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

[mikeymack2002]

I saw this show and I shuddered big time it left me reeling for weeks. I have a VP shunt installed and if he did that to me he would serious doo doos. My daughter would have him on a platter served with all the trimmings. I have a disabled logo on my front door to warn those there that things are different.

 

 

What ALL EA's/HCEO's need to understand a persons disability is visible. It can take a push firm enough to put me off balance and my put head is in serious danger of getting damaged or something worse. please beware of people like me there are not many just about 5,00 in the UK. I disagree with what I saw and therefore I feel more aggrieved than most.

 

 

But telly is telly rules are rules and so on both are interesting one is dangerous and that's Bowhill!

[daverules]

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.

 

So I guess an uninsured driver with no driving licence is ok because they never hurt anyone, that makes it legal!

 

Regards to all

[brassnecked]

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.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the debtor's avoidance of payment , it doesn't exonerate or justify Bohill if he commits a crime to collect a debt any more than if a debtor clouts Bohill with a wet haddock at the door.

[Izzit249]

So I guess an uninsured driver with no driving licence is ok because they never hurt anyone, that makes it legal!

 

Regards to all

 

An uninsured driver taps clips or touches someone, yes they are indeed in deep stook. No excuses lesser incidents have proved fatal.

 

A bailiff turns up at the door and starts barging his way through aggressively punching kicking shoving spitting slapping verbally abusing. Yes they are in deep stook again. No excuses for such behaviour.

 

Bohill turns up and after endless discussion uses body weight to enter the property but remains calm and continues to explain the writ in hand has to be settled. He explains the writ allows entry to the property on the writ should the owner not want to pay or can't pay. Did anyone die? No. Cuts bruises and bumps? No. Did Bohill kick punch or slap or shove it verbally abuse? No.

 

MW doesn't have a case here. He has to prove one of the above mentioned happened to put Bohill in the firing line. Even if Bohill did violate a regulation, the judge won't care as no harm was done and the writ covers his reasons for being at the property and behaving the way he did as does his own camera let alone CH5s.

 

In response to the comment above which indicates someone has successfully won the case against he bailiffs behaviour, it was definitely much more serious than this.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Izzit249

[HCEOs]

It's clear Izzit249 doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the law. I wouldn't bother entertaining his/her drivel.

[Izzit249]

It's clear Izzit249 doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the law. I wouldn't bother entertaining his/her drivel.

 

And there is your problem. As I've said before the are many many laws and its impossible to prosecute every time one of them is violated by the public or civil servants.

 

Just like a guy in Chiswick a few years ago who had cctv of some nutcase driving towards him and he climbed on the car to get away. He took her to the police and even gave in the answerphone message telling him upfront she was coming to his office to attack him, and in the eyes of the court all she did was smash his 500£ specs, swore at him in front of staff and then took off with him in front of the car.

 

When the case got to court the judge asked if he thought she would do it again, he said yes, the judge said 'no I'm sorry I don't believe you, you're using this as an excuse to get one over her.'

 

MWs case is no different, even if Bohill tries it again he'll get away with it. As I said before, if you don't want bailiffs at the door, pay your debt. Simple.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Izzit249

[Ell-enn]

As I said before, if you don't want bailiffs at the door, pay your debt. Simple.

 

And what about those who simply aren't able to pay these debts? people end up in these situations for a variety of reasons and a lot of the time it isn't their fault - it's not for us to judge, only to help if we can. Whatever the situation people shouldn't be treated unfairly by "legalised" thugs - admittedly I'm sure there are more bailiffs who know how to behave than the renegade ones who give their industry a bad name. However, even one badly behaved one is one too many.

 

Instead of making smug comments, you should cross your fingers you never end up in the same situation and thinking it will never happen to you is a mistake - none of us know what is ahead of us.

[daverules]

And there is your problem. As I've said before the are many many laws and its impossible to prosecute every time one of them is violated by the public or civil servants.

 

Just like a guy in Chiswick a few years ago who had cctv of some nutcase driving towards him and he climbed on the car to get away. He took her to the police and even gave in the answerphone message telling him upfront she was coming to his office to attack him, and in the eyes of the court all she did was smash his 500£ specs, swore at him in front of staff and then took off with him in front of the car.

 

When the case got to court the judge asked if he thought she would do it again, he said yes, the judge said 'no I'm sorry I don't believe you, you're using this as an excuse to get one over her.'

 

MWs case is no different, even if Bohill tries it again he'll get away with it. As I said before, if you don't want bailiffs at the door, pay your debt. Simple.

 

And there you go, "even if Bohill tries it again he'll get away with it" so therefor you must know that he was in the wrong, sorry but nothing you

can say will have made it legal.

 

And as Ell-enn has pointed out there is a difference between can't pay and won't pay.

 

Also Paul Bohill comes across as a nice caring guy, but then again that's whilst he is

on TV, in reality with no cameras around he probably dose not give a damn.

 

Regards to all

[Coughdrop]

 

Instead of making smug comments, you should cross your fingers you never end up in the same situation and thinking it will never happen to you is a mistake - none of us know what is ahead of us.

 

Well said! It's no secret I had a very good job, I lost my health with no warning whatsoever, lost my job, thus my income. This led to me losing my house and getting into debt as my monthly income was about 20% of what it had been.

 

Unsurprisingly I couldn't afford a lot of things to which I was committed, and had been able to afford comfortably.

 

Perhaps Izzit249 would like to suggest how I was supposed to pay my debts?

 

I would not wish what I went through on my worst enemy.

[brassnecked]

Well said! It's no secret I had a very good job, I lost my health with no warning whatsoever, lost my job, thus my income. This led to me losing my house and getting into debt as my monthly income was about 20% of what it had been.

 

Unsurprisingly I couldn't afford a lot of things to which I was committed, and had been able to afford comfortably.

 

Perhaps Izzit249 would like to suggest how I was supposed to pay my debts?

 

I would not wish what I went through on my worst enemy.

Exactly CD, Izzit249 is clueless and hard hearted, and cannot accept reality, one reality is Bohill is a criminal end of HCEOs summed it up succinctly in post# 155

 

"It's clear Izzit249 doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the law. I wouldn't bother entertaining his/her drivel."

 

The other reality is that there are genuine can't pays and we are here for them.

[Izzit249]

Exactly CD, Izzit249 is clueless and hard hearted, and cannot accept reality, one reality is Bohill is a criminal end of HCEOs summed it up succinctly in post# 155

 

"It's clear Izzit249 doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the law. I wouldn't bother entertaining his/her drivel."

 

The other reality is that there are genuine can't pays and we are here for them.

 

Sigh....

 

Watch it again, MW had the money he just didn't want to pay it. This is a case of won't pay not can't. Don't forget he eventually offered an instalment plan and deliberately defaulted the first instalment

 

I haven't clarified is that he NEVER went into the property until MW allowed him in, he never entered the flat his feet were barely in the door. He DID NOT shove past MW, he waited for permission and eventually told him if he didn't receive it he was going in anyway. Even if that much is illegal he knew he was breaking one law to achieve another (paying someone a balance escalated from county court judgement to a high court writ) and this wouldn't stand up in court whether the police, a lawyer, or the world and it's wife showed up in his defence. Bohill has 20years experience don't forget, he's been here before.

 

It's MW's own fault. Stop making out he was bullied let alone when he clearly was not broke. Even if he was they are also there to help you find a way to clear it off comfortably. Or do you think they just turn up 'can't pay? We'll Take it Away!' and leave. The arrogance on here towards them is disgusting.

 

Bailiffs are only prosecuted when no professional manner is shown. Bohill did not shove him to the floor and tread on him, he did not say 'get out of the way!' and barge past him, no punching or kicking, no verbal abuse, he had to settle this writ and in the case of this writ it was either MW pay the balance and they're gone, setup an installment plan (WHICH he deliberately defaulted!), removal of assets that value the balance, or declare a bankruptcy petition. All of these things are a way out, bankruptcy screws you're credit rating and bans you from our own business running for years, BUT, you're out of debt and you start again clean.

 

After all these comments all I'm detecting here is anti-bailiff fever and you all wish such a process was never invented by the law, you've all either had these people at your door and as oppose to understand why, you think they just turned up for the fun of bullying people and started an argument on why they were there, which wasn't necessary. Maybe you lost your job, couldn't work due to health, and didn't live the rockstar life before that happened, but don't blame the bailiffs. If you feel that strongly that you were hard done by take it up with the claimer, don't shoot the messenger, the bailiffs didn't approach you for no reason.

 

On the note of genuine can't pays and how you help them, how are you helping them? Telling them how to scrape all ends of the law to shove the bailiffs away? Because some fat greedy git that lives in a house of diamonds and marble and didn't need such a small amount to survive or deserved to be conned is always the one that sent them? And that there are no desperate claimers needing money they were owed but haven't been paid before THEY see Bohill at the door? MW disgusts me for not paying someone their wages. That's people's living wage! And for someone who's lost their job due to ill health etc I'm surprised at one's defence of Bohill violating a minor law to achieve another when he knew following this guys attitude no judge would sympathise. But above all of that, how would you like it if MW did you out of your wages? Would you care if Bohill used his bodyweight to get in the doorway? I wouldn't.

 

And on the note of 'Bohill breaking the law end of,' you do realise when they end up in court violating such a minor law to achieve victory for another law (paying someone their wages) is more than often accepted. I reiterate, no one died, no one was injured, just MW's ego. And when the bailiffs show their reasons for being there in the first place, MW will be asked why he didn't pay the balance. He's on camera stating he 'won't pay.' He's screwed any way he looks at it. This minor action from Bohill is going no-where, even if it does he will get a slap on the wrist and nothing more his job will continue as usual.

 

Seriously all of you get over it. When a bailiffs kicks punches spits shoves to the floor and barges past you with no form of professionalism and no offer of settling the debt peacefully, come onto this forum and search for help whether or not the police let you down. I'm sure this forum wasn't invented to show people how to keep the bailiffs from coming and simply let the debt fade away.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Izzit249

[brassnecked]

We are going round in circles izzit249, it is irrelevant what MW was doing to avoid payment, that isn't actually a crime, although we do not condone debt avoidance here we rather try to work to achieve an affordable repayment for the debtor. Bohill broke the law by pushing his way in. It is the mens rea of his intent, and the actus reas of the pushing past that confirms the crime. An active working EA HCEOs confirms that Bohill broke the law.

 

HCEOs post# 145" 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."

 

 

Would he have still been OK if he fetched up at a frail pensioners door and pushed past her for a debt? What if she fell over and died as a result, would Bohill still be within the law, as she owed money?

 

Just give it a rest this thread has run it's course.

[Izzit249]

We are going round in circles izzit249, it is irrelevant what MW was doing to avoid payment, that isn't actually a crime, although we do not condone debt avoidance here we rather try to work to achieve an affordable repayment for the debtor. Bohill broke the law by pushing his way in. It is the mens rea of his intent, and the actus reas of the pushing past that confirms the crime. An active working EA HCEOs confirms that Bohill broke the law.

 

HCEOs post# 145" 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."

 

 

Would he have still been OK if he fetched up at a frail pensioners door and pushed past her for a debt? What if she fell over and died as a result, would Bohill still be within the law, as she owed money?

 

Just give it a rest this thread has run it's course.

 

You're not reading all my comment above. For the hundredth time did he push shove kick punch slap spit verbally abuse his way in? No. He didn't officially enter the property until MW let him. Again, in the eyes of a judge, who died? no-one, who was injured? no-one. If he was or they did the above, or ftr as you put it, to a pensioner, I'd be in full support of him in regards to this.

 

And you say it's not illegal to not pay someone they're wages? Or did I read that wrong.

 

The amount of times a bailiff has pushed their way through the door in this manner and the police have been called and no arrests were made, don't you think all bailiffs would be in prison by now or such a service would have been eliminated by the government by now? I know what Bohill has done, he violated a minor law to achieve the law of someone having their wages paid. In the eyes of a judge MW's case wont stand up unless someone was hurt or killed in the process, or they had entered the property without his consent. MW allowed them in when he realised he couldn't use the police to get rid of them.

 

Get over it!

[Bailiff Advice]

 

I'm sure this forum wasn't invented to show people how to keep the bailiffs from coming and simply let the debt fade away.

 

You're dead right it wasn't. In fact, the forum was set up initially (in 2006) to tackle 'bank charges'.

 

At the same time, the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill (as it was then called) was making it's way through Parliament. Astonishingly, the government wanted to introduce a clause to allow enforcement agents to 'use force' against the individual. There was mayhem at this suggestion.

 

One individual on this forum (Dodgeball) took it upon himself, to lobby his MP to oppose this clause. He then joined this forum and encouraged other posters to lobby their MP's as well. He provided template letters for the posters to send. The level of support was overwhelming.

 

His thread on the subject, had almost one million views and had a direct impact on the clause being removed from the Bill.

 

The 'bailiff section' of the forum does not support 'debt evasion' or 'debt avoidance'. What it does do is to provide solid, accurate advice to the public on all matters relating to bailiff enforcement.

Edited July 16, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[Coughdrop]

Yes indeed Bailiff Advice. Dodgeball did some excellent work nine or ten years ago which is to be commended. I agree entirely about debt evasion and debt avoidance, anyone trying to evade or avoid the principal sum on a debt due would not be helped over much by this site, though those with debt problems will, of course, be supported. Debt evasion is frowned upon in the same way tax evasion is - a topic of hot conversation in the news recently, and of increasing interest to the public. It is wrong - simple as that!

[Izzit249]

Yes indeed Bailiff Advice. Dodgeball did some excellent work nine or ten years ago which is to be commended. I agree entirely about debt evasion and debt avoidance, anyone trying to evade or avoid the principal sum on a debt due would not be helped over much by this site, though those with debt problems will, of course, be supported. Debt evasion is frowned upon in the same way tax evasion is - a topic of hot conversation in the news recently, and of increasing interest to the public. It is wrong - simple as that!

 

All I'm saying is Bohill will win this like it or lump it. Debt evasion may be frowned upon regularly but don't forget MW already lost a case regarding this which is why the bailiffs were there in the first place. It will go against him in Bohills defence and again this minor breach of a regulation to satisfy the writ won't be upheld with MW already having lost a case relating to this.

[Coughdrop]

Apologies Izzit - my comment was to reiterate and support post 164 by Bailiff Advice, which in turn supported your previous post!

[Peterbard]

I think the relavant case law was Khazanchi. This case is one which has in he past been outrageously misquoted and misinterpreted by the FMoTL in their implied rights nonsense. It is however very useful when seeking the correct interpretation of "peaceful entry".

 

The gist which applies (pre 2014 ) refers to the consensual agrement to enter and says that this only refers to when the debtor is present.

 

If no one is there and a door is open there is no consent needed. However if the debtor is present then there must be consent, if the bailiff enters without consent, it will be considered that force must have been employed.

 

As regards civil action, should a bailiff force entry the ammount of damages would be slight if at all existent.

 

As for criminal action, it is unlikely that the CPS would support any police action here as the offence would have to fulfill all the elements of criminal liability.

 

What he did was undoubtedly illegal but in this case i would be surprised if it were actionable, again IMO.

[Coughdrop]

Yes, there were two significant cases clarifying this issue, the one Dodgeball mentions, and McLeod v Butterwick.

[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.

 

Sorry I was just checking, i was sure i had mentioned the HCEO powers before, under the Court and Crimes act. Its an old thread so no harm done.

[trebormoinet]

Sorry if I am mistaken but a recent event has caused me some problems and I noticed this sentence.

 

"If no one is there and a door is open there is no consent needed. However if the debtor is present then there must be consent, if the bailiff enters without consent, it will be considered that force must have been employed."

 

So basically if a Bailiff entered through a open door while I was at home they must leave if requested ? alternatively if the bailiff was aware I was at home they should not have entered in the first place ?

[Peterbard]

Sorry if I am mistaken but a recent event has caused me some problems and I noticed this sentence.

 

"If no one is there and a door is open there is no consent needed. However if the debtor is present then there must be consent, if the bailiff enters without consent, it will be considered that force must have been employed."

 

So basically if a Bailiff entered through a open door while I was at home they must leave if requested ? alternatively if the bailiff was aware I was at home they should not have entered in the first place ?

 

No, once they have gained"peaceful entry" they have the right to conduct a search for goods and take control.

 

He must enter without using force, if for instance the debtor is blocking the door be can deny entry, the bailiff cannot force his way in.

[Peterbard]

I should say.the debtor is legally entitled to deny entry.

[daverules]

Unfortunately we can discuss what rights a person has to prevent an EA entering but the

EA/EO won't necessary mean that they will adhere to the rules as I witnessed a couple of

weeks ago where an EA turned up at one of my neighbors for CT and proceeded to try and

enter a bedroom window that was open using a telescopic ladder to gain entry.

 

I was about to point out the fact that I thought that what they were doing was no longer allowed,

no window a entry and open doors only, that's when I decided to retreat into my shell as a few of the other

neighbors recorded them trying and then politely (well with encouragement ) removed them from the building.

 

They have been reported to the police for attempted burglary, unsure as to what stage it is at as I have not been around home

for a while but will update when and able.

 

Regards to all

[brassnecked]

Daverules, they definitely cannot use the Boast Technique of ladder through window any more, so wonder how far plod will go with the burglary angle? Certainly breach of current regulations that disallows entry through a window.