A Landlord should give 24 hours notice before calling. If he is starting to make it "personal" wanting you to go out for a drink etc, then you could go to the Police and ask for a Harassment Order.

There ARE plenty "Professional Beggars" claiming to be homeless, when in fact they have homes, and claim benefits, and I would have no problem with a law to clean them up, but this absolutely should not be used against the genuinely homeless, not all genuinely homeless people beg, and they certainly are not there by choice. The irony is, if this is passed, when they fail to pay, they will be dragged to court (if they can even be find) and the Criminal Justice System will then look after them, and probation works will help to provide somewhere to live, something the Council should have done in the first place. Genuinely Homeless people often commit a small crime, just to get a bed and a couple of hot meals down the local Police Station for the night, and it is disgraceful and shameful to our Society that people are even put in that situation and have to make that choice. But for the Professionals who have a home, yeah, go for them, it is easy to check, the Council can contact DWP and their own Housing Benefit Department to find out if they are professional beggars with a home. Jobcentre should be looking at them too, income from Begging, if homes, probably exceeds what they can earn on JSA, thus, Fraud?

We need some sort of Test Case or instructions altering EA behaviour regarding third party goods. Most Householders don't have receipts for much of their stuff, unless it is new - I don't have receipts for anything in my flat, and a lot is second hand, so if an EA was stood in here because a homeless mate with a debt was staying here, I would be unable to prove ownership! In such a case, the EA surely should step back and allow the third party to get to the court and do a stat dec? Certainly In the situations this thread is about, where it is obvious the Debtor wont own everything, as they are only lodging at the address, and the Householder can prove they are the Householder, logic in that situation dictates that the debtor wont own everything there.

When the Police refuse to even log and investigate the crime, the CPS have not seen it. When Information is layed before a Magistrate, the information is sent to the CPS, the CPS then have 3 options: A: The Case is serious enough that they believe it should be prosecuted by them, and they take over the prosecution, making it Regina V Defendant B: They believe the Case is frivolous or has no grounds and cancel the Private Prosecution C: They don't want to take it on, but don't believe it should be cancelled, so allow the private prosecution to go ahead That is how i understand it to work. Do you think the CPS look over all the RSPCA prosecutions? Because in RSPCA Prosecutions it's RSPCA's legal representatives vs the "Defendant" and the RSPCA are not the Crown/State nor are they representative of it, they are a private charitable organisation.

If it is DLA, DLA is not classed as Income, so I don't think it should go on an I&E, as the EA/Creditor would not be allowed to class it as income in anyway - as far as I know, it is the only Benefit with that provision, because it is specifically for providing assistance/aid to help a medical condition, not for spending on Clothes or Sky, if you see what I mean. Original Poster - if you have a Car park it a street or two away or the Bailiff will either clamp or take it!

Exactly. Officer Attending or Desk Sarge refuses to deal claiming its "civil" so your next option should be, speak to the Duty Inspector, if he also refuses then you go to the IPCC. If still no joy, but you have proof of the offence (though if you have proof, I should think the Inspector or IPCC WOULD instruct the case be inspected, but especially the Inspector if he has any sense) then you can go Lay Information on a Magistrate. As with anything you must exhaust all the normal procedures first. When that chap died in Michael Barrymore's Pool, the Police either investigated and decided Michael committed no crime, or it went to court and thrown out, I forget which, so the Family of the Deceased went for a Civil Prosecution, don't know if they were successfull though. But I bet it would have failed at the first step had the Police not investigated first. I don't at all agree with there being the option of a Civil Prosecution for Criminal Offences, Civil Courts have much lower burdens of evidence, and so an Innocent person can be taken to court by the Police/CPS, found Not Guilty and walk away, but can then be found guilty in a civil prosecution, despite the fact the Criminal Not Guilty was found with a much higher standard of evidence used. Basically, the family didnt want Michael branded a criminal, they were after Compensation, hence civil prosecution.

Holy Cow I would love to be in the court room to watch this unfold!!!

a Private Prosecution should only be the last resort of the victim of a criminal act, if the Police refuse, even after appeals higher up the chain to deal with the matter. And I would imagine Magistrates would throw out any claim if the Police had been bypassed, and not informed in the first place, and thus given a chance to act.

I don't know if anyone has gone for a private prosecution against bailiffs before. My Point is, most complaints about a Bailiff should be dealt with by the relevant authorities and processes, however if a Bailiff commits a Criminal Offence he is not protected by legislation or his powers, and the correct route to take is inform the Police. If as often happens the Police refuse to act, claiming a criminal offence comiitted by a Bailiff is a civil matter, then you have the right to both complain to the police/IPCC to try and force them to act, and if that does not work, then Lay Information before a Magistrate. Just to be clear, I don't believe going straight to a Magistrate is correct - apart from the fact its not a criminal issue, the Freeman appear to be missing the Police step, and the police deffo wont investigate fees, that is not a criminal issue. All RSPCA Prosecutions are Private Prosecutions. They are there as a fail safe, for situations where the Police refuse to act. And of course, there is such a thing as Civil Prosecution. All I am saying is a Bailiff's powers do not protect them if they commit a criminal act, and if the police refuse to act you have the right to private prosecution. But ONLY for criminal acts. There was a case a while back of a Bailiff committing fraud, if the Police had refused to act, do you believe that either his employer, or the victims should not have a right to private prosecution just because it involves a bailiff?

I have to agree with Uncle Bulgaria, and disagree with Dodgeball here. If for example the Police refuse to investigate a criminal act, every citizen has the right to Lay Information before a Magistrate, what is also known as a Private Prosecution. The problem is, if the CPS don't disagree and order the Prosecution stopped, or believe it has merit, but do not wish to proceed themselves, thus leaving it to the Citizen, a CP can be very, very expensive, as of course, the Citizen making the prosecution is liable for the legal costs of the Defendant. Of course going to the Magistrate over fees is ludicrous, there are specific rules and so on for dealing with that issue and a Magistrate would throw it out. If however an Enforcement Agent has committed an Offence, you have video proof of the offence, but the Police as they mostly do refuse to act, the old "bailiffs are our mates" thing then you have every right to Lay information before a Magistrate. On Can't Pay, Paul Bohill famously committed an offence, making an illegal entry using physical force against the debtor, he cannot rely as he claimed on the Foot in the Door argument, it was a civil debt and he had no right of forced entry. Sadly the victim appeared on here and then vanished (wonder if he was offered a few quid by Bohill's firm to prevent legal/police action, as it is all on film and was clearly not acting within his powers) Surely a Bailiff acting beyond his powers, ie forcing entry/committing assault over a civil debt is a Criminal Act (he isn't protected by his powers if he exceeds/breaches them) and if the Police refuse to act, why shouldn't the victim Lay information? This is ONLY an option when a criminal offence occurs (the victim above would need to see if a solicitor agrees it was a offence) anything else, such as fees, and so on, legislation and guidelines provide ways of dealing with this. I bet the Freemen aren't advising "clients" just how much it could cost to go the CP route!!! If a Magistrate not realising fees were not a criminal issue, and proceeded further, I can well imagine the fees of the EA's barristers in getting in thrown out would be astonishing, and the debtor liable. I can also well imagine that someone going to court on Freeman advice, would also be advised to Perjure themselves.

Match, are you saying that they have added over £1000 in charges for your debt? Is the original debt for £136 or for £1036?

From reading the article, she had already paid the bulk of the arrears owing, so it does seem unlikely that she is a "won't pay" a Prison sentence means she has likely lost her Job if she had one, so it is hard to see how she will afford £40 a month. If she was employed, then this just goes so against Logic it defies belief - costing her a job by sending her to Prison, then expecting £40 a month, which is a large chunk of benefits. Not to mention the struggle she will have in finding a job since she will now have a criminal record. She is not a threat to society, surely a Curfew controlled by a Tag would be a much cheaper and better alternative? Prison iirc costs something like several grand a week per prisoner.... What makes it worse, is you see people on the various Benefits Porn programmes going to Court for much more serious offences, such as violence, and yet, they would have to try really, really hard to actually get a Custodial Sentence, yet someone owes a couple grand in council tax, and its straight to Porridge.

Not much news on this, but Campaigners turned up at the home of a Lady in Cardiff who was to be evicted for non payment of the Bedroom Tax. One of the Campaigners was then arrested for "Obstruction of an Enforcement Officer" It will be interesting to see what they actually did, and if they are eventually prosecuted, and if Guilty, what punishment the Court will impose. http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2015-07-23/campaigner-arrested-in-bedroom-tax-eviction-protest/

I don't think a Court Fine "vanishes" after 6 years, like civil debt. If you live abroad, then presumably you don't have any levyable goods in the UK, ie TV's and so on, so there is not a huge amount the Bailiff can do, except with permission of the Court try and make you bankrupt. Otherwise as the situation stands, they will have to return the debt to the Court as Null Bono. It might be worth contacting the Court and seeing if they will allow you to pay the original fine - with you outside the UK there is nothing the bailiff's can do, except try and make you bankrupt (if they know you own your flat - do you?)

I refused to sign the CV waiver form in the first place. I used to be a graphic designer, and as part of my job would design CV's, so my CV is extremely professional looking, and in the digital form of a heavily edited word document, full of customised styles & layout template etc, a layout that would usually be well beyond the skills and ability of someone who wasnt a highly experienced Word user, and certainly beyond the skillset of the sort of people the likes of Working Links etc employ. Having seen a paper copy, and knowing it was from the above, they were absolutely desperate for an editable digital copy, even to the point of unlawfully threatening sanctions, and it was clear that they didn't want it to send to employers on my behalf, or to alter the wording on my behalf, but to use it as a template they could use to create CV's for all their other "customers" They were even less amused when I offered to sell them a template for a couple hundred quid

Unfair, I strongly suggest you follow Uncle Bulgaria's advice in order to stop the Enforcement Officer. With regards the Officer himself, he will continue to visit/phone whilst the Writ is outstanding, it is no good telling him you are applying for a Stay, only when the Stay has been accepted by the Court will he stop, so until that point, keep the doors to your current home locked, even when you are home. If he visits whilst you are home, you are not obliged to open the door to speak to him, and it is not unknown for even High Court Officers to try and force the way past into the house, if they think they can get away with it, so you are better off speaking to them through a window, especially as you don't yet understand your rights, and their powers. I would also strongly suggest recording all contact with the video recorder on your phone. No matter how upset you get, do NOT lose your temper and try and attack them - if he tries to call your bluff and calls Police to attend, they can only be there to stop any Breaches of the Peace, they cannot arrest you to allow the Enforcement Officer to gain entry to the home, so no matter how angry you are, keep outwardly calm, discuss peacefully, and stay in the house, as I say speaking through a window, preferably. If you share your home, and your housemate/s have a car, it would be easier if they keep it away from the property until you get the stay, just to stop the EO from assuming it is yours and taking it. The fact that this trust has a track record of overpayments does not matter, they have used their legal right to go to court for a CCJ, and have then upgraded it to the High Court, allowing a High Court Enforcement Officer to take the case, so he is behaving lawfully. Quite surprised they have forked out the cash for a HCEO, as despite what he may try and tell you in the hope you believe him, he has no more powers when dealing with a personal debt at a residential property than a normal county court bailiff/enforcement agent. If however you leave a door unlocked, when he turns up, he is legally entitled to enter the property, at which point he will levy all your assets, such as TV, and either create a repayment plan, or take it all for auction.

Channel 4 and Channel 5 have been obsessed with Benefits Porn for a while now, Benefits Street, my 40 benefit children and all the other rubbish. But I have just seen an advert for a new low - Benefits pets!! They have actually gone to the effort of making a programme purely dedicated to showing people on benefits who have the audacity to have a dog, Cat or Snakes etc. They really are scraping the barrel now. I don't understand why people actually willingly go on these shows - OK Channel 4 treats them fairly well, but the narration on just about every channel 5 is so downright nasty, and sneering, I just cant believe people continue to go on them, unless they were all filmed before any have been broadcast. It is almost literally stuff like "Jane is off for a haircut today, paid for by the blood, sweat and tears of hardworking taxpayers, but Jane is OK, she can sit on her fat ass all day on benefits" And they have to point out the most obscure parts of their lifestyle and ram down our throats that benefits are paying for it, in case we didn't realise from the title of the programme, and the 88 other mentions of the word Benefits to that point. I would like to see Channel 4 (from the evidence so far, C5 is incapable of seeing beyond "scroungers") do a couple of shows on the working poor, on the people working minimum wage who also have to rely on benefits to top up, as their employers arent prepared to pay a decent wage. But then, I would like to see HMRC or whomever pubish a yearly list of all the companies, at least the national/franchised ones who only pay minimum wage, and thus the corporate coffers are shored up by taxpayers benefits - stuff like working tax credit is not a benefit to the individual, it is very much a benefit for already wealthy shareholders and CEO's.

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! 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.

Has anyone in contact with or able to contact any of the victims thought of advising them to go to the Police? These companies/individuals are taking payments to provide services they know are unlawful/do not work, so, surely that is Fraud? They are gaining a financial advantage through deception.

Given the seriousness of what can happen, court fines, EA's forcing entry into homes etc, you would think that Retail Protection Agents, or whatever they currently call themselves would do a bit more than ask for name and address.... Even demanding to see a bank card would show if a false name is being given, and if the suspect claims to have no card and no ID at all, then call up a friendly British Transport Copper to come and do the checks. Incidiently, it is also possible to be arrested for charging your phone/laptop etc on wall sockets in trains, if the socket is not clearly marked as for customers use! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3159582/Rail-passenger-furious-arrested-stealing-electricity-plug-point-train-charge-phone.html The guy was originally arrested for "abstraction of electricty"!!!! I am surprised the Enforcement Industry itself doesn't make a fuss when shows like Eastenders and badly written articles portray the industry as still being a bunch of shaven headed thugs behaving however they feel like, it doesnt do their image much good.

I would not be surprised if the article is intentionally wrong to frighten others on behalf of the editor's mates in enforcement.

Oh indeed, on poor quality public CCTV, but even phones take a video clear enough to identify a person, some even in HD. And audio recording these days is equally decent quality, whether by phone or dictaphone or tru call. Also the Police aren't idiots, if the only evidence of an assault is blurry footage in which its impossible to make an identification of the suspect, it's unlikely to ever go to a court. On the various shows online, "entertainment" or not, the cameras are plain grey/silver, no sign of any notice, and at no stage is it verbally confirmed that recording is taking place, despite footage of the cams clearly being used.

There is no Question at all. A Court WOULD accept covert recordings as evidence, clearly, otherwise a great many criminal prosecutions would collapse since many rely on covert recordings. Whilst the examples tend to focus on Audio recordings, I imagine the Civil Courts would apply the same to video as to audio, you provide a written transcript of what is said, done etc, then it is up to the Judge whether he watches the footage. I would imagine judges generally would listen to/watch recordings as standard anyway, to ensure they aren't being diddled with an imaginative transcript, created in the hope the Judge wont listen/view. Enforcement Agents are making covert recordings daily! They don't inform people they are recording, except sometimes as a warning if the debtor is kicking off, the agents dont wear signs stating they are recording, there is no easy way for a debtor to know if a device the EA is wearing is recording or not, or to even know its a video recorder in the first place, esp older debtors who arent up on modern technology. Pretty sure you would show Police and courts footage and expect them to rely on it for evidence if you were attacked or robbed, and your camera was recording, but the debtor was not warned that recording was taking place, thus its a covert recording.

Typical ludicrous British way of doing things, state debts enforced by private contractors, and private debts enforced by state contractors. I wouldn't have thought in powers terms a HCEO is no better than a CCB unless like i say its in hope the debtor doesn't understand and panics.

You said your on JSA, so you could ask the council to take the debt back and take it from your JSA, which is about £4 a week. Make sure you keep the doors locked, even when your home, letting a bailiff in is only going to add charges. Are you still under your GP for health problems as you could well be classed as vulnerable in which case the Bailiff should withdraw, but you have to prove that, a letter from GP for example, he wont accept you just saying your vulnerable it must be backed with proof.