Can't Pay We'll Take it Away TV programme

[brassnecked]

This seems to take care of delegation of an enforcement power by a HCEO to a bunch of thugs

CONSTRUCTION

 

Clearly the nature and scope of any delegation must be a matter of construction of the particular measure. However, the law does recognise that one senior individual cannot do everything personally. In local government there are mature statutory and administrative provisions which appear to have been sensibly construed by the courts. But it is equally clear that those who operate delegations in haste and are careless as to their precise terms may repent at leisure.

[unclebulgaria67]

How will this question be answered officially. I don't expect that the government will answer it properly and just say that an HCEO is responsible for the people they authorise to act on their behalf and must ensure that they perform to the standards required. It will be a politicians answer.

 

It would be up to someone who had been on the receiving end of an HCEO authorised agent action to take this to court and even then I am not sure how the court would deal with issues of HCEO delegated powers.

[brassnecked]

How will this question be answered officially. I don't expect that the government will answer it properly and just say that an HCEO is responsible for the people they authorise to act on their behalf and must ensure that they perform to the standards required. It will be a politicians answer.

 

It would be up to someone who had been on the receiving end of an HCEO authorised agent action to take this to court and even then I am not sure how the court would deal with issues of HCEO delegated powers.

 

If it was provable that the action was ultra vires, and/or the delegated thug assaulted the debtor, it could look very bad for the HCEO who delegated to ithe thug. perhaps the Can't Pay programmes need to be reviewed to identify any any breaches and unlawful acts that are evidential in nature.

[jotho]

How will this question be answered officially. I don't expect that the government will answer it properly and just say that an HCEO is responsible for the people they authorise to act on their behalf and must ensure that they perform to the standards required. It will be a politicians answer.

 

It would be up to someone who had been on the receiving end of an HCEO authorised agent action to take this to court and even then I am not sure how the court would deal with issues of HCEO delegated powers.

 

I agree the LC will do everything possible to fudge the issue. I have done the best I can to pin him down in the way I framed the question but what is needed is a barrage of requests for clarification, via MPs, all directed at Mr Grayling. There is no one else to go to for clarity. It is true that an individual court case against a bogus HCEO "should" determine the issue but who would risk that with the court system the way it is? ☺.

 

My view is that Mr Grayling needs to respond - that's his job. Then we go to court. This has got so completely out of hand and will only get worse. Groups of unlicenced and uncontrollable thugs terrorising the population, demanding money with menaces with absolutely no accountability. It brings to mind the wheel clamping scandal before the government finally had to rein it in only now people are not losing their cars, they're losing their homes.

 

There is no provision in the original statute for re-delegation of power. The useful and interesting post (many thanks for posting in full) above is mostly talking about local government powers. Why would there be such stringent application requirements to become a HCEO if there were not an acknowledgment of the need for it? Why do High Court Writs specifically nominate the HCEO by name who is personally and specifically charged with execution of that Writ? If this continues will we next be looking at senior police officers forming private companies called "Police UK Ltd" and employing a bunch of thugs to go about impersonating the police and charging people for speeding? If we interpret the law this way then there is no barrier to this scenario.

 

I have personally gone through every episode of the BBC series and there is not one single genuine HCEO anywhere. Nonetheless they all announce themselves at the door as HCEOs. This in itself is fraud (misrepresentation). The wheelclampers were stopped through legislation brought about by public pressure. Now we have to stop this. If we don't we are walking into a privately-run police state. Hello G4S.

[HCEOs]

Yep, certainly an interesting discussion.

 

Personally, I believe that jotho is incorrect in his analogy of the delegation of authority but then I would say that wouldn't I. The authority is clearly defined in statute and regulations. If he believes it to be unlawful then it would need to be brought to the High Court and tested. Even if successful (which I believe it wouldn't be) there is not a chance in hell that the 750,000 writs of fi-fa (control) and hundreds of thousands of writs of possession/delivery executed since 2004 will be deemed unlawful.

 

I would also add that since TCoG Act any Enforcement Agent now has to be Certificated by the Court so it's not quite delegated to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

 

The argument all sounds a bit Freemen of the Land to me.

[jotho]

Yep, certainly an interesting discussion.

 

Personally, I believe that jotho is incorrect in his analogy of the delegation of authority but then I would say that wouldn't I. The authority is clearly defined in statute and regulations. If he believes it to be unlawful then it would need to be brought to the High Court and tested. Even if successful (which I believe it wouldn't be) there is not a chance in hell that the 750,000 writs of fi-fa (control) and hundreds of thousands of writs of possession/delivery executed since 2004 will be deemed unlawful.

 

I would also add that since TCoG Act any Enforcement Agent now has to be Certificated by the Court so it's not quite delegated to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

 

The argument all sounds a bit Freemen of the Land to me.

 

Hmm. Funny that. Sounds to me like Common Law (Sherrifs) prevailing over statute (HCEOs). When a HCEO, bogus or otherwise, carries out his/her duties wearing an identification badge with the name of a private limited company, is he/she working for that private company or working for the Crown as a sworn officer? The Crown will have a fixed schedule of fees payable to their appointed enforcement officers. Those officers then carry out the work they have been paid to do by the Crown. Now bring in the private company paid by the creditor. An appointed HCEO is only a sworn officer of the Crown when he/she is working in that capacity. If he/she is now working for a private company as a private employee how do they transpose their HCEO status (and then confer it on others) over to the private company?

 

Any implied potential to delegate sworn powers (please quote statute referred to) would necessitate the delegated officer behaving in exactly the same capacity as the original officer - as an officer of the Crown, paid for by the Crown (so no money to be made there) and not a private employee of a private, for-profit business paid by the creditor (huge profits to be made).

 

BTW if something is wrong, it is wrong. If it is unlawful there is no safety in numbers though I do appreciate there would be a hell of a mess to unravel. Probably something akin to the wheelclampers backtrack would do it

[HCEOs]

jotho I hear what you say and understand the question you raise. A person with greater legal knowledge than I may well resolve your question but in reality I would have thought that the only way to fully deal with this is to get it tested in Court.

[brassnecked]

jotho I hear what you say and understand the question you raise. A person with greater legal knowledge than I may well resolve your question but in reality I would have thought that the only way to fully deal with this is to get it tested in Court.

 

As it would all be down to interpretation, and the facts of an individual case i feel you are correct HCEOs the whole issue needs testing in court to explore the boundaries and look at what delegation means in the context of Enforcement.

[unclebulgaria67]

As it would all be down to interpretation, and the facys of an individualk case i feel you are correcdt HCEOs the whole issue needs testing in court to explore the boundaries and look at what delegation means in the context of Enforcement.

 

The only way you could test it is through judicial review. This is because it would be quite difficult to get a Judge to consider delegated powers during a standard court case. For example, let us say that Mr F Jones was subject to an HCEO enforcement of a company debt at his private home, where they entered through an unlocked door. Mr Jones asked the HCEO's to leave his house and they refuse to do so. Mr Jones refused to pay the amount owed and goods were taken to cover the debt. Mr Jones then found out that the HCEO warrant holder was not in attendance on the day and it was a private company using delegate powers who were in attendance. On what basis could Mr Jones issue a court claim that would be accepted by a court ? The debt was due and enforcement was carried out. It would be difficult to argue that the enforcement action was illegal, because of the use of delegated power. That would probably be thrown out without any hearing.

[brassnecked]

The only way you could test it is through judicial review. This is because it would be quite difficult to get a Judge to consider delegated powers during a standard court case. For example, let us say that Mr F Jones was subject to an HCEO enforcement of a company debt at his private home, where they entered through an unlocked door. Mr Jones asked the HCEO's to leave his house and they refuse to do so. Mr Jones refused to pay the amount owed and goods were taken to cover the debt. Mr Jones then found out that the HCEO warrant holder was not in attendance on the day and it was a private company using delegate powers who were in attendance. On what basis could Mr Jones issue a court claim that would be accepted by a court ? The debt was due and enforcement was carried out. It would be difficult to argue that the enforcement action was illegal, because of the use of delegated power. That would probably be thrown out without any hearing.

 

Yes I think you are correct there, the court wouldn't consider the legality or otherwise of the delegation.

[mikeymack2002]

I am about to start a new thread called "Can I please have some thoughts" it is about a well known HCEO/EA company that state that Writs may not have to be paid in full when demanded by the HCEO, hopefully you can let me know what you all think of it please... it has some important words like Directed and Accept.

 

 

It should be up in a few minutes I hope

[welsh1]

 

If this continues will we next be looking at senior police officers forming private companies called "Police UK Ltd"

 

.

 

Does the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) ring any bells?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Chief_Police_Officers

[jobmid]

Sorry to dig up an old thread. I have been watching this show lately on youtube. What strikes me is the guy on it who keeps introducing himself "Im from the High Court" Im thinking to myself every time i see him say it no your not. You misrepresenting yourself there. You work for High Court Solutions Ltd a private company not HM Courts. I could be wrong here maybe someone can weigh in on this

[ploddertom]

You are correct but it would probably be seen as a minor infraction. It's more a play on words than anything else, Those that he visits will know no different and possibly submit to his demands. I don't doubt if challenged he would change his tune but there again that doesn't make good TV.

[caledfwlch]

If a HCEO is an "Officer of the Court" then surely when things go badly wrong, such as an assault on the debtor, then legal action should be taken against the HCEO's employer, which is ultimately the Court, and then if the HCEO loses, it would be up to the Court to take action against its subcontractor to recover any financial loss?

 

If not so, then HCEO's are not "Officers of the Court" and are therefore misrepresenting themselves, and that surely is an offence, isn't for example masquerading as other officers of the court, such as Judges an offence?

[ploddertom]

There is a misconception about the role these people take. They are not HCEOs per se but are attending as Enforcement Agents on behalf of the Authorised HCEO - a list of these may be found @ http://www.hceoa.org.uk/members/authorised-members-directory.html . At all times the Authorised HCEO is totally responsible for the actions of those he/she has instructed. It used to be that the Authorised HCEO could instruct anyone to work on his behalf & although that may still be true the Agent now has to have a current Bailiff Certificate and usually appears on the Bailiff Register.

 

As said previously I think you would find that if they call themselves HCEOs or Officers of the Court you would have a difficult job trying to make something of it, unless of course there has been other wrong doing as well - violence, fraud to nmae but two. HCEO is looked on more as general term in this context. Complaints about this must be made first to the Authorised HCEO and if unhappy with the response can be escalated to the Lord Chancellors Office, if a serious incursion then obviously an EAC2 could be filed at the attending Agents Certificating Court.

[caledfwlch]

Just read this interesting page on High Court Solutions site.

 

PT is right, not only are Steve and Paul not HCEO's, but their "fair and understanding approach" to eviction and collection starts to sound very, very hollow and faked for the cameras, because, it seems they do not actually act even as Enforcement Agents for their day job!!!

 

http://www.highcourtsolutions.co.uk/cant-pay-well-take-away/

 

Paul Bohill is the Operations Director at High Court Solutions

Now, is it just me, or do "Operations Director's" normally spend 9-5 on the "shop floor"?? I would have thought they had rather greater responsibilities requiring them in the office..... Certainly explains his massive faux pas with his illegal forced entry into the poor chap's house, and his attempted illegal "foot in door" Defence - the guy probably had not enforced a writ for years before the first day of filming. Also explains why they are in body armour, whilst most we see on TV are not - finally having to go meet the Proles after years away must have been a scary prospect. Probably the same for Steve as:

 

Steve provides High Court Solutions with specialist advice regarding high court enforcement, and works with Sheriffs for re-possessions, evictions and high court writs.

So Steve isn't even an employee of High Court Solutions, but some sort of Contractor providing advice! And if an actual employee, still someone a bit of a grade or 5 above working the shop floor 9-5

 

The Website also insists Paul Bohill is a High Court Enforcement Officer, NOT an Enforcement Agent working for an Authorised HCEO.

 

On a lighter note the only comment is from a very loved up woman who seems to find them both tres sexy! I wouldnt try and click and get the full post though, chrome is bringing up a warning stating High Court Solutions website is unsecure, and could do nasty things to your PC.

[ploddertom]

At present there are 3 different programs doing the rounds:

1 - The Sheriffs are Coming - probably the best of the three and follows Agents of The Sheriff's Office

2 - Can't Pay we'll Take it Away - sees 2 different companies High Court Collections & Direct Collections Bailiffs who strangely have the same Authorised HCEO who also seems to "rent" himself out to other companies if they want a foot in the HCEO door.

3 - The Enforcers - sees a few of Shergroups's Agents working

 

My view is that numbers 2 & 3 wanted their own programs having seen the success of the Sheriff's Are Coming. We have noted as seen on here the reservations we have about the people that work on the Can't Pay We'll Take it Away. Lastly Shergroup who seem to have rebranded themselves being formerly Sherforce are The Enforcers. It appears they have very little clout these days and a search on the HCEOA website now reveals there is only one Authorised HCEOA - there used to be 4. I would also guess since the program was made their business has shrunk further - how the mighty have fallen.

[caledfwlch]

In a wonderful bit of Irony, Sean James, the extremely aggressive Repo Man, going around taking cars for logbook loans, many almost certainly without a Bill of Sale, thus theft, apparantly doesn't like having Bailiff's round, nor does someone boasting about how much he earns, like paying his Council Tax, so very much a wont pay. He was very offended that some big Thug coming round and intimidating his little mum who was babysitting for him, this from the Thug who with one or two other Thugs in tow, goes around intimidating elderly women every single day, snatching keys out of their cars and so on!!!

 

My irony Meter has pretty much exploded over this one.

 

He was so outraged, he even filmed it all on his phone - warning, there is a lot of very bad language, all from James, and whilst not a fan of EA's, it would be brilliant if we could locate the poor chap and let him know there is enough proof sitting right there on youtube to get him done for all the threats he makes, actually looks like James is going to assault him at a couple of points. It was last August, so I am thinking Obstructing an Enforcement Officer (by using threats and intimidation to force him off the property) may even be applicable. There is absolutely no excuse for behaving the way James does. Surprised the media didn't pick up on this since they were interested in his TV show.

 

Again Warning about the language and threats on the video, if the link breaks the board rules - apologies if it does, then a search for "Repo Man - Sean James (Dealing With A bristow and sutor Bailiff That Turned Up At His Door)" is the video title.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OafqV3djnLY

 

It is clearly a huge property too, yet he cant pay his council tax?

[caledfwlch]

I'm pretty sure when I researched this it definitely states that the appointed HCEO can delegate to anyone they need to enforce these writs and delegation means just that, someone doing the job on the HCEO's behalf under their instructions. The HCEO remains ultimately answerable to the creditor and presumably the High Court.

 

HCEO powers are a curiously acane vestige of the powers of the Monarchy, the Monarch of course is above the law, the High Court is the Queen's Court. I've often wondered if there is an equivalent to High Court enforcement in America and Europe. It seems the "our" Courts ie the County Courts have an overreaching authority above them.

 

In the US, Bailiff's would be gunned down, and given that they too would be armed, the risk to innocents of potential gunfights would be incredible. Debt Collectors afaik dont make house calls for those reasons, and every year, several Bounty Hunters enforcing Bail Warrants die on duty.... Evictions are generally carried out by either a Sherrif, or in some states and big cities a dedicated Policeman often known as a "Constable" so evictions in the US are carried out by the Local Police Force, and of course, they are armed.

 

We think we have it bad, in France it's a nightmare!! The Huissier's have the power to force entry for any civil debt they have a warrant for, if not enough goods inside, and your out for example, or if he can see from outside breaking in would be a waste of time, he will get on the phone and empty your bank accounts. Huissier's are real Officers of the Court though, as in, they are employed directly by the state.

 

In Germany, the Gerichtsvollzieher has similar powers to France, with the wonderful addition of being able to forcibly search the clothing of a debtor. But then, they aren't exactly a stranger to acting like a fascist police state

 

Most EU Nations have a variant of the Bailiff, and generally they seem unlike the UK to be civil servants, though privatisation is creeping in.

[HCEOs]

At present there are 3 different programs doing the rounds:

1 - The Sheriffs are Coming - probably the best of the three and follows Agents of The Sheriff's Office

2 - Can't Pay we'll Take it Away - sees 2 different companies High Court Collections & Direct Collections Bailiffs who strangely have the same Authorised HCEO who also seems to "rent" himself out to other companies if they want a foot in the HCEO door.

3 - The Enforcers - sees a few of Shergroups's Agents working

 

My view is that numbers 2 & 3 wanted their own programs having seen the success of the Sheriff's Are Coming. We have noted as seen on here the reservations we have about the people that work on the Can't Pay We'll Take it Away. Lastly Shergroup who seem to have rebranded themselves being formerly Sherforce are The Enforcers. It appears they have very little clout these days and a search on the HCEOA website now reveals there is only one Authorised HCEOA - there used to be 4. I would also guess since the program was made their business has shrunk further - how the mighty have fallen.

 

It would appear that the original HCEO behind High Court Solutions, DCBL, High Court Collections and many others has withdrawn his name from most of them in recent months. Instead, the sole HCEO from Shergroup, who lives in the USA, is giving her name out to these companies now.

 

http://www.dcbltd.com/news/detail/?article=32

 

The EAs from Cant Pay have also left High Court Solutions for DCBL.

[Bailiff Advice]

It would appear that the original HCEO behind High Court Solutions, DCBL, High Court Collections and many others has withdrawn his name from most of them in recent months. Instead, the sole HCEO from Shergroup, who lives in the USA, is giving her name out to these companies now.

 

http://www.dcbltd.com/news/detail/?article=32

 

The EAs from Cant Pay have also left High Court Solutions for DCBL.

 

The matter of Claire Sandbrook being involved with these companies is completely barmy. It is well known that she and her family reside almost full time in Florida. Surely this cannot be allowed ???

 

Is she endorsing any writs of control?

[HCEOs]

Like all of these matters, unless is it raised as a complaint with the HCEOA, MoJ or Senior Master then nothing will happen. This forum has enough members to actively have a say in such issues if you were to raise them.

[HCEOs]

The matter of Claire Sandbrook being involved with these companies is completely barmy. It is well known that she and her family reside almost full time in Florida. Surely this cannot be allowed ???

 

Is she endorsing any writs of control?

 

All Shergroup & now DCBL writs are issued in her name.

[ploddertom]

The matter of Claire Sandbrook being involved with these companies is completely barmy. It is well known that she and her family reside almost full time in Florida. Surely this cannot be allowed ???

 

Is she endorsing any writs of control?

 

All Shergroup & now DCBL writs are issued in her name.

 

Seeing as she is now the only Authorised HCEO for Shergroup - as all the others saw the light and moved on to better things - she certainly cannot have control over those acting in her name.