Jump to content

old bill

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


old bill last won the day on November 14 2016

old bill had the most liked content!


596 Excellent
  1. I shall clarify, TT. Utilities appear to be using the High Court court route as a default option, rather than as a last resort. There have been cases where the utility compay will not engage with alleged debtors and ploughs on regardless. In one case, an EA working for an HCEO hoodwinked the police into believing he was allowed to put his foot in the door of a domestic property for a non-commercial debt and push against the door. The police have now found out othewise and are not happy bunnies.
  2. TT, I've just posted on another thread you have posted on about this. There are problems with rogue elements within the enforcement industry and professsional trolls causing disruption on the group you mention. The group should not be judged solely on what is posted, as what you are reading may not necessarily have been put there by a valid member of the group of member of the public seeking help.
  3. Thank you for drawing this to my attention, TT. However, I am finding there is abuse of the High Court enforcement process by utlities and it is not isolated cases either. Steps are being taken to identify the main and repeat offenders. If a debt is over £5,000, fair enough as the law requires the debt to be transferred to the HC for enforcement, but there are what appears to be an increasing number of cases of commercial creditors using the HC enforcement process for debts below £5,000 and, alarmingly, under £1,000. Where the enforcement process is being used as a form of punishment for being in debt, with the passage of time, this brings the process into disrepute. Utilities need to remember ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to them whether they want to beieve it or not and can be unforgiving if a court makes a Section 7 judgment or order against them. Also, it is known that EAs have set up false/bogus FB profiles, joined the social media site and posted misleading or distracting comments which then results in the "wrong" information you mention. This, sadly, is the reality. If the enforcement industry is that concerned their bottom line is being affected by intervention to curb malpractice, unlawful behaviour and, in a small number of cases, criminal behaviour, then the industry needs to take a long, hard look at itself and remove those who give the industry a bad name. As for EAs enforcing Writs, my understanding where the alleged debt is not against a business, the same rule applies that applies to WoCs, that is, peaceable entry only, not barge way in as can be witnessed on episodes of "Can't Pay? We'll Take It Anyway". It has also come to attention that professional trolls have been at work on these particular pages. One member spotted a professional trolling business's posting style and knew the location of the firm's trading address. The posts this trolling business had made disappeared very rapidly once they realised they had been rumbled. However, it wasn't fast enough to initiate regulatory action. I would urge caution as to pointing the accusing finger at the social media site members where comments on its pages are concerned as not all of what is posted is put there by members. Some of the comments are the work of professional trolls and rogue elements within the enforcement industry.
  4. Spot-on, UB. That is more or less what the ICO told me when I spoke to them initially about the pensioner's case. There is more to the case than I am able to disclose and those issues have to be dealt with separately.
  5. Until ICO start their investigation, DB, we don't know who else they have been disclosing this pensioner's personal data to without proper authorisation or outside the ambit of the Data Protection Act 1998. For you to claim it is single "no fault" error, my response to such a statement is:- 1. Do you have insider knowledge; and 2. How do you know it is a "no fault" error? The LA have changed their story as to how this happened a number of times. They cannot seem to get their story straight. Without you seeing the exchange of communications between myself and the LA, I doubt you would be posting the comments you have.
  6. The LA had no lawful authority to pass the pensioner's personal data to the enforcement company, stu007. In all fairness, the enforcement company advised me the pensioner's personal data was in a digital file with other persons' personal data. They have been helpful in this respect. It is likely they will need to revise their procedures to prevent a recurrence of this.
  7. To answer your question, TT, at the time of the assault, the pensioner was aged 69/70 years, which, according to retired counsel I have spoken to, is an aggravating factor.
  8. The ICO has informed me the matter of compensation is something that has to be pursued separately, TT. As to them fining the LA, I wil have to wait and see what transpires.
  9. Certainly. My experience of dealing with cases of malfeasant EAs is that referring the matter to the Complaints Manager at the enforcement company has resulted in the matter being resolved in most cases. Where LAs are concerned and council officers try to fob one off to the enforcement company, I have found involving local ward councillors and MPs can be useful. Although TCoG has clarified matters where civil enforcement is concerned, there are, sadly, EAs who seem to be under the impression it is "business as usual" and behave as if TCoG does not exist. The matter of the flying 11 year-old is currently with the police, BN. As for the case of the pensioner, the matter is with the ICO for investigation. The data protection breach appears to lie with the LA. Despite referring the case back to the CPS at district and regional levels, they will not have it that the EA should be prosecuted, even though the injuries the pensioner sustained amount to ABH. The LA's in-house data protection team has advised the sending of the pensioner's personal data to the enforcement company is a breach of data protection, in the circumstances. The ICO have become involved because of what happened to the pensioner as a result. As to what you say, DB, I have my suspicions, but I await the outcome of the ICO's investigation before commenting further.
  10. As soon as the enforcement company were told that no warrant was in existence, to their credit, they ceased enforcement action immediately. An investigation is ongoing into the matter of how the LA allowed the pensioner's personal data to be sent to the enforcement company when it knew it had no justification for doing so, claiming a fault with their computer system, then claiming something completely unrelated was the reason. The reason the ICO has become involved is that when the matter of the pensioner's personal data was sent to the enforcement company, by the LA, without any justification for doing so, the enforcement company acted on it and, as a result of this, the pensioner was assaulted by the EA for defending his property, which the EA had no awful authority to even attempt to take. The EA's attitude did nothing to help either. The EA has been hauled over the coals by the courts due to him misrepresenting his powers as an EA in the past.
  • Create New...