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

[Coughdrop]

HCEO's, if you Google Brian Gerrish, Common Purpose and the UK Column, you'll find it is, unsurprisingly, supported largely (not entirely by any means) by FMOTL, and published by Gerrish to the Kent Freedom Movement, Lawful Rebellion and that ilk.

 

Old Bill, there is evidence to support its existence, but I remember posting lines of flying pigs on another forum years ago (as I'm sure you remember me doing) whenever you posted this sort of thing. It was not personal, just the easiest regular way of expressing my opinion fairly clearly.

 

Citing endless lists of potential offences which will never in a million years be prosecuted, or blaming everything on conspiracy theories really is pointless.

[HCEOs]

Thanks Coughdrop.

[HCEOs]

Given that the OP of this thread as never returned since January...thread now moved to Discussions Forum.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Fair enough but the thread was re-ignited by a programme editor and I think it has highlighted some interesting issues, CP aside.

[mikeymack2002]

Do you have a link, please, mikey?

 

 

 

Sorry old bill I forgot the link >> https://www.property118.com/no-more-7-day-evictions/88400/

 

 

Original link from here >> https://www.property118.com/no-more-7-day-evictions/88400/

 

 

 

 

'Changes to the process of accelerated possession, through applying to use High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs) to evict a tenant, has brought an end the so called ‘7-day eviction’ which were misleading for landlords as well as increased costs.

 

The majority of residential possession claims are dealt with in the county court and enforced by county court bailiffs. However, with a backlog of cases and a reduction of bailiffs leading to longer waiting times in some courts, it can take several weeks for bailiffs to carry out an eviction, which is longer than most landlords wish to wait when suffering further loss of rent.'

[HCEOs]

The fees and forms needed are wrong in that article.

[Izzit249]

You really don't get it do you. This is nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of the case. A writ was issued, we know that.

 

The real issue was that neither Bohill or Pinner knewthe law. This is because before this they had no real experience in this type of work, despite their and DCBL's false claims that they did.

 

A writ of fi fa or control DOES NOT give an enforcement agent a right to push their way into a residential premises. It grants a right to obtain peaceable entry. It is clear that Bohill over stepped the mark and this was for everybody to see on TV! What do they do when the cameras are not there!!? They were even stupid enough to quote the law incorrectly in their peace to camera afterwards. Laughable.

 

You state "Mr Bohill calmly restrained him and used fair physical force to enter the property by simply using bodyweight and nothing more.". That is completely illegal. But Channel 5 don't care as it makes for interesting TV.

 

And you're probably unaware but DCBL's questionable transfer up process and Bohill's big mouth have been the cause of significant changes to the way writs of repossession are issued which is now at the detriment to landlords and the enforcement industry.

 

This is the problem when a 'tabloid' TV channel gives people who don't really know what they're doing air time.

 

I think you missed the point. Some writs allow the bailiffs o enter the property as long as no one is fought aggressively or assaulted. Other writs don't allow. Bohill did not injure or intend to injure him.

 

It's not about what ch5 thinks, it the law. Any tom dick or Harry can see Bohill did nothing wrong. What MW is trying to achieve here is postponing his bankruptcy petition by taking it out on Bohill. He is either now bankrupt or paid the balance and wants to use the program as leverage to get his money back which is highly unlikely.

[lookinforinfo]

Izzit 249 a High Court Writ does allow the use of force-to enter a garage or a shed, but it does not allow force against a person nor to push some one out of the way to gain entry.

 

What Bohill did was unlawful and he should be held to account for it. It may well be that Ch5 are culpable too. The Laws on the recovery debt have been simplified and clarified recently,

with good reason. But there are still a few who drive a horse and cart through that legislation.

[HCEOs]

I think you missed the point. Some writs allow the bailiffs o enter the property as long as no one is fought aggressively or assaulted. Other writs don't allow. Bohill did not injure or intend to injure him.

 

It's not about what ch5 thinks, it the law. Any tom dick or Harry can see Bohill did nothing wrong. What MW is trying to achieve here is postponing his bankruptcy petition by taking it out on Bohill. He is either now bankrupt or paid the balance and wants to use the program as leverage to get his money back which is highly unlikely.

 

You really dont understand this. Either that or this is a wind up.

 

If not a wind up then please provide the legislation that allows a bailiff acting for an HCEO the right to push his way in through a residential front door...

Edited July 1, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[Peterbard]

A high court writ to take goods only permits the officer to enter none commercial property by peaceful means. he cannot use force against the person in any circumstance, if he is offered violence he should withdraw and call the police. Peaceful entry can only be made through an unlocked or open door.

 

He can force entry to a premises on first visit,"if he has reasonably believes that there is a trade or business being carried on there" (18A (b)), although as said he cannot use force against the individual.

On a second visit to seize previously controlled goods he can use reasonable force.(16 /19.1)

 

He is not required to have permission to enter in either case, nor can he be requested to leave until the enforcment stage is completed.

[HCEOs]

Dodgeball, I would mention that this case pre-dated the TCG Regs as it was a 'writ of fieri facias' but even so what Bohill did was completely unlawful. Entry to a residential property must be peaceable. What he did was not and could be classed as assault.

[Peterbard]

Dodgeball, I would mention that this case pre-dated the TCG Regs as it was a 'writ of fieri facias' but even so what Bohill did was completely unlawful. Entry to a residential property must be peaceable. What he did was not and could be classed as assault.

 

I assumed that this thread had been reactivated by a current case, anyway an accurate description of the current situation.

 

Yes as you say a possible cause for criminal complaint and also certainly against all the common law requirements at the time on enforcement.

 

I have just skimmed the thread and apologies if again I have missed something(I got distracted by all the common purpose paranoiac twoddle,)

 

But have any reports been made to the Police on this matter ? There is I think, a time limit of six months on pursuing common assault offences.

[Coughdrop]

For common assault, it must be prosecuted within six months. Couldn't agree more about the CP twaddle!

[Izzit249]

You really dont understand this. Either that or this is a wind up.

 

If not a wind up then please provide the legislation that allows a bailiff acting for an HCEO the right to push his way in through a residential front door...

 

No this is not a wind up.

First

it was illegal for MW or anyone to obstruct a High Court Enforcement Agent.

Which is what he was doing, attempting to obstruct them to avoid paying the balance.

 

Secondly,

you need to watch more eps for this series. Try Can't pay 'final demand.'

 

 

There was a guy who owed money to a car leasing company and the bailiffs came to collect the payment or return the car.

The writ they had did not allow them to enter the property or use forced entry

whether it be knocking down the door or physically moving him.

That is the kind of writ MW is trying to insinuate was active.

 

 

This wasn't it was something completely the opposite.

(Having said that though, the baliff through force of habit kept his foot in the door and may well have got in trouble for this.)

 

3rdly,

as I said before Bohill only used body weight and continuously tried to calm MW down.

His accusation that Bohill tried to hit him is not true.

 

 

He threatened to hit Bohill and Bohill said go on then hit me implying he would then call the police

knowing he had done nothing wrong.

 

 

Like it or not MW owed somebody their living wage and was refusing to pay it.

He feels bullied by the high court as they were going to get the money one way

or another and he didn't want to pay it.

 

Like I said by now he is either bankrupt as a result or has paid the balance off.

The police on the side of the high court unless the baliffs physically kick punch slap shove choke spit and swear.

 

 

Their jobs are then immediately on the line and the court will be prosecuted by the police.

It may be 'tabloid tv' as you put it, but Ch5 would never have broadcast it

if he did anything wrong as they would've got in trouble too.

[brassnecked]

Izzit249, HCEOs IS an EA working in the same sector as the potentially criminal Bohill, so should know what he is talking about, there are clear breaches of the Regulations by Bohill throughout the series.

 

IMO refusing access to an EA High Court or bailiff to a private residence is NOT an offence, nor is it Obstruction. Bohill committed ab initio at the least Common Assault which means his action did not amount to Peaceful Entry.

[Izzit249]

Izzit249, HCEOs IS an EA working in the same sector as the potentially criminal Bohill, so should know what he is talking about, there are clear breaches of the Regulations by Bohill throughout the series.

 

IMO refusing access to an EA High Court or bailiff to a private residence is NOT an offence, nor is it Obstruction. Bohill committed ab initio at the least Common Assault which means his action did not amount to Peaceful Entry.

 

I reiterate,

this particular writ DOES allow them to enter the property they don't need permission from the person residing or owning the private residence when they as registered bailiffs have a such a writ in hand.

Other writs don't allow and Bohill would automatically lose his job if it was the same as the guy in dispute over his car on the 'Final Demand' special.

 

 

You quoted ‘IMO,’ ‘in my opinion?’ Opinion counts for nothing

writs allow such unless the person issuing it is not a bailiff.

Nor do they need the police as witnesses or to do it for them.

 

 

Their job is to collect payment.

If the police had turned up they would review Bohills camera which would need to show him kicking punching spitting slapping and ftr shoving him to the floor or shoving back and forth daring him to hit him.

 

 

On that note, AGAIN, MW stating he was going to hit Bohill or misinform police that Bohill had done so

would only have worsened the situation for him.

 

 

Bohill had to satisfy the writ and it appears he eventually did so through the threat of a bankruptcy petition

despite entering the property eventually.

No physical damage was done to his belongings or flat so no accusations viable there.

 

It appears to me that MW started this thread in the hope of relying on HCEOs sympathising

with many of these owers regardless what they owe and why they try and delay the writ,

 

 

Coming out with all existing laws under the sun to try and protect themselves from admitting

or facing the consequences of wrong doing.

 

If the courts adhere to every aspect of the law we'd all be in the nick by now.

IF this ended up before a judge or MW found himself an intelligent barrister

he will be informed now that these lawsuits take several months to ensue,

and when this particular one would,

as I have mentioned several times,

 

 

the fact that Bohill only used body weight and remained calm,

continued to talk as oppose to bash MW to one side and proceed to take belongings that weren't MWs,

kicked punched etc and verbally abused him,

 

 

the judge is human and will more than likely look at this and ask MW why he is so upset

and trying to activate the law you mentioned about force of entry to a private residence,

 

 

MW will say Bohill had no right to enter the property,

but provided bailiffs are there to settle a writs balance and no physical damage was done,

 

 

the only reason he's upset is that he was forced to pay up a balance he owed legally

and clearly is trying to use Bohill for the sole purpose to have this balance overturned or delayed further.

 

 

FTR in this episode he never gave a justifiable explanation as to why he refused to pay her.

 

To all those looking at HCEOs comments about Bohill breaking the law,

I suggest you don't rely on this if you find the high court coming knocking.

 

 

You owe a balance first through the county court and then high or possibly only through high court.

 

 

It may seem unfair, you may not feel responsible enough to pay a penny of it.

But! Evaluate the situation, talk to them, allow them in and try and workout a comfortable way to pay it off.

 

 

If they take your personal belongings, it hurts, but it's a way out if no money on hand.

If no belongings or money are to your name, the claimant may not pursue the debt through bankruptcy,

it may be wiped off.

 

 

If they do pursue, well, you had nothing anyway, for the time being it screws your credit rating but it will restore eventually,

so what have you really lost?

 

 

If the baliffs do use forced entry, it won't wipe off the debt and it won't stand up in court and you won't get anything back.

 

In the case of Won't Pay, you're doing it to yourself, so tough poo.

[brassnecked]

"If the baliffs do use forced entry, it won't wipe off the debt and it won't stand up in court and you won't get anything back.

 

In the case of Won't Pay, you're doing it to yourself, so tough poo."

 

We tend to be more concerned here with the genuine "Can't pays" a Won't pay brings it on themselves.

[Izzit249]

"If the baliffs do use forced entry, it won't wipe off the debt and it won't stand up in court and you won't get anything back.

 

In the case of Won't Pay, you're doing it to yourself, so tough poo."

 

We tend to be more concerned here with the genuine "Can't pays" a Won't pay brings it on themselves.

 

I agree. That said I hope you're not implying that ME couldn't pay. That clearly wasn't the case.

[lookinforinfo]

I reiterate,

this particular writ DOES allow them to enter the property they don't need permission from the person residing or owning the private residence when they as registered bailiffs have a such a writ in hand.

I have deleted most of your post shaking my head in disbelief at some of your statements. HCEOs are acting at the behest of the Courts and as such have to remain within the Law. Bohill was acting under a Writ of Fieri Facias and therefore WAS NOT ALLOWED to use force to enter a private property. it matters not that he eventually got the money, he acted unlawfully and it is a disgrace that Ch5 should appear to be aiding and abetting this activity. And even worse that there is no one in a position of authority on the program that has any idea that what Bohill was doing was completely unlawful.

 

Furthermore, there is no Law that states that anyone need allow a bailiff to enter their property and where the bailiff or HCEO do not have the right to use force to enter a property it is not

obstruction to prevent their entry. The Writ of Fieri Facias allows the HCEO to ATTEND the property [not to enter it] with a view to recovering a stated amount of money. They can only gain entry by invitation or through an unlocked door. A foot in the door or a shoulder barge against the door is totally unlawful. If it were even a grey area, do you think that another HCEO would have stated as clearly as the one did in an earlier post on this thread. They do tend to stick together except when the behaviour of one of them is so far out as to be indefensible.

 

Also your advice for debtors to allow bailiffs into their homes to talk about the debt is the most stupid advice going. Once the bailiff is in, the debtor is charged a daily figure by the bailiff depending on the value of goods involved, plus more importantly the bailiff can then call round and force entry to the property if the debtor won't let him in. Take a look at the advice given to people who write in to this forum and almost without exception the prevailing advice is NOT to let the bailiff in. the only time that advice changes is when the debtor has so little possessions of value that the bailiff returns the case to the creditor.

[brassnecked]

I have deleted most of your post shaking my head in disbelief at some of your statements. HCEOs are acting at the behest of the Courts and as such have to remain within the Law. Bohill was acting under a Writ of Fieri Facias and therefore WAS NOT ALLOWED to use force to enter a private property. it matters not that he eventually got the money, he acted unlawfully and it is a disgrace that Ch5 should appear to be aiding and abetting this activity. And even worse that there is no one in a position of authority on the program that has any idea that what Bohill was doing was completely unlawful.

 

Furthermore, there is no Law that states that anyone need allow a bailiff to enter their property and where the bailiff or HCEO do not have the right to use force to enter a property it is not

obstruction to prevent their entry. The Writ of Fieri Facias allows the HCEO to ATTEND the property [not to enter it] with a view to recovering a stated amount of money. They can only gain entry by invitation or through an unlocked door. A foot in the door or a shoulder barge against the door is totally unlawful. If it were even a grey area, do you think that another HCEO would have stated as clearly as the one did in an earlier post on this thread. They do tend to stick together except when the behaviour of one of them is so far out as to be indefensible.

 

Also your advice for debtors to allow bailiffs into their homes to talk about the debt is the most stupid advice going. Once the bailiff is in, the debtor is charged a daily figure by the bailiff depending on the value of goods involved, plus more importantly the bailiff can then call round and force entry to the property if the debtor won't let him in. Take a look at the advice given to people who write in to this forum and almost without exception the prevailing advice is NOT to let the bailiff in. the only time that advice changes is when the debtor has so little possessions of value that the bailiff returns the case to the creditor.

I can only concur and agree completely, Bohill should have been done for assault. HCEOs as a working EA who also does give good and reasonable advice on here provided a true account of what was wrong with Bohill's actions which were unlawful ab-initio.

[HCEOs]

Izzit249 clearly does not have the mental capacity to understand that they are wrong.

 

As already stated, the writ does not allow Bohill to push his way in and he did commit assault upon a person. End of.

[lookinforinfo]

Izzit your company is lucky that it was not me who was on the receiving end of a shove at my front door as CH5 and Bohill would gave been in Court as quick as I could get you there. I have already taken one bailiff to Court and won and this case is much clearer as to the guilty party than my one [his word against mine]. It is not an offence to owe money but it is an offence to masquerade as a Police officer and it is an offence to use force to gain entry.

Perhaps to avoid possible litigation if you decide to have another series would be to hire the use of a proper HCEO [we have one on our Forum] to keep you straight. Bailiff law is complicated and

Bohill and his ilk either do not know the Law or think they can get away with breaking it. Your series is treading on thin ice -it is only a matter of time before that ice cracks.

[ploddertom]

What Izzit249 needs to do is to show us the relevant Legislation that permits the actions taken.

[brassnecked]

What Izzit249 needs to do is to show us the relevant Legislation that permits the actions taken.

That would only be possible imho, if the then Labour government's proposal to give bailiffs the right to use force against a debtor had not been thrown out of the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act. so OP has no legislation to link to allowing Bohill's actions.

 

The below is from:

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-bailiff-action/supporting_documents/transformingbailiffactioneia.pdf

"Law Simplification and clarification of the law would:



address misrepresentation of powers by enforcement agents;



unify the law to address the current complex range of primary and secondary

legislation and common law;



render UK law consistent with Human Rights legislation;



balance the sometimes competing rights of creditors and debtors;



establish the use of less invasive ways to take control of goods; and



verify the rights and responsibilities of debtors, creditors and enforcement agents

when debts have to be enforced.

During the development of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations a number of

inadequacies of the TCE Act have been identified. The policy is to amend Schedule 12 to

the TCE Act to rectify these inadequacies by:

"

removing the possible power of force against the person;

 

So Bohill is guilty ab-initio and iner-alia guilty of assault as HCEOs stated imho. during that entry.

[ploddertom]

 

That would only be possible imho, if the then Labour government's proposal to give bailiffs the right to use force against a debtor had not been thrown out of the 2007 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act. so OP has no legislation to link to allowing Bohill's actions.

 

 

Prezactly!

[Izzit249]

I have deleted most of your post shaking my head in disbelief at some of your statements. HCEOs are acting at the behest of the Courts and as such have to remain within the Law. Bohill was acting under a Writ of Fieri Facias and therefore WAS NOT ALLOWED to use force to enter a private property. it matters not that he eventually got the money, he acted unlawfully and it is a disgrace that Ch5 should appear to be aiding and abetting this activity. And even worse that there is no one in a position of authority on the program that has any idea that what Bohill was doing was completely unlawful.

 

Furthermore, there is no Law that states that anyone need allow a bailiff to enter their property and where the bailiff or HCEO do not have the right to use force to enter a property it is not

obstruction to prevent their entry. The Writ of Fieri Facias allows the HCEO to ATTEND the property [not to enter it] with a view to recovering a stated amount of money. They can only gain entry by invitation or through an unlocked door. A foot in the door or a shoulder barge against the door is totally unlawful. If it were even a grey area, do you think that another HCEO would have stated as clearly as the one did in an earlier post on this thread. They do tend to stick together except when the behaviour of one of them is so far out as to be indefensible.

 

Also your advice for debtors to allow bailiffs into their homes to talk about the debt is the most stupid advice going. Once the bailiff is in, the debtor is charged a daily figure by the bailiff depending on the value of goods involved, plus more importantly the bailiff can then call round and force entry to the property if the debtor won't let him in. Take a look at the advice given to people who write in to this forum and almost without exception the prevailing advice is NOT to let the bailiff in. the only time that advice changes is when the debtor has so little possessions of value that the bailiff returns the case to the creditor.

 

Well after x amount of comments later i'm sure if MW is still reading this he's got a picture of both sides so there isn't much more to say.

 

However, after reading through my comments I think some things have been misinterpreted and I have waffled on about the writ, subsequently blurring what I was trying to say.

 

Even if what Bohill did violate a regulation, all MW is trying to do is delay payment or have it wiped off through the High Court's behaviour. His bankruptcy petition would still stand and by now he has either paid the balance or been declared bankrupt. He doesn't care about Bohill's behaviour he's just taking out his frustrations about the debt on him. If MW had 110% proof that he's been injured or Bohill's move proved dangerous his case will or would have stood up in court. When a judge looks at this he won't take it seriously, MW wasnt injured and this breach of regulation is negligible compared to other bailiffs who barge their way through property using aggressive and physical intention of hurting the person in question. The fact that Bohill peacefully talked to him and then used nothing more than force of body to calm him down is neglible. They were at the right address simply doing their job of collecting payment. If they were at the wrong address or there was a clerical error on the document he'd be in with a strong chance.

 

Overalll, if you don't want these situations, dont get yourself into them. MW hasn't replied for a long time so he either is still waiting for trial, or gave it up after discussing thoroughly with a reliable source.