A case from "Can't pay we'll take it away"

[ploddertom]

The program in question dealt with Enforcement Agents from 2 different companies & both have the same Authorised High Copurt Enforcement Office - Mr Simon Williamson - who also lends himself out to quite a few more companies and in a few eyes cannot realistically keep a close eye on all those executing these writs. Of course it sounds better to say "I have a warrant of entry" when really the Agent is overstating his powers.

[Conniff]

Ok, thanks for that, I understand. Just one other thing though, warrants for 'eviction'. When they haven't been able to gain entry he has sent his oppo back to the back to get a bar to force the door. Is this correct ??

[wonkeydonkey]

Those working for High Court Enforcement Officers deal with Writs - used to be Writ of FiFa, now Writ of Control, Writ of Possession or delivery are the most common although there are others. What you have alluded to is that in this case it was being deemed to be a Court Fine - HCEO's do not deal with criminal matters only civil.

 

Warrants of Execution are still carried out by the County Court Bailiff and it was also similar that Bailiffs used to use for unpaid Parking Fines through the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

you beat me to it... and I can't think of anything to add.

[wonkeydonkey]

Ok, thanks for that, I understand. Just one other thing though, warrants for 'eviction'. When they haven't been able to gain entry he has sent his oppo back to the back to get a bar to force the door. Is this correct ??

 

Yes the law is very clear on this, they do have the right to force entry when carrying out eviction.

[JoeyJoeC]

What difference would this make to the overall CCJ anyway? Could they write it all off just because the bailiff forced MW out of the way?

Edited December 18, 2014 by JoeyJoeC
Changes from fine to CCJ.

[brassnecked]

What difference would this make to the overall fine anyway? Could they write it all off just because the bailiff forced MW out of the way?

 

It wqasn't a fine it was a CCJ for alleged unpaid wages from the county court transferred up to High Court for a Writ of Fi fa, or as now Writ of Control, it isn't a warrant in the way a criminal fine is, and carries no right of forced entry of itself.

[JoeyJoeC]

It wqasn't a fine it was a CCJ for alleged unpaid wages from the county court transferred up to High Court for a Writ of Fi fa, or as now Writ of Control, it isn't a warrant in the way a criminal fine is, and carries no right of forced entry of itself.

 

Sorry did mean CCJ. Either way, what difference would it make?

[brassnecked]

Sorry did mean CCJ. Either way, what difference would it make?

 

To the CCJ nothing, he would have to apply to the court for a Stay, to halt the EA, and then challenge the CCJ, or apply to vary it as he had done and offered a derisory sum which the court rejected. But it is most important not to confuse Civil and Criminal, as there are substantial differences in the collection of the debts.

[HCEOs]

The fact is, disappointingly, that the enforcement agent acted unlawfully by putting his foot in the door and then physically forcing his way in. To then taunt MW daring him to hit him is also very unprofessional. For it to be shown on TV and defended/justified (wrongly) in a piece to camera afterwards really is quite astonishing.

 

It will be down to MW whether he wants to pursue a complaint against the enforcement agent's court certificate and having seen the footage myself there is little that can be denied on the illegal forced entry.

 

In terms of the use of the word 'warrant' and the Police style attire worn by the agent I would argue this is questionable at best and others may see it as a complete misrepresentation of powers. This is further aided by a Police style badge on their van and a huge Police style badge worn by them on another eviction matter.

 

Section 90 of the Police Act 1996 is very clear on this:

 

1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

 

(2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

 

(3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.

 

(4)In this section—

 

(a)“article of police uniform” means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document,

Edited December 18, 2014 by Conniff
Removed intimidatoryy sentence designed to provoke.

[JoeyJoeC]

HCEO. Excuse me but what advice did I give that was incorrect? I merely asked a question. Please read posts fully before making assumptions.

[brassnecked]

I would concur with HCEOs that the action was cack handed, unlawful ab initio and inter alia, it was obviously done to make a sensational hard hitting programme. Sadly it has made the job of the decent EAs more difficult.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

If MW has cause for complaint he should make a complaint to the court that certificated Mr Bohill, to the company he works for and to the HCEOA. MW may have to ask Bohill/his company which court certificated him.

 

He was granted his certificate on 14th April this year. Does anyone know the date on which filming took place and the visit made to Mr Wright?

 

The matter of one person having writs endorsed to him does not sit comfortably with me at all and I raised this matter at a recent meeting. I was informed that it is for the HCEOA to address. Do you know whether ML is looking into this matter? I will send an email to him in any event in the next few days.

[wonkeydonkey]

He was granted his certificate on 14th April this year. Does anyone know the date on which filming took place and the visit made to Mr Wright?

 

The matter of one person having writs endorsed to him does not sit comfortably with me at all and I raised this matter at a recent meeting. I was informed that it is for the HCEOA to address. Do you know whether ML is looking into this matter? I will send an email to him in any event in the next few days.

 

Reading back on the post the OP states the visit was made on 3rd June with film crew attending.

[lookinforinfo]

I think credit should be given to HCEO for his reading of the situation.

[brassnecked]

I think credit should be given to HCEO for his reading of the situation.

Most definitely, he confirmed our suspicions and clarified things from the EA perspective.

[Bailiff Advice]

I am also pleased to read HCEO's perspective. I am aware of other complaints that have been made to the High Court Enforcement Officers Association and this one seems to be destined for there as well.

[HCEOs]

Thank you for your positive comments. I do try to be fair even if some think not on occasions.

 

Many have worked hard to try and clear out the rogues from the enforcement industry and whilst there is no doubt that some still exist, the HCE industry seems to fair better today than the CT/Fine agents side.

 

It is a shame that much of MW's complaint has merit as it was there for all to see and it is certainly difficult to deny that entry in his matter was illegal and the terminology/dress was cause for concern (I note that they are mistaken for Police on many occasions throughout the show). In the main though, Bohill conducts himself very well, especially in the eviction side of the business but even that is now being questioned as the writs of possession may have been gained without the proper leave of the court making every eviction unlawful (not Bohill's fault but the company he works for). A separate can of worms altogether and one where TV fame certainly can have it's pitfalls.

 

As always, it will usually be those on the receiving end of the unlawful enforcement actions that will have to see any complaints through and it is forums like this and others that give those affected the tools to do so. Keep up the good work.

[wonkeydonkey]

Thank you for your positive comments. I do try to be fair even if some think not on occasions.

 

Many have worked hard to try and clear out the rogues from the enforcement industry and whilst there is no doubt that some still exist, the HCE industry seems to fair better today than the CT/Fine agents side.

 

It is a shame that much of MW's complaint has merit as it was there for all to see and it is certainly difficult to deny that entry in his matter was illegal and the terminology/dress was cause for concern (I note that they are mistaken for Police on many occasions throughout the show). In the main though, Bohill conducts himself very well, especially in the eviction side of the business but even that is now being questioned as the writs of possession may have been gained without the proper leave of the court making every eviction unlawful (not Bohill's fault but the company he works for). A separate can of worms altogether and one where TV fame certainly can have it's pitfalls.

 

As always, it will usually be those on the receiving end of the unlawful enforcement actions that will have to see any complaints through and it is forums like this and others that give those affected the tools to do so. Keep up the good work.

 

Indeed a very fair view and extremely informative post, thank you.

[brassnecked]

Thanks HCEOs

[Coughdrop]

I'll second (or third) that! Thank you HCEO's. I believe you're right that HCEO's fair better than your 'normal bailiff' for want of better words. There will always be good and bad in any job, profession, call it what you will. Bohill used to be a police officer I believe, so it is unsurprising he uses skills learnt there in his work. I've noticed how good he appears after any editing at turning a hostile situation round to a positive one, especially with evictions. The unlawful entrance which is the subject of this thread is unfortunate, but clearly evidenced. If other footage shows similar misconduct there may be problems. As in any walk of life, one is accountable for one's actions.

[Conniff]

the sameness between the uniforms are designed for one purpose

 

 

The same can be said right through the security industry where they wear white shirts and black ties. It used to be blue shirts and black ties when the police did so and they have followed them fashion wise all the way.

[mikeymack2002]

Maybe all are just wannabe cops cowboys then?

 

 

I wonder to myself whether or not the EA's will be out in force this week due to the high amount of "new goods" being available to take control of? or remove?

[old bill]

Thank you for confirming the point about transferring orders up from the County Court, mikeymack2002.

 

The points you raise about the need for the EOs/EAs to find a different style of uniform are very relevant and there needs to be a crackdown in this respect. I have, in my time, come across bailiffs who are little more than crooks with a certificate bearing a court seal, so your comment about them setting out to fool the public rings a number of bells.

 

What HCEOs says about those in the High Court Enforcement sector working hard to rid the sector of rogue operators is similar to the battle good, decent and honest police officers have with police officers who are corrupt.

 

Corrupt individuals within something like the police or civil enforcement are like a cancer; if you do not remove it, it spreads and affects the whole body. The answer to this is for the decent, honest operators to do what they can to remove the rogue elements, but where this is not enough, then stricter and tougher regulation may be the only answer.

[mikeymack2002]

Perhaps the MoJ really ought to look into this as at the end of the day as in many cases misrepresentation IS a criminal offence.

 

 

Look at the radio's the use and the body cams all designed to be similar to those issued to the Police.

 

 

Complaints against the enforcement sector has become a mine field recently, due to the sector successfully winning cases brought against them, therefore I believe future complaints will dwindle and then this will/may allow more abuse of power in the future.

 

 

Maybe as this is just a crazy thought here perhaps the enforcement sector ought to have a degree in Law so they then will KNOW exactly what the law is and not what they perceive it to be? any thoughts on this one?

 

 

If they had to have a Law degree then they would need special certification and insurance to be a EA and not rely on the courts/Police to sort out the mess the EA has made?!!

[old bill]

The key to stopping fraud is to introduce mandatory Enhanced Disclosure screening and abolish performance-related pay in the industry. However, it does make me wonder how many EAs would be left if every EA was subject to Enhanced Disclosure screening, whether they have a current certificate or a certificate approaching renewal. Any instance of dishonesty or violence recorded should result in automatic cancellation/refusal to renew a certificate. However, it would also raise questions as to whether a certificate should have issued in the first place and the lawfulness of any enforcement action. Yes, it would cause mayhem, but I suspect it would also result in rogue elements within the ranks of EAs and EOs being removed from the civil enforcement industry and civil enforcement companies with questionable practices being closed down.