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

[Coughdrop]

@ HCEOs

 

Offences under Schedule 12 of the Tribunal, Courts & Enforcement Act (TCA) 2007

 

Under section 68 of this schedule, the legislation is clear regarding the actions that constitute and offence during the process of enforcement:

 

A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent.

 

A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to-

 

Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or Both.

 

In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference in sub-paragraph (3)(a) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

 

 

Doesn't that in extremis mean the EA/bailiff can cry to the police that refusal of entry at the door for that CCJ or council tax is willful obstruction? even though they have no right of entry in reality if the debtor doesn't want to let them in.

 

That part looks as if it was intended to be used in conjunction with the removed part that would have allowed a bailiff to use force against the debtor, and was designed to catch a debtor who resisted the force, with force of his own.

 

No, as the EA wouldn't be acting lawfully trying to force entry. The sensible thing for the debtor is to keep the door locked and speak either outside with door locked, or via a window. The EA has no lawful right to barge past someone in a doorway in order to gain entry.

[brassnecked]

No, as the EA wouldn't be acting lawfully trying to force entry. The sensible thing for the debtor is to keep the door locked and speak either outside with door locked, or via a window. The EA has no lawful right to barge past someone in a doorway in order to gain entry.

 

You are correct Coughdrop, any doubt don't open the door.

[lookinforinfo]

@ HCEOs

 

 

Doesn't that in extremis mean the EA/bailiff can cry to the police that refusal of entry at the door for that CCJ or council tax is willful obstruction? even though they have no right of entry in reality if the debtor doesn't want to let them in.

 

That part looks as if it was intended to be used in conjunction with the removed part that would have allowed a bailiff to use force against the debtor, and was designed to catch a debtor who resisted the force, with force of his own.

 

It shouldn't do since the Taking Control of Goods Act-national Standards -see the last line

20. Enforcement agents must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their powers, qualifications, capacities, experience or abilities, including, but not restricted to;

 Falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when legally it cannot be taken by that agent

 Falsely implying or stating that a particular course of action will ensue before it is possible to know whether such action would be permissible

 Falsely implying or stating that action has been taken when it has not

 Falsely implying or stating that a debtor refusing entry to a property is classed as an offence.

[brassnecked]

Thanks Lookedinforinfo looks like the checks and balances are properly in place, but bailiffs are known for crying wolf.

[lookinforinfo]

Brassnecked it rathere begs the question though of why when bailiffs get the Ploice to talk people into letting them into their property why

no action for two possible offences against the bailiff appears to follow.

[renegadeimp]

Simple. Most police officers have no knowledge of what bailiffs can and cannot do. The Bailiffs know this so abuse it any chance they get.

[brassnecked]

Brassnecked it rathere begs the question though of why when bailiffs get the Ploice to talk people into letting them into their property why

no action for two possible offences against the bailiff appears to follow.

Because the police think the bailiff is one of "theirs" or think the bailiff might be at risy? or that the debtor would be obstructing the bailiiff in spite of the section you highlighted

 

Falsely implying or stating that a debtor refusing entry to a property is classed as an offence.

[HCEOs]

MW, have you had any response from your complaints to the company, the HCEOA and the EAC2 certificate?

[Izzit249]

I used to work for the post-production company who edited this series of the program.

My job was to review the assets for tech faults as opposed to factual QC.

 

However,

from my memories from this episode,

also available on channel 5 iplayer,

at the end of the day he lost this case fair and square at the county court

because he failed to pay a freelancer/contractor her wages which she was entitled to without question.

 

When approached by Paul Bohill and his colleague his exact words were.

'No, no she's not getting a penny out of me!'

 

 

The bailiffs then advised him calmly and clearly without the use of physical force

that they had a high court writ to enter the property to seize goods to cover the debt,

he insisted he would not allow them into the property.

 

 

Mr Bohill calmly restrained him and used fair physical force to enter the property

by simply using bodyweight and nothing more.

He continuously reassured this man to take it easy and that they were legally obliged to enter.

 

 

He told the bailiffs that he was calling the police to report use of physcial result,

however as the bailiffs had a camera on their chests to clear them of any wrong doing,

i.e.: did not punch, kick, aggressively shove him or verbally abuse him by calling him names and mocking his situation,

they were not threatened by MW's accusations.

 

 

MW then continuously demanded they do not take anything from the flat,

but failed to make an offer which would satisfy his high court writ.

 

 

He then called a friend and asked him to confirm all goods in the flat were not his and belonged to someone else.

MW then reluctantly agreed to an instalment plan.

At the end of the episode it was announced that MW failed to make his first instalment.

 

 

As opposed to giving up the case,

the lady who was owed the money allowed the bailiffs to file a bankruptcy petition against him

in a bid for her to retrieve her money.

 

In terms of whether Paul Bohill did anything wrong, no he didnt. Nor did his partner.

They have a camera to prove their innocence and even if MW had called the police

it would have gone against him and would've felt more pressure to pay the balance.

 

 

I'm assuming he has either been declared bankrupt by now or has paid the balance.

If he's managed to delay payment further the balance is likely to rise even further and he will just make it worse for himself.

 

I would like to clarify having worked on this episode as I work in TV

and the company I was employed by edited the program

that Mr Bohill did not impose himself as a police officer or special constable.

 

The writ he showed him allowed him with permission of and as an employee of the high court

to use forced entry to claim goods worthy of the debt should the owner not be able to or want to pay,

not to enter his property for pleasure or any other matter.

 

 

MW chose not to read the writ and tried to delay the bailiffs by not doing so.

The only time they are not allowed to force their way in is when its a form of rental agreement,

I.e.: Finance on a Car that someone didnt keep up with,

they can repossess the car but can't enter the property to claim something of equal value.

 

The allegation that Bohill said 'hit me I dare you!' or anything similar

has been taken out of context by MW on this thread.

 

 

When Bohill used physical force to enter the property he only used bodyweight

and remained civil with him asking him to 'take it easy.'

 

 

MW then threatened to call the police telling them he had hit Mr Bohill.

Bohill misunderstood this in the heat of the moment

and took MW's words as threat that he would hit Bohill in a bid to get him off the property

and responded 'go on then hit me!'

 

 

Had he done so Bohill would use the police presence to have MW arrested

and carry out the writ without his presence.

 

 

Anyone claiming the goods did not belong to MW wouldve made their journey to the High Court within 2 weeks

to reclaim the goods or have them returned,

 

 

it takes around a fortnight for them to auction goods off and for the record upto an hour for the collection van to arrive.

 

 

Bohill did not use the term 'hit me' as a bid to intimidate MW,

it was self defence in response to MW's behaviour and innuendo that Bohill had attempted to hit him.

 

If I remember correctly this was Series 2 or Series 3 of the show,

S3 is still available on Channel 5 iplayer.

 

 

You might catch S2 on the channel Spike TV.

[HCEOs]

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 knew the 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.

[brassnecked]

Fair comment HCEOs Bohill and crew have done reputable and fair EA's a power of no good

[Coughdrop]

At least Mr Bohill's company are out of the equation now they have been struck off.

[brassnecked]

At least Mr Bohill's company are out of the equation now they have been struck off.

When was that CD?

[HCEOs]

At least Mr Bohill's company are out of the equation now they have been struck off.

 

Bohill is now working for DCBL under Claire Sandbrook's 'Florida' HCEO authority.

[HCEOs]

Bohill was originally part to High Court Collections Ltd which went apparently went bust owing people money.

 

He was then linked to High Court Solutions Ltd before leaving there and moving to DCBL.

 

Rumours have it that he's a discharged bankrupt. If true, he shouldn't really have a certificate to act as an Enforcement Agent.

[old bill]

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 knew the 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 am glad you have confirmed what I have highlighted in blue, HCEOs.

This has been my understanding for sometime.

 

As for the bit I have highlighted in red,

I am currently working on a case where a certain High Court enforcement operator used a Writ No. 66 for a mortgage repossession and the transfer paperwork is equally suspect.

 

Another repossession making use of a Writ No. 66 appeared on the internet last week.

 

Solicitors and creditors need to ensure their High Court enforcement agents are acting within the law because, as sure as eggs are eggs, it is, sooner or later, going to come back and hit them in the face and I can see those involved being stripped of their EA certificates or AHCEO status, as well as writs for damages being issued against creditors, law firms and others involved in repossessions.

[old bill]

Bohill was originally part to High Court Collections Ltd which went apparently went bust owing people money.

 

He was then linked to High Court Solutions Ltd before leaving there and moving to DCBL.

 

Rumours have it that he's a discharged bankrupt. If true, he shouldn't really have a certificate to act as an Enforcement Agent.

 

The way Bohill behaves, he should not be granted an EA certificate full-stop. I have my doubts about Pinner's competence, especially in the episode of "Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away" when they were told by the creditor they had made a mistake and were harassing the wrong person. That didn't stop Pinner carrying on regardless and taking away the innocent party's taxi. As a result of that act of idiocy, the creditor was landed with a bill of around £1900 - £2000 in compensation and legal costs in the innocent party's favour.

[HCEOs]

My understanding it is that a certain newish HCEO company initially started offering 7 day evictions a couple of years ago by not using Section 42 of the County Court Act 1984 to obtain leave from the County Court and much more recently started using Section 41 of the same Act which the Senior Master was forced to issue Guidance Notes on that it cannot be used. It is these very issues that damage the industry as a whole.

[Ell-enn]

Having seen some programmes showing tenants being evicted with an hour's notice - I am appalled. No matter what the circumstances which led to eviction proceedings no-one should be given a shock like that - it's barbaric !

at the very least a notice should be served giving 24 hours to leave - at least they could make some sort of arrangement for a place to stay/store personal items.

 

 

Admittedly some tenants are a nightmare and landlords understandably want their properties back, but for the majority they have been unable to pay for understandable reasons and the distress caused by these "people" turning up on their doorstep - usually very early in the morning - and telling them they have 1 hour to get out just shouldn't be allowed.

[old bill]

Because the police think the bailiff is one of "theirs" or think the bailiff might be at risy? or that the debtor would be obstructing the bailiiff in spite of the section you highlighted

 

Falsely implying or stating that a debtor refusing entry to a property is classed as an offence.

 

I know what you mean, BN. I have had people contact me about the police threatening to arrest alleged debtors if they don't let the bailiff in , allegedly, for "obstructing the Enforcement Agent". There have also been cases of EAs claiming to be HCEOs in order to get the police to help them.

 

One thing I will say and I hope any EAs who are monitoring CAG make a careful note of this, but making a false report to the police is an offence at law. The likely offences, depending on the nature of the call, would be one of more of the following:-

 

1. Wasting Police Time
   
2. Misuse of A Public Electronic Telecommunications System
   
3. Perverting the Course of Justice
   

 

It is also becoming evident that frontline police officers are getting fed up of having their time wasted by EAs who are employing questionable methods of carrying out their duties.

[old bill]

Having seen some programmes showing tenants being evicted with an hour's notice - I am appalled. No matter what the circumstances which let to eviction proceedings no-one should be given a shock like that - it's barbaric !

at the very least a notice should be served giving 24 hours to leave - at least they could make some sort of arrangement for a place to stay/store personal items.

 

 

Admittedly some tenants are a nightmare and landlords understandably want their properties back, but for the majority they have been unable to pay for understandable reasons and the distress caused by these "people" turning up on their doorstep - usually very early in the morning - and telling them they have 1 hour to get out just shouldn't be allowed.

 

I wouldn't mind betting they were doing so using Writ No. 66, which Senior Master Fontaine at the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court issued a Practice Note about.

[brassnecked]

Bohill was originally part to High Court Collections Ltd which went apparently went bust owing people money.

 

He was then linked to High Court Solutions Ltd before leaving there and moving to DCBL.

 

Rumours have it that he's a discharged bankrupt. If true, he shouldn't really have a certificate to act as an Enforcement Agent.

 

But he can get round that using Claire Sandbrook's authority at DCBL.

 

He needs to be taken away from enforcement, stacking shelves on a Work Placement for DWP is better suited to him.

[brassnecked]

I wouldn't mind betting they were doing so using Writ No. 66, which Senior Master Fontaine at the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court issued a Practice Note about.

Link to note if possible OB.

[Coughdrop]

When was that CD?

 

High Court Collections Limited has a proposal to strike off hanging over it. High Court Solutions Limited is lying as a dormant company, not currently trading.

 

I thought I'd seen somewhere that one of these had been struck off.

[old bill]

Link to note if possible OB.

 

It was the case of Birmingham City Council -v- Mondhlani [2015] that first brought the practice of using Writ No. 66 to evict people to the public's - and High Court's - attention and resulted in Senior Master Fontaine issuing the Practice Note. It is my understanding it has been necessary to issue further notice about the use of Writ No. 66 as it would appear the enforcement industry has developed convenient amnesia or selective hearing disorder. Some elements within the industry appear to be under the impression is is business as usual.