TV Series: "Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!"....a discussion thread

[caledfwlch]

Was watching this channel five show 2 weeks ago

- in full view of the camera

the HCEO normally on the show

a decent enough guy with a nasty job

forced entry into a residential home,

assaulting the debtor after putting foot in door.

 

Has the new act now given HCEO's the right to make a forced entry trying to smash past the debtor/resident over a civil debt?

 

I thought HCEO's could only force entry into commercial property?

 

They also appear to now be issuing bankruptcy stat demands like confetti in an attempt to secure their fees

despite the fact this could be working against their clients interest

as if the debtor has no assets, in trying to secure their fees

the HCEO's if they go ahead have lost the creditor/claimant

any chance of recovering a debt that is now "gone" with no assets towards the bankruptcy...

 

I thought using bankruptcy stat demands as a debt collection tool to try

and frighten a payment was against the rules

and got some debt collection bottom feeders into trouble?

[citizenB]

I thought using bankruptcy stat demands as a debt collection tool to try and frighten a payment was against the rules and got

some debt collection bottom feeders into trouble?

 

Yep, 1st Credit and Mucky Hall were both hauled over the coals for using stat demands as Debt Collection tools.

Edited October 6, 2014 by citizenB

[sillygirl1]

I try to avoid this programme as I want to keep my TV intact, the idiots I've seen on it (on both sides of the fence) are dreadful.

 

I also have a very close friend who happens to be a bailiff and even he says the programme is greatly distorted at times in favour of the bailiffs, even when they are in the wrong.

[unclebulgaria67]

I try to avoid this programme as I want to keep my TV intact, the idiots I've seen on it (on both sides of the fence) are dreadful.

 

I also have a very close friend who happens to be a bailiff and even he says the programme is greatly distorted at times in favour of the bailiffs, even when they are in the wrong.

 

The TV channel that shows the programme might be considered to have a hidden political agenda.

 

 

I believe the owner of the channel up to May of this year (has been sold since) was on the right of politics, if you look him up.

 

 

He also owns the Daily Express.

 

 

Hence programmes such as Benefits Street and other similar progs And now a programme on bailiffs kicking people out of their homes etc.

[i hate bailiffs]

No right of entry to a resedential address but I do remember the hceo mention something about special powers they have

 

Perhaps that is the ability to keep a clean shirt despite there dribble

[ploddertom]

What you will find is that the Enforcement Agents portrayed are NOT HCEO's but just general dogsbodies operating under instruction from the Authorised HCEO which just so happens to the same person for both the companies concerned. It is the Authorised HCEO who should carry the can for any wrongdoings.

[Bailiff Advice]

I was going to start a new thread on this very subject in the morning as there were many activities that I witnessed in the TV series that are clearly wrong. I will respond with more details in the morning.

[dx100uk]

is there not already a thread last year during the first series

where all this was debated previously?

 

 

dx

[josephbloggs]

He has taken a lot of flack from bailiffs since the start of this new series, dont think he has much respect in the industry tbh.

off the top of my head he has done the following wrong:-

- issue fake stat demands

- tell a debtor to f*** off on camera

- drink beer whilst on the phone to debtors

- where a stab vest with blue and white reflective strips like police officers do.

- force his way in to a residential address by pushing past someone.

Thats just this paul bohill character, theres another company they are following from direct collection bailiffs ltd and the two guys seem pretty decent

[citizenB]

Surely the companies themselves must realise that they are not giving a good impression of the industry ?

[brassnecked]

Surely the companies themselves must realise that they are not giving a good impression of the industry ?

 

Don't think they care, they think the "free" publicity will mark them out as Hard Men in the public perception, and by their own twisted logic it will scare the debtor they lean on into paying up when they turn up at the door.

[unclebulgaria67]

Surely the companies themselves must realise that they are not giving a good impression of the industry ?

 

That is deliberate. They want to instal fear in people and give them the impression that they have limited rights to prevent an HCEO from collecting a debt or to evict them from a property.

 

On the BBC programme about HCEO's atleast the main HCEO explained what he could and could not do. This is not really mentioned much on the CH5 programme. Why ? BBC is a public broadcaster with a charter that makes it responsible for the content of its programmes. It can be held to account by parliament, the BBC board, as well as the normal industry complaints system. CH5 was owned by the same person who owned the Daily Express and some of its programmes were politically motivated.

[citizenB]

Don't think they care, they think the "free" publicity will mark them out as Hard Men in the public perception, and by their own twisted logic it will scare the debtor they lean on into paying up when they turn up at the door.

 

That is deliberate. They want to instal fear in people and give them the impression that they have limited rights to prevent an HCEO from collecting a debt or to evict them from a property.

 

On the BBC programme about HCEO's atleast the main HCEO explained what he could and could not do. This is not really mentioned much on the CH5 programme. Why ? BBC is a public broadcaster with a charter that makes it responsible for the content of its programmes. It can be held to account by parliament, the BBC board, as well as the normal industry complaints system. CH5 was owned by the same person who owned the Daily Express and some of its programmes were politically motivated.

 

If they are giving a false impression of their "powers", why on earth are the regulators not stepping in and investigating these companies? If they are giving the industry a bad name (not that it actually needs any assistance in that) why isn't the industry itself having a moan ?

[unclebulgaria67]

If they are giving a false impression of their "powers", why on earth are the regulators not stepping in and investigating these companies? If they are giving the industry a bad name (not that it actually needs any assistance in that) why isn't the industry itself having a moan ?

 

There would have to be a volume of complaints made against CH5.

 

I suspect CH5 will say that they were just covering the work of an HCEO company, who told them that they conformed to all industry standards.

 

Other HCEO's would only complain I expect about why another company is getting free advertising. The programme could be accused of selling this companies services.

[citizenB]

My head hurts

[unclebulgaria67]

My head hurts

 

What you have to think about, it how they decide what features on this programme. The HCEO company is in charge of what enforcement actions the film crew are invited to see. They control what happens, as far as they can. The HCEO's are all experienced older men, so viewers might see them as authorative and believe that what is shown is compliant with the rules that apply.

 

Regulators don't watch these programmes and decide to investigate issues off their own backs. The will only act if they receive complaints.

 

Razor Ruddock would have a good reason to complain, as his case is shown at the beginning of each programme, even though it was only featured for about 3 minutes. Allegations were made by the HCEO and I cannot remember them saying that Razor had been given the opportunity of responding on the programme to what was said.

[HCEOs]

It is disappointing to see that the agents of this small 'franchise' firm appear to have had little formal training and lack the basic knowledge when it comes to rights of entry.

[unclebulgaria67]

It is disappointing to see that the agents of this small 'franchise' firm appear to have had little formal training and lack the basic knowledge when it comes to rights of entry.

 

But I bet that CH5 went out to various HCEO companies, most did not want to get involved and the ones that ended up being used were the cheapest. Ch5 is a low budget TV channel, who would not want to spend too much on these type of programmes.

[caledfwlch]

Another area they seem to be on a sticky wicket with is telling third parties for personal debts that unless they have reciepts they will take the third parties goods - most people won't have reciepts for everything unless its brand new - as a stat dec would be enough it seems to me the EO's are again misrepresenting their powers slighty, and on discovering other parties live at the property and in most of these cases actually own or are the tenants of the property with the debtor having moved in (often a relation) then surely the EO no longer has the protection of being able to assume the entire contents of the property are the debtors!

 

If you have a married couple who own the home and their son has moved back in after a relationship breakup then it cannot be reasonable to assume anything outside his bedroom is also his.

 

It seems to me also that the film crew are often guilty of harassment continuing to film against a debtors wishes.

 

As I understand it from discussions with amateur photographers the crew behaviour is absolutely harassment! At Ruddocks home the crew stepped onto the public road and the EO claimed that his wife could not stop them filming from there.

 

That is not correct as I understand it - you may stand in the street filming or photographing the general scene, think a bbc news crew filming a busy shopping street for example but if you focus on a person/s without permission esp if they then demand you stop it becomes harassment to continue

 

Also as the filming is for commercial television surely they are breaching various things by broadcasting without a data protection waiver nor the standard waiver a tv crew would normally need signed by an individual for permission to broadcast.

[citizenB]

Presumably people are too embarrassed to complain

[ploddertom]

You have to be aware that the Enforcement Agents shown in this show are just the hired help. The Authorised HCEO can employ anyone he likes to carry out his orders, unlike Bailiffs a lot of these Agents have no Certificate - although some do. In the episode I viewed there were 2 different companies featured in 2 different areas of the country. What became apparent is that the same Authorised HCEO was in charge for each company, further examination reveals that this same Authorised HCEO appears to be in charge of a further 3 companies - sounds a lot to me as if he is promoting himself as "HCEO for hire" so that any small enforcement company or even solicitor can employ his services for a price. I believe he is not the only HCEO operating in this manner and my view is that it is wrong as how can he personally oversee each Writ - similar to another HCEO who now lives abroad.

[caledfwlch]

Good grief is it even legal for the HCEO to reside abroad?

 

That surely defeats the point in that a mistreated debtor has no legal course of action against the HCEO being out of the UK's jurisdiction!

 

How can a Judge get him in to ask questions!

 

I have been wondering on what legislation EO's are relying upon to take active body cameras onto private property esp if the resident refuses permission to be filmed and perhaps even has a sign up removing the right to film themselves

 

I forget if its the admin of justice act or another but that is what the Police use to claim the right to be followed by commercial film crews even inviting them into private properties on raids. But surely technically as a suspect is innocent until proven guilty in court then again harassment applies if they refuse permission to be filmed.

 

I am actually amazed a couple of pro bono civil rights lawyers who like a good fight haven't stepped in - often people are going to be "told of" and sent on their way but end up arrested because the film crew presence sees them attempting to block the camera or end up swearing out of stress. Arguably the presence of the crew has "entrapped" them into committing an offence, and again if they have not committed an offence to that point them on what right is the crew relying upon to harass an innocent member of the public.a decent lawyer could have a lot of fun dropping cats amongst pidgeons.

 

I suspect a french lawyer could have a lot of fun in the french courts regarding the use of uk film crews filming assylum seekers in Calais esp if French Law does not have a similar public right as uk police to a degree.

 

Of course when the situation is reversed, when members of the public film THEM many officers get very angry and make unlawful threats, istr an asian PCSO on youtube going beserk about being filmed by the tuber.

 

This is a different area but sort of relevent in that it is again channel 5 doing it, nightmare neighbours!! They are constantly showing photos often looking to have been snapped covertly of alledged nightmare neighbours who have never been charged or found guilt of any offence nor proof of such other than the word of the alledged victim, again how is that lawful?

[Bailiff Advice]

Can I make a suggestion here. I am receving so many complaints about this TV series which I will be airing on this thread but in order to gather even more views it would be far better to change the 'title' of the thread to something such as:

 

TV Series: Can't Pay...Won't Pay....a discussion thread.

[DragonFly1967]

Can I make a suggestion here. I am receving so many complaints about this TV series which I will be airing on this thread but in order to gather even more views it would be far better to change the 'title' of the thread to something such as:

 

TV Series: Can't Pay...Won't Pay....a discussion thread.

 

It'd be even better to change it to: "TV Series: "Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!"....a discussion thread." As that's actually the title of the programme

[dx100uk]

it has been done

 

 

dx