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

[brassnecked]

Absolutely as per HCEOs and WD, a writ of fi-fa does not carry a right of forced entry.

[brassnecked]

Warrants are not issued as part of civil recovery action, they are more commonly associated with criminal matters, repossession etc.

 

For Mr Bohill not to be able to differentiate between the two is imho a matter that needs to be looked at closely, of course attending a debtors home with the telling he has a 'warrant' will without doubt lead the debtor to associate the meaning to be the 'warrant' could carry an imminent arrest.

 

And prima facie evidence for all to see that Mr Bohill was ultra vires his powers. He has left himself wide open with no defence,

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[brassnecked]

Thanks HCEOs

[brassnecked]

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.

 

I have Enhanced Disclosure as a Media trainer, and as a Prison Officer and a Social Worker, and Taxi Drivers on School and Nursing home contracts also have to have ED, but not a Police Officer, I wonder why Bailiffs who will of neccesity have Frequent DAILY contact with vulnerable groups don't.

 

Ah yes the nature of knocking on and forcing entry into property that MAY have a vulnerable occupant isn.t Regulated Acivity, as also threatening and bullying such people once they open the door isn't Regulated Activity. Perhaps it should be.

[brassnecked]

It certainly should be, BN. ED would, in my view, remove a number of individuals from the civil enforcement industry who should never have been issued with certificates in the first place and also those who should not be allowed to continue to hold a certificate.

 

Most definitely OB, certainly a couple of Marstons finest would need to go to the JokeCentre if it came in.

[brassnecked]

One of whom recently got slammed by a Circuit Judge for attempting to seize third party goods and exempt goods, knowing them to be so, then lying to the police, thus resulting in a man being wrongfully and unlawfully arrested for obstructing an EA. Their legal representative then made the mistake of saying Marston would get the money for a PCN off the man to which the Circuit Judge is alleged to have replied, "You had better not." It is my understanding the local authority involved has wound the PCN back to the pre-enforcement stage and called off Marstons. I have yet to hear if the man who fell victim to the EA's actions is planning to sue. It is not the first time the EA in question has lied to police. The last time it ended up with magistrates dismissing an allegation he made in less than an hour.

 

Wouldn't the wrongly arrested and detained person have a claim against the police for the Wrongful Arrest and Unlawful detention irrespective of any action available against the EA and LA involved? The coppers could then maybe get the EA for wasting police time. Of course that would never happen in all probability.

[brassnecked]

Remember that Labour tried to include the right for bailiffs to use force against debtors, but that was dropped, so all the thuggery under discussion would have become lawful.

 

Either way the police will be minded to assist the EA as the offence of Obstructing the EA might persuade the police to ignore the debtors protestations and have them for obstruction rather than the EA for assault or whatever.

[brassnecked]

@ 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.

[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.

[brassnecked]

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

[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.

[brassnecked]

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

[brassnecked]

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

When was that CD?

[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.

[brassnecked]

CP needs eliminating, it has no place in a supposedly democratic society. Now a curve ball, is Bohill CP, he certainly acts CP as in ultra vires any authority?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.