The Repo Man Channel 4 **Credit Licence Suspended**

[jacktheskipper]

I've been watching this tv programme and I'm wondering whether there is any breach of law too.

 

The repo agent Sean on some levels is quite personable but when you look the links to the tailgating incident in 2008 and the fact his wife is in prison for wheel clamping related blackmail.

And the general slant of the programme is to promote a positive view of the repossession business when it is shady to say the least shows quite a bias from channel 4.

 

The legality of this is very dubious. see below links.....

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4915825/Star-of-TV-bailiff-show-Repo-Man-beat-driver-with-a-hammer-in-a-road-rage-attack.html#ixzz2Sdd7DHZo

 

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2008/04/29/mother-faces-jail-for-clamping-con/

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7415331.stm

 

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2008/04/24/i-didnt-make-1000-an-hour-clamper/

 

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2008/05/23/clamper-boss-gets-four-years/

[tomtubby]

Jasper VERY interesting information indeed. Well done !!!

 

I missed the first two programmes and caught up last night and I was frankly appalled. I will have a look through these posts and post back later today.

[dx100uk]

shouldn't she already be out this year or really after 2yrs?

as most only serve 50%

 

dx

[Eggman1981]

I too have complained to OFCOM. Everyone should lodge a complaint!

[allison6564]

I have a thread going about my Santander Loan that was used to buy my car and today I've had a letter from a company called Anglia which sound like the repo man set up...I'm terrified and even though other caggers have checked my agreement and it is a personal loan not a hp agreement they are threatening to send someone round to my home or WORK!!! Please if anyone on this thread has knowledge experaince of this company can you reply to my thread please.

[raydetinu]

have a look at this:

http://www.donegalinvestigations.co.uk/repo-man-channel-4-reviews/

 

Castles in the sky, a real softy!

[raydetinu]

domain contact if anybody interested!

Domain name:

donegalinvestigations.co.uk

 

Registrant:

Sean James

 

Registrant type:

UK Individual

 

Registrant's address:

Midland House

Cannock

Staffordshire

WS12 4PR

United Kingdom

 

Relevant dates:

Registered on: 22-Mar-2011

Expiry date: 22-Mar-2015

Last updated: 10-May-2013

Edited May 10, 2013 by raydetinu

[raydetinu]

I think it is set up and none of it is as it seems, a tv programme for entertainment only! very similar to Lizard Lick Towing. ( all set up prior to filming ) everybody is in on it!

or why has nobody complained to the Police or called the Police during the siezures!

Not like the series on The Sherrifs are Coming, which explains the legal side of the Court Baliffs duties.

[postggj]

Its Dispatches

 

What do you expect

 

They are on the same level as the Daily Mail for Journalistic Integrity

[raydetinu]

Why is everyone taking it so seriously then!

[caledfwlch]

I think it is set up and none of it is as it seems, a tv programme for entertainment only! very similar to Lizard Lick Towing. ( all set up prior to filming ) everybody is in on it!

or why has nobody complained to the Police or called the Police during the siezures!

Not like the series on The Sherrifs are Coming, which explains the legal side of the Court Baliffs duties.

 

Because many people do not know their Rights, and believe the crap spouted at them by Bailiffs, or people like these Repo Men masquerading as "officials"

[caledfwlch]

Are "logbook Loan" reposessions legal then?

 

Episode 2 is very much mentioning logbook loans lots.

 

And is this "inherited debt" stuff even legal? Surely a person is not responsible for someone elses debt.

[leigh04]

thats what i thought when i watched it hopefully someone will find out if that is the case

[dx100uk]

90% of the 'bill of sales' that these loans are registered against are not registered with the courts and are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

the fact that the new owner 'pays' is a totally voluntary one to stop the car being taken.

 

but ofcourse that's never portrayed.

 

I also doubt they would ever get their money back, even with a court ccj as with the guy on there showed.

 

a 'bill of sale' always needs a court stamp. or alike

90% were never registered.

 

dx

 

dx

[raydetinu]

No logbook loan repossessions are not always legal, if linked to a CCA agreement or if the BOS has not been registered with the high court.

If BOS registered then yes they can reposses, but have to show registration and debt details.

If linked to a CCA then can not reposses if on private property without a court order ( but can if on public road and under a third has only been paid ).

Over a third, they need a court order wherever it is.

Still think the show is a set up!

[Jasper1965]

Raydetinu you make some good points.

 

One case I am involved with which occured during the filming of this programme

involves a victim of Mobile Money who had an agreement made under the CCA 1974

and was thus awarded the protection afforded by that Act.

 

It appears that the BOS was not ever registered in this case.

 

Firecracker filmed Donegal Investigations arriving at the victims home

then filmed Mr. James handing the victim the Default Notice from Mobile Money.

 

The victim had the awareness to have the service of the default notice recorded by the film crew

and made an averrment to the camera that this was the first time such a notice had been served

 

notwithstanding which there were numerous errors contained within the document

and then went on to point out exactly what was wrong legally with the attempted repossession.

 

Footage not broadcast unsurprisingly as victim repeatedly asserted that Mr James was committing all manner of offences.

 

I'm sure we are all aware of the need for a valid default notice, (friend of the forum) Brandon Vs Amex 2011 spells it out.

 

There is no possibility the service was valid,

the document falls down on numerous form and content points.

 

MM appear to have committed at least the following breaches under secs 87 (1) (a), (b),©,(d),(e), 86B1©, 86C(1), 88 and 89, 95 and 95A of the CCA

and I therefore do not in the circumstances feel an allegation of a sec 140A Unfair Relationship concerning the manner

in which the creditor attempted to enforce the agreement is entirely without merit.

 

I can prove that at the time of the repossession Mr James t/a Donegal Investigations was not licensed for the purpose of debt recovery.

I can prove that there was no valid BOS in place ergo no title.

I can prove victim was not even one month in arrears.

I can prove the agreement was regulated by the CCA 1974

 

although MM appear to have treated it as a standard chattel mortgage for the purposes of collection and recovery

failing to award the victim any of the statutory benefits of entering an agreement regulated by the CCA1974.

 

I can prove a host of breaches of the CCA 1974.

I can prove that the victim and his family were threatened and intimitadated during the commision of a criminal offence by the perpetrator of the crime.

I can prove that MM employed the services of an unlicensed debt collector/repossession agent.

I can prove that MM retained an amount of money over and above that which was outstanding on the agreement.

 

I couldn't possibly comment on whether some of the scenarios played out in the programme of 9th May are staged,

but I can confirm that at least some of them are genuine (LOL) repossession attempts conducted by an unlicensed debt collector employed by Mobile Money.

[brassnecked]

Hopefully the police and relevant authorities have had the details of the offences communicated to them jasper1965!

[Jasper1965]

Raydetinu you make some good points.

 

One case I am involved with which occured during the filming of this programme involves a victim of Mobile Money who had an agreement made under the CCA 1974 and was thus awarded the protection afforded by that Act. It appears that the BOS was not ever registered in this case.

Firecracker filmed Donegal Investigations arriving at the victims home then filmed Mr. James handing the victim the Default Notice from Mobile Money. The victim had the awareness to have the service of the default notice recorded by the film crew and made an averrment to the camera that this was the first time such a notice had been served notwithstanding which there were numerous errors contained within the document and then went on to point out exactly what was wrong legally with the attempted repossession. Footage not broadcast unsurprisingly as victim repeatedly asserted that Mr James was committing all manner of offences.

I'm sure we are all aware of the need for a valid default notice, (friend of the forum) Brandon Vs Amex 2011 spells it out.

There is no possibility the service was valid, the document falls down on numerous form and content points.MM appear to have committed at least the following breaches under secs 87 (1) (a), (b),©,(d),(e), 86B1©, 86C(1), 88 and 89, 95 and 95A of the CCA and I therefore do not in the circumstances feel an allegation of a sec 140A Unfair Relationship concerning the manner in which the creditor attempted to enforce the agreement is entirely without merit.

 

I can prove that at the time of the repossession Mr James t/a Donegal Investigations was not licensed for the purpose of debt recovery.

I can prove that there was no valid BOS in place ergo no title.

I can prove victim was not even one month in arrears.

I can prove the agreement was regulated by the CCA 1974 although MM appear to have treated it as a standard chattel mortgage for the purposes of collection and recovery failing to award the victim any of the statutory benefits of entering an agreement regulated by the CCA1974.

I can prove a host of breaches of the CCA 1974.

I can prove that the victim and his family were threatened and intimitadated during the commision of a criminal offence by the perpetrator of the crime.

I can prove that MM employed the services of an unlicensed debt collector/repossession agent.

I can prove that MM retained an amount of money over and above that which was outstanding on the agreement.

 

I couldn't possibly comment on whether some of the scenarios played out in the programme of 9th May are staged, but I can confirm that at least some of them are genuine (LOL) repossession attempts conducted by an unlicensed debt collector employed by Mobile Money.

[Jasper1965]

Don't worry Brassnecked, everyone who should be informed has or will very shortly be receiving a very detailed dossier pinpointing all offences (civil and criminal) identified to have been committed by Donegal Investigations and the creditor(s) in some instances.

 

Channel 4 Legal have gone silent on me since they received incontrovertible proof that Mr James was at the time of filming unlicensed for debt collection purposes.

 

A national newspaper has received a back story with supporting evidence and is looking into an exposure.

 

I have invited C4 both directly and via OFCOM to make a broadcast setting out the issues surrounding the repossessions conducted by the unlicensed Donegal Investigations in the two broadcast episodes, such broadcast to accurately represent the rights of the victims of Mr James's enterprise and to include sufficient information to help guide such victims to seek restitution where available.

 

Cannot see this ending well for Mr James or the Log Book Lenders involved.

 

(BTW I cannot use this site if I'm logged in in either FF, IE or Chrome from any computer is this a known problem , get Server busy or BBC News but if I logout I can browse no problem. Takes me hours and hours to make a single post due to timeouts all the time)

[renegadeimp]

Most likely cookie setting's

[brassnecked]

refresh your browser and flush the cache, or enable cookies for CAG

[renegadeimp]

On chrome go to the address bar and type: chrome://settings/content

 

Click 'All cookies and site data'.

 

Search for consumeraction group, highlight the entry and click the 'X' on the right hand side. Now restart your browser.

[tomtubby]

It is really worrying that Channel 4 "appear" to have not carried out the most basic of searches on Mr Sean Adrian James before commissioning this series.

 

Apart from the daming revelations already in the public domain there is yet another "apparent" failure.

 

This time with the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). It would seem that neither, Mr Sean Adrian James....Donegal Investigations or Donegal Finance Ltd are registered as Data Controllers with the ICO.

 

Given the type of work that he undertakes on behalf of finance companies ( and other financial institutions) I cannot see that there can any way in which he can avoid having to be registered with the ICO.

 

OOPS !!!

[caledfwlch]

IIRC someone mentioned he took cash payments to avoid cars being seized. If so, then that is absolutely, under any definition of the word, Debt Collection.

[brassnecked]

Time for plod to feel collars I feel, both the Repo man, and Channel 4 personnel if they were involved in any of the enforcement.