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

[HCEOs]

Firstly, I wonder if this should be a new post in its own right.

 

Secondly, Coniff you are completely wrong!

 

I have seen this episode and it is episode 1 of series 2 and the part referred to can be seen in the link below at 31 minutes - Illegal forced entry at 31 mins

 

If you haven't seen it you really should.

 

Bohill did not have a 'warrant' and it is widely believed that he uses this phrase, along with his Police uniform to misrepresent his powers to gain entry to property. However, he didn't need that on this occasion as he put his boot in the door and then illegally forced Mr Wright in against the wall. All of which is completely illegal and there for everybody to see on TV.

 

MW, have you asked for a breakdown of the fees you were charged?

[HCEOs]

If you detail the charges made you will be advised on whether they are legal or not.

[HCEOs]

andydd, you and Coniff are both completely wrong!

 

He DID NOT have a warrant to enter. He put his boot in the door and then forced his way in. Completely illegal.

 

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.

 

On the face of it the fees look reasonable but a further breakdown would at least details what exactly has been charged and this should be requested by MW.

[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.

[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.

[HCEOs]

The Police are required to be involved in enforcement though...

 

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 is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse.

 

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.

 

Constable’s duty to assist (High Court) enforcement agents

 

Section 99, Schedule 7, paragraph 5 of the Courts Act 2003:

 

5. It is the duty of every constable, at the request of -

 

a) an enforcement agent or

 

b) a person acting under the enforcement agent's authority,

 

to assist the enforcement agent or that person in the execution of a writ.

[HCEOs]

Despite the enforcement agent's use of the phrase 'Warrant' it is actually a Writ. Depending on when the Writ was issued it will either be a Writ of Fieri Facias or a Writ of Control (they changed in April). My guessing is it was pre-April so will be a Writ of Fieri Facias.

 

Did you ask for a copy of the Writ when you asked for the breakdown of charges?

 

Once received you can then check it's authenticity with the appropriate Court/District Registry. The Writ should be addressed to Simon Williamson in this matter. Post a copy of it up here when you receive it and I'm sure you'll get some guidance.

[HCEOs]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[HCEOs]

I suspect the decision by CPS not to prosecute EAs is down to some agenda going on in certain quarters.

 

Yes, us Bailiffs, the Police, the CPS and the New World Order meet every Thursday at the pub for beers and domination planning

[HCEOs]

I feel this is going off topic with all this Common Purpose tosh.

[HCEOs]

Was it this?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?466459-No-more-7-day-evictions-Property118.com&p=4917870&viewfull=1#post4917870

 

Some of that is incorrect.

[HCEOs]

I've said it before and this is not aimed at anybody in particular but it doesn't have to be the debtor that makes a complaint to the Police or the Court.

 

If you believe there has been a breach of law, have the evidence and feel that passionately about it then stop writing and moaning about it on forums and do something yourself!

[HCEOs]

Common Purpose tend to lurk in the background and mess things about so the first anyone knows something is not right is when the bailiff turns up, claiming to be enforcing a warrant, when no proceedings or debt registration has taken place. CP "graduates" have been caught misleading DJs in the County Court and caught the sharp edge of the DJ's tongue. Others have been caught engaged in harassment against vulnerable people and been sacked or been made the subject of restraining orders.

 

Can you provide detailed and verified proof of this codswallop? This all sounds like Freeman clap trap to me.

 

I'd suggest you start a new thread exposing it all...

[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.

[HCEOs]

The fees and forms needed are wrong in that article.

[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

[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.

[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.

[HCEOs]

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