Another Rogue HCEO

[caledfwlch]

Just saw this on youtube.

 

HCEO with High Court Writ Tells the video poster that if he refuses to allow him access then he will be arrested for obstruction!

 

 

Suggest this guy needs serious retraining.

 

Got to love the copper too "well... your known to the Police...probably"

 

And erm, are the Police allowed to use the PNC to check identities of people for HCEO's? Misuse of the PNC surely.

 

The victim, who isn't the person the HCEO was after seriously needs to do some formal complaints, and I have advised him to do so.

 

Surely a criminal offence has been committed, threatening arrest for not allowing peaceful entry? The HCEO is outright lying about his powers, threatening arrest, and the Cops just backing him up.

[citizenB]

I am kind of confused. The guy has denied being the person the Bailiff is looking for and this is apparently the 2nd time that he has called at the premises. It would appear that he was provided with information on his previous visit that the guy he wants doesn't live there. Says that he needs a Council tax bill - which would only show the name of the home owner/tenant and not any other people living in the property ?

 

Even if the chap was to have produced a driving licence/passport showing who he is - it wouldn't prove that that the chap he wants doesn't live there ?

 

Is this really the case that innocent people are harassed in this manner ?

 

And why exactly is there a police presence ? The Bailiff's attitude is almost likely to prompt discontent and likely a breach of the peace ?

[caledfwlch]

I strongly suspect the Police are there because it's a black family.

 

Look at the racist comment the copper makes, purely because the Poster is black "Well, your known to the Police....probably" on absolutely no information at all except the guy is black and has tattoos.

 

And this from various videos is pretty standard Police behaviour, whether with Bailiff's or British gas trying to break into homes to fit prepayment meters, having lied to a magistrate to get a warrant.

 

It is clear in the conversation, the HCEO has been before and spoken to the home owner, the posters Mother, and she has shown what evidence she had, but he is still trying it on, he wants entry as he is going to refuse to accept any "proof" and seize goods.

 

This is daily life in poor areas these days.

 

I am watching one of MG's videos of a british gas attempt, where they have broken the law by not sending the 7 days warrant notice, just turned up with Police, and the thuggish behaviour andf aggression of the BG agent is incredible.

[fkofilee]

:sigh: I agree but disagree with the above. I would have thought that just giving him the ID to check would be enough to get rid of him starting on the Video Poster.

Nonetheless... I think that he did the right thing. But why donest he just try to assist them?

[caledfwlch]

:sigh: I agree but disagree with the above. I would have thought that just giving him the ID to check would be enough to get rid of him starting on the Video Poster.

Nonetheless... I think that he did the right thing. But why donest he just try to assist them?

 

Because even showing his ID would not have changed anything, its not his house. the HCEO wanted entry because thats the address on the writ, the HCEO even states whilst having a go at him for not "complying" that he still needs entry into the house.

[brassnecked]

Because even showing his ID would not have changed anything, its not his house. the HCEO wanted entry because thats the address on the writ, the HCEO even states whilst having a go at him for not "complying" that he still needs entry into the house.

Exactly, the HCEO even said that if it was a new tenant who provided proof, as in probably Tenancy Agreement he would still want to go in to check, as the address was on the writ, If I was the new tenant he would get a verbal kicking and be up on YouTube again. Deffo racist assumptions by police, that copper needs to go on an endless series of equality and diversity courses to keep people from his misery.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Right, the hceo cold have been sent back by the claimant if the claimant didn't believe the previous proof of occupancy. Happens all the time. Only absolute way is photo id and a search of the property.

 

Regarding the "racist" accusations, the cop says the bit about the "probably known to the police" the debtor kicks off, and the the EA confirms that he told the copper something from an earlier conversation that is conveniently missing from this visit, that may lead them to believe the male is known to police. That has diddly squat to do with racism.

Also, while its not an offence to obstruct a bailiff gaining entry to a dwelling, it would be t obstruct gaining access to the property.

I haven't bothered to watch the whole video as the pathetic attempt at throwing out the racism card and the significant missing video put me off watching any more.

[ploddertom]

I always think YT videos should be taken with a pinch of salt

[caledfwlch]

Right, the hceo cold have been sent back by the claimant if the claimant didn't believe the previous proof of occupancy. Happens all the time. Only absolute way is photo id and a search of the property.

 

Regarding the "racist" accusations, the cop says the bit about the "probably known to the police" the debtor kicks off, and the the EA confirms that he told the copper something from an earlier conversation that is conveniently missing from this visit, that may lead them to believe the male is known to police. That has diddly squat to do with racism.

Also, while its not an offence to obstruct a bailiff gaining entry to a dwelling, it would be t obstruct gaining access to the property.

I haven't bothered to watch the whole video as the pathetic attempt at throwing out the racism card and the significant missing video put me off watching any more.

 

The Poster didn't deny access to the property, only from entering the house, so not sure why you bring that up.

 

Don't see why you would need a search of the house is the householer provides documents, and the poster would have been nuts to allow him entry.

 

I am astonished you are defending the behaviour of a Rogue HCEO caught on film threatening to have the accompanying officers arrest the guy unless he allows access, refusal to allow peaceful entry into the home is not obstruction.

 

He just wanted entry without any care if there is proof the debtors lives there, he wanted in so he could demand with menaces that the poster or his mother paid the debt, despite it not being theirs debt.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

The Poster didn't deny access to the property, only from entering the house, so not sure why you bring that up.

 

Don't see why you would need a search of the house is the householer provides documents, and the poster would have been nuts to allow him entry.

 

I am astonished you are defending the behaviour of a Rogue HCEO caught on film threatening to have the accompanying officers arrest the guy unless he allows access, refusal to allow peaceful entry into the home is not obstruction.

 

He just wanted entry without any care if there is proof the debtors lives there, he wanted in so he could demand with menaces that the poster or his mother paid the debt, despite it not being theirs debt.

 

Haven't defended him, I explained which bit would be an offence.

 

We are not all as naive as you. There is NO paperwork that can be supplied to show that someone does nor live at an address. Paperwork just proves who does live there.

 

We dont know the full story as is always the case with films like this. There could have been a whole host of reasons why entry was legally allowed.

If the EA was acting outside his remit then yes, he does need to beheld to account, but judging someone on a video like this is just wrong.

[caledfwlch]

Haven't defended him, I explained which bit would be an offence.

 

We are not all as naive as you. There is NO paperwork that can be supplied to show that someone does nor live at an address. Paperwork just proves who does live there.

 

We dont know the full story as is always the case with films like this. There could have been a whole host of reasons why entry was legally allowed.

If the EA was acting outside his remit then yes, he does need to beheld to account, but judging someone on a video like this is just wrong.

 

So you don't believe the HCEO insisting that unless the Poster "Complies" and let's him in, he will have the Police arrest him for Obstructing an Enforcement Officer, is not acting outside his remit? You don't see any black mark against him for overstating/stepping his powers and making unlawful threats?

 

No, we don't know the full story, but nothing can justify the HCEO stating what he did about Obstruction, just a sign that many of the bad apples are still there, in the barrel.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Nothing?? Maybe a prior CGA in the house?

In which case he would have right of access.

[caledfwlch]

Nothing?? Maybe a prior CGA in the house?

In which case he would have right of access.

 

If he had prior entry etc, then I imagine yes, the poster was Obstructing. He appears to be wanting peaceful entry for the first time, therefore he was acting outside his remit, and absolutely nothing can justify him making Obstruction threats if he has not made prior entry, wouldn't he still have to go to court and prove there are enough levied goods to satisfy the debt, so the Magistrate will allow an entry Warrant anyway even if had prior access?

[brassnecked]

So you don't believe the HCEO insisting that unless the Poster "Complies" and let's him in, he will have the Police arrest him for Obstructing an Enforcement Officer, is not acting outside his remit? You don't see any black mark against him for overstating/stepping his powers and making unlawful threats?

 

No, we don't know the full story, but nothing can justify the HCEO stating what he did about Obstruction, just a sign that many of the bad apples are still there, in the barrel.

 

Grumpy will always stand up for the EA point of view, and give valuable insight and information, but even viewed in isolation, the EA and police in that video didn't cover themselves in glory, I felt the EA was the sort of person who would threaten a courier delivering a parcel to the address the EA was visiting with obstruction and arrest by that numpty copper if the courier refused to let him examine or open the parcel.

 

They could have been a little more courteous. It also begs the question would the EA be as aggressive if the debtor and family had gone away, and he was speaking to a new tenant who presented the EA with a new shiny Tenancy Agreement, dated a week or so ago would he demand entry to rifle the innocent new occupants goods?

 

One for Grumpy, could the EA in reality or theory, have the new occupant arrested for obstruction for not letting him into what is now not the debtors home given that the High Court Writ is to the address?

 

Would the new occupant have a case for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention if arrested? I consider that might well be so when the facts were tested in court and it was proved the EA had ignored the evidence provided but searched the house anyway whilst the copper had the tenant in the van under arrest.

[caledfwlch]

Grumpy will always stand up for the EA point of view, and give valuable insight and information, but even viewed in isolation, the EA and police in that video didn't cover themselves in glory, I felt the EA was the sort of person who would threaten a courier delivering a parcel to the address the EA was visiting with obstruction and arrest by that numpty copper if the courier refused to let him examine or open the parcel.

 

They could have been a little more courteous. It also begs the question would the EA be as aggressive if the debtor and family had gone away, and he was speaking to a new tenant who presented the EA with a new shiny Tenancy Agreement, dated a week or so ago would he demand entry to rifle the innocent new occupants goods?

 

One for Grumpy, could the EA in reality or theory, have the new occupant arrested for obstruction for not letting him into what is now not the debtors home given that the High Court Writ is to the address?

 

Would the new occupant have a case for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention if arrested? I consider that might well be so when the facts were tested in court and it was proved the EA had ignored the evidence provided but searched the house anyway whilst the copper had the tenant in the van under arrest.

 

The legislation does not class refusing to allow peaceful entry a an offence of Obstruction, regardless of who they are - otherwise We, CAB and any other decent help site/organisation would be screaming about it, as obviously thousands of debtors who know their rights would be getting arrested.

 

Peaceful Entry is the key word, that power has not been changed, or removed, except to forbid entry via open windows, so the old rules still apply on this one, the right to not let them in.

 

Iirc, they knew he was filming so they were trying to be fairly careful, otherwise the bent coppers would have arrested him to allow the HCEO to enter, its happening a lot at the moment, with Utility Warrants too.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Grumpy will always stand up for the EA point of view, and give valuable insight and information, but even viewed in isolation, the EA and police in that video didn't cover themselves in glory, I felt the EA was the sort of person who would threaten a courier delivering a parcel to the address the EA was visiting with obstruction and arrest by that numpty copper if the courier refused to let him examine or open the parcel.

 

They could have been a little more courteous. It also begs the question would the EA be as aggressive if the debtor and family had gone away, and he was speaking to a new tenant who presented the EA with a new shiny Tenancy Agreement, dated a week or so ago would he demand entry to rifle the innocent new occupants goods?

 

One for Grumpy, could the EA in reality or theory, have the new occupant arrested for obstruction for not letting him into what is now not the debtors home given that the High Court Writ is to the address?

 

Would the new occupant have a case for wrongful arrest and unlawful detention if arrested? I consider that might well be so when the facts were tested in court and it was proved the EA had ignored the evidence provided but searched the house anyway whilst the copper had the tenant in the van under arrest.

 

If there was a prior cga and we believed the debtor did still reside there, then yes, the occupant Could be arrested for obstruction, but not for saying he refuses entry, but if he got in the way why the ea tried to walk in or tried to stop a locksmith.

 

Usually, the producing of a new tenancy agreement is very much sufficient to allow us to withdraw with no further action taken.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

The legislation does not class refusing to allow peaceful entry a an offence of Obstruction, regardless of who they are - otherwise We, CAB and any other decent help site/organisation would be screaming about it, as obviously thousands of debtors who know their rights would be getting arrested.

 

Peaceful Entry is the key word, that power has not been changed, or removed, except to forbid entry via open windows, so the old rules still apply on this one, the right to not let them in.

 

Iirc, they knew he was filming so they were trying to be fairly careful, otherwise the bent coppers would have arrested him to allow the HCEO to enter, its happening a lot at the moment, with Utility Warrants too.

 

What bent coppers?

Also, a lot? Really? Any proof or figures to substantiate that? No?.. Thought not. Its a b******t comment wth no foundation.

I have not heard of a single case where someone has been arrested to allow access. Plenty where people have been violent, aggressive, obstructive in other ways, but none for just refusing access. I dont doubt that it may have happened? But common, no.

 

And we can still gain access through open windows in certain circumstances, just to show that you are wrong stating that we cannot do it at all.

Most of what you say is founded on speculation and a false interpretation of the regulations.

[brassnecked]

If there was a prior cga and we believed the debtor did still reside there, then yes, the occupant Could be arrested for obstruction, but not for saying he refuses entry, but if he got in the way why the ea tried to walk in or tried to stop a locksmith.

 

Usually, the producing of a new tenancy agreement is very much sufficient to allow us to withdraw with no further action taken.

Thanks Grumpy for confirming what is the correct action in that circumstance. It's just that a bad apple might carry on regardless.

[caledfwlch]

What bent coppers?

Also, a lot? Really? Any proof or figures to substantiate that? No?.. Thought not. Its a b******t comment wth no foundation.

I have not heard of a single case where someone has been arrested to allow access. Plenty where people have been violent, aggressive, obstructive in other ways, but none for just refusing access. I dont doubt that it may have happened? But common, no.

 

And we can still gain access through open windows in certain circumstances, just to show that you are wrong stating that we cannot do it at all.

Most of what you say is founded on speculation and a false interpretation of the regulations.

 

If you have free time, look at the videos taken by a group in Lancashire/Cheshire who assist people who have recieved the 7 day warrant notice informing them their utility company is going to force entry to put in prepayment meters (they perjure Court by lying and claiming there is a possibility the meter is unsafe or has been modified to give free electric)

 

The Utility Companies cannot use force to enter under that warrant, they can drill the locks, and that is it. Which is why the first bit of advice from MG and his team is to fit Bolts to your doors, as any attempt to use force to remove the bolts is beyond the warrant and the Locksmith could well end up in front of a magistrate himself.

 

I have seen a few videos where the Police snuggle up with the utility companies head agent and start discussing whether it is possible for his officers to simply go in with their big red key, once it is obvious the locksmith isn't going to get through the door legally.

 

South Yorkshire Police have actually done this a few times recently. So yes, damn right, Bent Coppers, they certainly arent fit to wear their uniform.

 

I am pretty sure we have had cases on here where Plod has arrested them to allow EA's access. And there are threads up in the Brighthouse section where Plod have arrested debtors to allow brighthouse agents entry to "reposess" goods, something totally illegal.

 

A bent Cop is a Cop who breaks the law.

[caledfwlch]

I hadnt noticed before, but in the Can't Pay episode with the Polish guy who hid his car in nearby pub car park, when they visited his house first and his missus answered, she tried to close the door, and the EA used force against the door to stop her doing so, another rogue EA for the books.

 

I would love to see what "legal" excuse Grumpy will come up with explain how its perfectly legal, as I can't see how, or what he felt it gained him, unless he was planning on using force to smash through her and get into the house, like Pinner did.

[outlawla]

What bent coppers?

Also, a lot? Really? Any proof or figures to substantiate that? No?.. Thought not. Its a b******t comment wth no foundation.

I have not heard of a single case where someone has been arrested to allow access. Plenty where people have been violent, aggressive, obstructive in other ways, but none for just refusing access. I dont doubt that it may have happened? But common, no.

 

And we can still gain access through open windows in certain circumstances, just to show that you are wrong stating that we cannot do it at all.

Most of what you say is founded on speculation and a false interpretation of the regulations.

 

Would be interesting to know from where your loyalty to the police stems, to be so committed that you went out of your way to have this shut down:

 

Re: Team effort – Unlawful "Head H" bailiff fees for the attention of MoJ

This is my point. He is just wasting police time. He needs to find someone affected by this to make the complaint, or challenge it in court.

This way he has chosen to do it is purely down to the fact that it costs nothing and no risk of "losing". If he is adamant, then he should put his money where his mouth is instead of wasting taxpayers money using this course.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

If you have free time, look at the videos taken by a group in Lancashire/Cheshire who assist people who have recieved the 7 day warrant notice informing them their utility company is going to force entry to put in prepayment meters (they perjure Court by lying and claiming there is a possibility the meter is unsafe or has been modified to give free electric)

 

The Utility Companies cannot use force to enter under that warrant, they can drill the locks, and that is it. Which is why the first bit of advice from MG and his team is to fit Bolts to your doors, as any attempt to use force to remove the bolts is beyond the warrant and the Locksmith could well end up in front of a magistrate himself.

 

I have seen a few videos where the Police snuggle up with the utility companies head agent and start discussing whether it is possible for his officers to simply go in with their big red key, once it is obvious the locksmith isn't going to get through the door legally.

 

South Yorkshire Police have actually done this a few times recently. So yes, damn right, Bent Coppers, they certainly arent fit to wear their uniform.

 

I am pretty sure we have had cases on here where Plod has arrested them to allow EA's access. And there are threads up in the Brighthouse section where Plod have arrested debtors to allow brighthouse agents entry to "reposess" goods, something totally illegal.

 

A bent Cop is a Cop who breaks the law.

 

No idea about those videos. I dont enforce any sort of gas warrants so I couldn't comment.

 

I have not seen a case reported in the courts where police entered illegally on a gas warrant. Can you provide some sort of proof please?

 

And what is classed as forced entry? Is drilling locks mot forced entry? You say that the warrant itself does not allow forced entry, but you can drill the locks? Can you provide an example on a gas warrant or is this like the wey ink signature argument?

Still, no proof of bent coppers. Just accusations with no back up to the fact.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I hadnt noticed before, but in the Can't Pay episode with the Polish guy who hid his car in nearby pub car park, when they visited his house first and his missus answered, she tried to close the door, and the EA used force against the door to stop her doing so, another rogue EA for the books.

 

I would love to see what "legal" excuse Grumpy will come up with explain how its perfectly legal, as I can't see how, or what he felt it gained him, unless he was planning on using force to smash through her and get into the house, like Pinner did.

 

No idea. Haven't seen it. But feel free to supply a link. Again, very likely we dont know the full story and very likely its been spruced up for tv so I won't bother to comment further.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Would be interesting to know from where your loyalty to the police stems, to be so committed that you went out of your way to have this shut down:

 

No loyalty at all. Not a cop, never wanted to be, never will be and have none close to me.

I pit my 2p's worth in as it was an argument designed to waste peoples time. There are other ways, that if serious, could have been used to take this further. But no, it was just a mission in gobbing off and wasting everyone's time.

[caledfwlch]

No idea about those videos. I dont enforce any sort of gas warrants so I couldn't comment.

 

I have not seen a case reported in the courts where police entered illegally on a gas warrant. Can you provide some sort of proof please?

 

And what is classed as forced entry? Is drilling locks mot forced entry? You say that the warrant itself does not allow forced entry, but you can drill the locks? Can you provide an example on a gas warrant or is this like the wey ink signature argument?

Still, no proof of bent coppers. Just accusations with no back up to the fact.

 

I don't know the specifics, but there are videos of Locksmiths spending literally hours trying to get in by drilling the locks, despite being told the door is bolted at the start, and when they finally have to admit the only way in is to put the door in with a battering ram, the locksmith leaves. These are not Enforcement Agents, these are just blokes off the Street that the likes of British Gas Hire.

 

MG is clearly bang on the money with what he says though, as the Locksmiths Always walk away, refusing to do anything further than drilling the locks.

 

If he is asked for help by a Debtor in time to attend the Warrant hearing, he generally gets them thrown out, because Utility Companies are Perjuring the Magistrates Court, every single day, and yet, if NatWest or Tesco behaved the same way, they would face severe penalties.

 

The Act they are using only allows Entry for 1 reason - they suspect the Meter is unsafe, or the Meter has been hacked to give free power/gas. MG gets the Debtors to turn up to court with an Electrician/corgi gas plumbers Certificate done that week as proof the meter is safe and untampered with, and thus, the Magistrates have no choice but to throw the warrant out. The drone going to Court knows full well he is committing perjury, he or she knows there is no safety issue, they are lying to a magistrate to get an entry warrant as once they are in, they can then fit prepayment meters against the householders will, but they cannot get a forced entry warrant just to go in and fit prepayment meters, hence why they perjure the Court and claim H&S issues.

 

I am still stunned at the newest video where a Police Inspector is caught on camera discussing with the British Gas Gaffer "can my boys just put the door in for you now?" and he said that before he saw the warrant, and ascertained it was lawful, and without any knowledge whatsoever as he admits of the legislation involved. This is probably what has happened in South Yorkshire recently, Plod has offered and the BG Gaffer agreed. I have a suspicion that the Plod's think these guys are Enforcement Agents, but they are not

 

The one thing MG is doing wrong, is where the Locksmith has damaged the door, he and the victims are trying to get the Locksmiths ID to sue for damages. I don't see why they are wasting time, whichever Utility Company contracted them to try and enter the property is equally and vicariously liable, so why chase around trying to find the identity of some 1 man show, when you can simply go to MCOL Online and begin proceedings against British Gas or whomever?

 

Interestingly, the Locksmiths in these videos are always in small unmarked vans, whilst all the advice on the internet is to steer well clear of any locksmith who doesn't use a marked vehicle!! Which may explain a few things that come up in some of the videos, it's someones mate with a drill, not a proper locksmith - I did wonder why a proper, decent Locksmith who knows his trade and that he can only drill the lock, nothing else, on being told the door has been fitted with bolts would then bother drilling away for an hour or two.....