. I will be able to post more over the next few days.

Did the DCBL 'bailliff' tell the police he was acting as a debt collector or bailiff ?

Your gentleman may be able to make a complaint to the police either way.

If the police were lied to, they may want to take action against DCBL, if not then you should complain to the police/ipcc for giving out incorrect legal info and causing a financial loss. Also get the police to recover the money paid.

Payment was made by debit card unfortunately. I will be able to post more over the next few days.

then do a chargeback

if they def were not legally operating as a bailiff.

and said and wrote down we are here as bailiffs then its fraud

go do a chargeback

then do a chargeback

if they def were not legally operating as a bailiff.

and said and wrote down we are here as bailiffs then its fraud

 

 

go do a chargeback

That would seem the obvious route, and it's what was going through my mind when I asked BA what she had advised. I imagine it may have gone further if the misrepresentation was to that extent. It's odd to start a thread, but then fail to furnish us with the details until 'a few days time.' Not overly helpful to others who may be facing this position.

Let's see what happens in a few days.

This kind of misrepresentation is essentially a matter for the FCA and their license to act as a debt collector. The misrepresentation of power is something they seem to thrive on no matter what they are acting under.

This kind of misrepresentation is essentially a matter for the FCA and their license to act as a debt collector. The misrepresentation of power is something they seem to thrive on no matter what they are acting under.

And by doing so undermine Enforcement as a method of collecting debt in the public eye, as they fit the description of rogues as surely as Clair Sandbrook's rottweiler Boast did.

And by doing so undermine Enforcement as a method of collecting debt in the public eye, as they fit the description of rogues as surely as Clair Sandbrook's rottweiler Boast did.

I think you'll find that Boast was working for Julie Green-Jones at Rossendales.

I think you'll find that Boast was working for Julie Green-Jones at Rossendales.

Oops of course HCEOs I was confusing the Sandbrook link to DCBL with JGJ of Rossers. mind you the comparison with Boast is still valid, similar MO of bluff and no legal basis for actions.

This kind of misrepresentation is essentially a matter for the FCA and their license to act as a debt collector. The misrepresentation of power is something they seem to thrive on no matter what they are acting under.

Your input has been most helpful.

As I mentioned on Saturday, this incident only happened on Friday and given that we have had the weekend in between, it has not been possible to make too many enquiries. The most important task has been to write to the bank and a complaint to the FCA will naturally follow very swiftly.

Over the next few days I would hope to be able to put together a 'check list' for anyone else receiving such a letter and guidance on what an 'enforcement agent' can and cannot when visiting a property in connection with a 'pre judgment' debt.

No problem. For info, when applying for an FCA license to carry out debt collection activities they will have had to supply sample letters. I would suggest the letters being used are not those that were provided to the FCA.

No problem. For info, when applying for an FCA license to carry out debt collection activities they will have had to supply sample letters. I would suggest the letters being used are not those that were provided to the FCA.

They wouldn't dare supply the ones they sent out in the case highlighted by BA, so perhaps they should be forwarded with debtor info redacted.

This raises 2 heads.

Firstly as mentioned the FCA

Secondly involve the new Justice Secretary, as I doubt theDCBL authorised HCEO has a clue or even cares.

This raises 2 heads.

 

Firstly as mentioned the FCA

 

Secondly involve the new Justice Secretary, as I doubt theDCBL authorised HCEO has a clue or even cares.

Perhaps she could be extradited back to the UK to answer questions regarding due diligence and supervision of the DCBL minions if the FCA,and Justice Secretary grasp the seriousness of the DCBL shenanigans.