Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Izzit249

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. All I'm saying is Bohill will win this like it or lump it. Debt evasion may be frowned upon regularly but don't forget MW already lost a case regarding this which is why the bailiffs were there in the first place. It will go against him in Bohills defence and again this minor breach of a regulation to satisfy the writ won't be upheld with MW already having lost a case relating to this.
  2. You're not reading all my comment above. For the hundredth time did he push shove kick punch slap spit verbally abuse his way in? No. He didn't officially enter the property until MW let him. Again, in the eyes of a judge, who died? no-one, who was injured? no-one. If he was or they did the above, or ftr as you put it, to a pensioner, I'd be in full support of him in regards to this. And you say it's not illegal to not pay someone they're wages? Or did I read that wrong. The amount of times a bailiff has pushed their way through the door in this manner and the police have been called and no arrests were made, don't you think all bailiffs would be in prison by now or such a service would have been eliminated by the government by now? I know what Bohill has done, he violated a minor law to achieve the law of someone having their wages paid. In the eyes of a judge MW's case wont stand up unless someone was hurt or killed in the process, or they had entered the property without his consent. MW allowed them in when he realised he couldn't use the police to get rid of them. Get over it!
  3. Sigh.... Watch it again, MW had the money he just didn't want to pay it. This is a case of won't pay not can't. Don't forget he eventually offered an instalment plan and deliberately defaulted the first instalment I haven't clarified is that he NEVER went into the property until MW allowed him in, he never entered the flat his feet were barely in the door. He DID NOT shove past MW, he waited for permission and eventually told him if he didn't receive it he was going in anyway. Even if that much is illegal he knew he was breaking one law to achieve another (paying someone a balance escalated from county court judgement to a high court writ) and this wouldn't stand up in court whether the police, a lawyer, or the world and it's wife showed up in his defence. Bohill has 20years experience don't forget, he's been here before. It's MW's own fault. Stop making out he was bullied let alone when he clearly was not broke. Even if he was they are also there to help you find a way to clear it off comfortably. Or do you think they just turn up 'can't pay? We'll Take it Away!' and leave. The arrogance on here towards them is disgusting. Bailiffs are only prosecuted when no professional manner is shown. Bohill did not shove him to the floor and tread on him, he did not say 'get out of the way!' and barge past him, no punching or kicking, no verbal abuse, he had to settle this writ and in the case of this writ it was either MW pay the balance and they're gone, setup an installment plan (WHICH he deliberately defaulted!), removal of assets that value the balance, or declare a bankruptcy petition. All of these things are a way out, bankruptcy screws you're credit rating and bans you from our own business running for years, BUT, you're out of debt and you start again clean. After all these comments all I'm detecting here is anti-bailiff fever and you all wish such a process was never invented by the law, you've all either had these people at your door and as oppose to understand why, you think they just turned up for the fun of bullying people and started an argument on why they were there, which wasn't necessary. Maybe you lost your job, couldn't work due to health, and didn't live the rockstar life before that happened, but don't blame the bailiffs. If you feel that strongly that you were hard done by take it up with the claimer, don't shoot the messenger, the bailiffs didn't approach you for no reason. On the note of genuine can't pays and how you help them, how are you helping them? Telling them how to scrape all ends of the law to shove the bailiffs away? Because some fat greedy git that lives in a house of diamonds and marble and didn't need such a small amount to survive or deserved to be conned is always the one that sent them? And that there are no desperate claimers needing money they were owed but haven't been paid before THEY see Bohill at the door? MW disgusts me for not paying someone their wages. That's people's living wage! And for someone who's lost their job due to ill health etc I'm surprised at one's defence of Bohill violating a minor law to achieve another when he knew following this guys attitude no judge would sympathise. But above all of that, how would you like it if MW did you out of your wages? Would you care if Bohill used his bodyweight to get in the doorway? I wouldn't. And on the note of 'Bohill breaking the law end of,' you do realise when they end up in court violating such a minor law to achieve victory for another law (paying someone their wages) is more than often accepted. I reiterate, no one died, no one was injured, just MW's ego. And when the bailiffs show their reasons for being there in the first place, MW will be asked why he didn't pay the balance. He's on camera stating he 'won't pay.' He's screwed any way he looks at it. This minor action from Bohill is going no-where, even if it does he will get a slap on the wrist and nothing more his job will continue as usual. Seriously all of you get over it. When a bailiffs kicks punches spits shoves to the floor and barges past you with no form of professionalism and no offer of settling the debt peacefully, come onto this forum and search for help whether or not the police let you down. I'm sure this forum wasn't invented to show people how to keep the bailiffs from coming and simply let the debt fade away.
  4. And there is your problem. As I've said before the are many many laws and its impossible to prosecute every time one of them is violated by the public or civil servants. Just like a guy in Chiswick a few years ago who had cctv of some nutcase driving towards him and he climbed on the car to get away. He took her to the police and even gave in the answerphone message telling him upfront she was coming to his office to attack him, and in the eyes of the court all she did was smash his 500£ specs, swore at him in front of staff and then took off with him in front of the car. When the case got to court the judge asked if he thought she would do it again, he said yes, the judge said 'no I'm sorry I don't believe you, you're using this as an excuse to get one over her.' MWs case is no different, even if Bohill tries it again he'll get away with it. As I said before, if you don't want bailiffs at the door, pay your debt. Simple.
  5. An uninsured driver taps clips or touches someone, yes they are indeed in deep stook. No excuses lesser incidents have proved fatal. A bailiff turns up at the door and starts barging his way through aggressively punching kicking shoving spitting slapping verbally abusing. Yes they are in deep stook again. No excuses for such behaviour. Bohill turns up and after endless discussion uses body weight to enter the property but remains calm and continues to explain the writ in hand has to be settled. He explains the writ allows entry to the property on the writ should the owner not want to pay or can't pay. Did anyone die? No. Cuts bruises and bumps? No. Did Bohill kick punch or slap or shove it verbally abuse? No. MW doesn't have a case here. He has to prove one of the above mentioned happened to put Bohill in the firing line. Even if Bohill did violate a regulation, the judge won't care as no harm was done and the writ covers his reasons for being at the property and behaving the way he did as does his own camera let alone CH5s. In response to the comment above which indicates someone has successfully won the case against he bailiffs behaviour, it was definitely much more serious than this.
  6. Well after x amount of comments later i'm sure if MW is still reading this he's got a picture of both sides so there isn't much more to say. However, after reading through my comments I think some things have been misinterpreted and I have waffled on about the writ, subsequently blurring what I was trying to say. Even if what Bohill did violate a regulation, all MW is trying to do is delay payment or have it wiped off through the High Court's behaviour. His bankruptcy petition would still stand and by now he has either paid the balance or been declared bankrupt. He doesn't care about Bohill's behaviour he's just taking out his frustrations about the debt on him. If MW had 110% proof that he's been injured or Bohill's move proved dangerous his case will or would have stood up in court. When a judge looks at this he won't take it seriously, MW wasnt injured and this breach of regulation is negligible compared to other bailiffs who barge their way through property using aggressive and physical intention of hurting the person in question. The fact that Bohill peacefully talked to him and then used nothing more than force of body to calm him down is neglible. They were at the right address simply doing their job of collecting payment. If they were at the wrong address or there was a clerical error on the document he'd be in with a strong chance. Overalll, if you don't want these situations, dont get yourself into them. MW hasn't replied for a long time so he either is still waiting for trial, or gave it up after discussing thoroughly with a reliable source.
  7. I agree. That said I hope you're not implying that ME couldn't pay. That clearly wasn't the case.
  8. I reiterate, this particular writ DOES allow them to enter the property they don't need permission from the person residing or owning the private residence when they as registered bailiffs have a such a writ in hand. Other writs don't allow and Bohill would automatically lose his job if it was the same as the guy in dispute over his car on the 'Final Demand' special. You quoted ‘IMO,’ ‘in my opinion?’ Opinion counts for nothing writs allow such unless the person issuing it is not a bailiff. Nor do they need the police as witnesses or to do it for them. Their job is to collect payment. If the police had turned up they would review Bohills camera which would need to show him kicking punching spitting slapping and ftr shoving him to the floor or shoving back and forth daring him to hit him. On that note, AGAIN, MW stating he was going to hit Bohill or misinform police that Bohill had done so would only have worsened the situation for him. Bohill had to satisfy the writ and it appears he eventually did so through the threat of a bankruptcy petition despite entering the property eventually. No physical damage was done to his belongings or flat so no accusations viable there. It appears to me that MW started this thread in the hope of relying on HCEOs sympathising with many of these owers regardless what they owe and why they try and delay the writ, Coming out with all existing laws under the sun to try and protect themselves from admitting or facing the consequences of wrong doing. If the courts adhere to every aspect of the law we'd all be in the nick by now. IF this ended up before a judge or MW found himself an intelligent barrister he will be informed now that these lawsuits take several months to ensue, and when this particular one would, as I have mentioned several times, the fact that Bohill only used body weight and remained calm, continued to talk as oppose to bash MW to one side and proceed to take belongings that weren't MWs, kicked punched etc and verbally abused him, the judge is human and will more than likely look at this and ask MW why he is so upset and trying to activate the law you mentioned about force of entry to a private residence, MW will say Bohill had no right to enter the property, but provided bailiffs are there to settle a writs balance and no physical damage was done, the only reason he's upset is that he was forced to pay up a balance he owed legally and clearly is trying to use Bohill for the sole purpose to have this balance overturned or delayed further. FTR in this episode he never gave a justifiable explanation as to why he refused to pay her. To all those looking at HCEOs comments about Bohill breaking the law, I suggest you don't rely on this if you find the high court coming knocking. You owe a balance first through the county court and then high or possibly only through high court. It may seem unfair, you may not feel responsible enough to pay a penny of it. But! Evaluate the situation, talk to them, allow them in and try and workout a comfortable way to pay it off. If they take your personal belongings, it hurts, but it's a way out if no money on hand. If no belongings or money are to your name, the claimant may not pursue the debt through bankruptcy, it may be wiped off. If they do pursue, well, you had nothing anyway, for the time being it screws your credit rating but it will restore eventually, so what have you really lost? If the baliffs do use forced entry, it won't wipe off the debt and it won't stand up in court and you won't get anything back. In the case of Won't Pay, you're doing it to yourself, so tough poo.
  9. No this is not a wind up. First it was illegal for MW or anyone to obstruct a High Court Enforcement Agent. Which is what he was doing, attempting to obstruct them to avoid paying the balance. Secondly, you need to watch more eps for this series. Try Can't pay 'final demand.' There was a guy who owed money to a car leasing company and the bailiffs came to collect the payment or return the car. The writ they had did not allow them to enter the property or use forced entry whether it be knocking down the door or physically moving him. That is the kind of writ MW is trying to insinuate was active. This wasn't it was something completely the opposite. (Having said that though, the baliff through force of habit kept his foot in the door and may well have got in trouble for this.) 3rdly, as I said before Bohill only used body weight and continuously tried to calm MW down. His accusation that Bohill tried to hit him is not true. He threatened to hit Bohill and Bohill said go on then hit me implying he would then call the police knowing he had done nothing wrong. Like it or not MW owed somebody their living wage and was refusing to pay it. He feels bullied by the high court as they were going to get the money one way or another and he didn't want to pay it. Like I said by now he is either bankrupt as a result or has paid the balance off. The police on the side of the high court unless the baliffs physically kick punch slap shove choke spit and swear. Their jobs are then immediately on the line and the court will be prosecuted by the police. It may be 'tabloid tv' as you put it, but Ch5 would never have broadcast it if he did anything wrong as they would've got in trouble too.
  10. I think you missed the point. Some writs allow the bailiffs o enter the property as long as no one is fought aggressively or assaulted. Other writs don't allow. Bohill did not injure or intend to injure him. It's not about what ch5 thinks, it the law. Any tom dick or Harry can see Bohill did nothing wrong. What MW is trying to achieve here is postponing his bankruptcy petition by taking it out on Bohill. He is either now bankrupt or paid the balance and wants to use the program as leverage to get his money back which is highly unlikely.
  11. I used to work for the post-production company who edited this series of the program. My job was to review the assets for tech faults as opposed to factual QC. However, from my memories from this episode, also available on channel 5 iplayer, at the end of the day he lost this case fair and square at the county court because he failed to pay a freelancer/contractor her wages which she was entitled to without question. When approached by Paul Bohill and his colleague his exact words were. 'No, no she's not getting a penny out of me!' The bailiffs then advised him calmly and clearly without the use of physical force that they had a high court writ to enter the property to seize goods to cover the debt, he insisted he would not allow them into the property. Mr Bohill calmly restrained him and used fair physical force to enter the property by simply using bodyweight and nothing more. He continuously reassured this man to take it easy and that they were legally obliged to enter. He told the bailiffs that he was calling the police to report use of physcial result, however as the bailiffs had a camera on their chests to clear them of any wrong doing, i.e.: did not punch, kick, aggressively shove him or verbally abuse him by calling him names and mocking his situation, they were not threatened by MW's accusations. MW then continuously demanded they do not take anything from the flat, but failed to make an offer which would satisfy his high court writ. He then called a friend and asked him to confirm all goods in the flat were not his and belonged to someone else. MW then reluctantly agreed to an instalment plan. At the end of the episode it was announced that MW failed to make his first instalment. As opposed to giving up the case, the lady who was owed the money allowed the bailiffs to file a bankruptcy petition against him in a bid for her to retrieve her money. In terms of whether Paul Bohill did anything wrong, no he didnt. Nor did his partner. They have a camera to prove their innocence and even if MW had called the police it would have gone against him and would've felt more pressure to pay the balance. I'm assuming he has either been declared bankrupt by now or has paid the balance. If he's managed to delay payment further the balance is likely to rise even further and he will just make it worse for himself. I would like to clarify having worked on this episode as I work in TV and the company I was employed by edited the program that Mr Bohill did not impose himself as a police officer or special constable. The writ he showed him allowed him with permission of and as an employee of the high court to use forced entry to claim goods worthy of the debt should the owner not be able to or want to pay, not to enter his property for pleasure or any other matter. MW chose not to read the writ and tried to delay the bailiffs by not doing so. The only time they are not allowed to force their way in is when its a form of rental agreement, I.e.: Finance on a Car that someone didnt keep up with, they can repossess the car but can't enter the property to claim something of equal value. The allegation that Bohill said 'hit me I dare you!' or anything similar has been taken out of context by MW on this thread. When Bohill used physical force to enter the property he only used bodyweight and remained civil with him asking him to 'take it easy.' MW then threatened to call the police telling them he had hit Mr Bohill. Bohill misunderstood this in the heat of the moment and took MW's words as threat that he would hit Bohill in a bid to get him off the property and responded 'go on then hit me!' Had he done so Bohill would use the police presence to have MW arrested and carry out the writ without his presence. Anyone claiming the goods did not belong to MW wouldve made their journey to the High Court within 2 weeks to reclaim the goods or have them returned, it takes around a fortnight for them to auction goods off and for the record upto an hour for the collection van to arrive. Bohill did not use the term 'hit me' as a bid to intimidate MW, it was self defence in response to MW's behaviour and innuendo that Bohill had attempted to hit him. If I remember correctly this was Series 2 or Series 3 of the show, S3 is still available on Channel 5 iplayer. You might catch S2 on the channel Spike TV.
  • Create New...