Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1283 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have watched this programme and depending on when they filmed each series certainly the one prior to the latest, maybe even this series will have been filmed after a change in law

 

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2015/11/17/new-nightmares-for-landlords-using-high-court-sheriffs-to-evict-tenants/

 

Nicholas v Secretary of State for Defence, High Court, Chancery Division, August 24, 2015

 

 

 

Which they now have to give advanced notice about HCEO's being instructed to carry out evictions CH5 conveniently appears to have omitted this fact

 

Also the methods some of DCBL staff (del & son) used to gain a questionable" peaceful entry" yes door was open but man standing next to it blocking entry further into property yet del's son still enters blocks door from being closed (surely this is illegal)? series 4 episode 11 i hope

 

But this is the sort of thing if I'm correct that misleads people and causes confusion it's time that tv companies /broadcasters et el, were legally bound to report facts based on laws not fudging stuff for entertainment value, many of those featured are very vulnerable as are some who maybe watching these so called documentaries

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have watched this programme and depending on when they filmed each series certainly the one prior to the latest, maybe even this series will have been filmed after a change in law

 

http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2015/11/17/new-nightmares-for-landlords-using-high-court-sheriffs-to-evict-tenants/

 

Nicholas v Secretary of State for Defence, High Court, Chancery Division, August 24, 2015

 

Landlords and High Court enforcement companies have been waiting for the outcome of a highly important case at the Court of Appeal regarding warrants of possession and evictions. The case was only a few days ago (18th and 19th October) and was heard by Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Briggs. The judgment only went online on Saturday so I have not had a chance to read it properly.

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/1034.html&query=('bailiff')

 

PS: Sometimes links to Bailii on the forum do not work. If so, this link should be ok:

 

http://www.9parkplace.co.uk/downloads/Cardiff_County_JUD_FINAL.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

This seems a good place to ask this question.

 

When watching these shows you quite regularly see someone pointing out that possessions on the property do not belong to them but to someone else who is not the debtor (Especially when the debtor is staying in someone elses home). The DCBL staff then say that it's down to the debtor to prove that goods do not belong to them, rather than DCBL having to prove the goods do belong to the debtor.

 

Is that correct though? I'd have thought that surely they would need to prove that goods do belong to a debtor before removing them. It can't be the case that they can just seize whatever the hell they want and if the non-debtor owners have lost their receipts then tough luck, can it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The EA has a statutory duty to only take goods belonging to the debtor.

 

When it comes down to the actual Enforcement, the EA has to decide what does qualify. He will be under a duty to examine all evidence presented, but if he still is of the honest belief the goods are those of the debtor, he can take them.

 

If a complaint is raised, the ea will only be sanctioned, if it can be shown he failed to use due care in executing the seizure in good faith within the provisions of the act

Edited by Andyorch
edit

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add, that the above is notwithstanding the facility to challenge the seizure once it has been made.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if anybody is interested but OFCOM have started an investigation into the program and specifically one transmitted on 28th September.

 

This is confirmed in the latest bulletin from OFCOM

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/93635/Issue-316.pdf

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes very, thanks.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know if anybody is interested but OFCOM have started an investigation into the program and specifically one transmitted on 28th September.

 

This is confirmed in the latest bulletin from OFCOM

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/93635/Issue-316.pdf

 

I am MORE than interested!!!

 

I am just in the process of sending a 5th complaint to the High Court Enforcement Officers Association regarding the enforcement company featured in the TV series (DCBL Ltd).

 

This latest complaint concerns yet ANOTHER incident of a DCBL enforcement agent seeking to enforce a debt where no judgment has ever been entered (as confirmed by DCBL Ltd).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely SF.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the action of the bailiff causes a breach of the peace (ie the householder then kicks off) it is not a peacable entry, regardless of the fact the bailiff is in the property.

My favourite on this inconvenience was some years ago on a similar programme when a bailiff tried to fight his way past the householder but failed and then found out he was wrestling with a police officer who did happen to know the law better than the bailiff. Never found out if he kept his job after assaulting a police officer though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
if the action of the bailiff causes a breach of the peace (ie the householder then kicks off) it is not a peacable entry, regardless of the fact the bailiff is in the property.

 

Do you have a source for that? 'Peacable entry' is surely just that, "entry" into a property. If an occupant kicks off 10 minutes later how can that invalidate peacable entry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess who is up for another investigation

 

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/bulletins/broadcast-bulletins#

 

Page 109

  • Haha 1

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I am beginning to think that someone (or a group) has an agenda with Can't Pay as there is another case under investigation (last page)

 

Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin issue number 318

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt say 10 minutes later. An example of netry taht isnt peacable is where they enter through an unlocked door and the householder then whacks them with a cricket bat because they thought they were being burgled. The breach of the peace was by the householder but the action of ther bailiff would be "causing a breach of the peace" in this instance. Another one would bewhere the bailiff goads the householder into striking them, the goading would be action liable to cause a breach of the peace so telling someone they have a right of entry when they dont could be committing this offence if the householder then reacts badly to that statement.

Do you have a source for that? 'Peacable entry' is surely just that, "entry" into a property. If an occupant kicks off 10 minutes later how can that invalidate peacable entry?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Given the complaints, does or has Ofcom taken any action. Given what you see on the show.. I would hate to see what they get away with off camera....

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt say 10 minutes later. An example of netry taht isnt peacable is where they enter through an unlocked door and the householder then whacks them with a cricket bat because they thought they were being burgled. The breach of the peace was by the householder but the action of ther bailiff would be "causing a breach of the peace" in this instance. Another one would bewhere the bailiff goads the householder into striking them, the goading would be action liable to cause a breach of the peace so telling someone they have a right of entry when they dont could be committing this offence if the householder then reacts badly to that statement.

 

No, peaceful entry is just that. The EA has peacefully gained access without using force on the locks or by using a method not allowed.

If the debtor kicks off once the EA is in, then it has nothing to do with the entry and the debtor will cause a breach of the peace if threats are made or assault/obstruction if he/she tried to manhandle the EA out.

This had been tried and tested in court many many times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Until the Senior Master takes action against their US based Estate Agent and authorised HCEO Claire Sandbrook (most will know her from her companies Shergroup / Sherforce) it is difficult to imagine anything being done to deter any abuse of the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just heard rumours that they are Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited, are either changing there name

or setting up a new company but guess what still call DCBL just changed the limited to Legal.

Can not say it is 100% but have heard through the grapevine

Link to post
Share on other sites
Until the Senior Master takes action against their US based Estate Agent and authorised HCEO Claire Sandbrook (most will know her from her companies Shergroup / Sherforce) it is difficult to imagine anything being done to deter any abuse of the law.

As she is no longer UK resident and cannot in all reality exercise due diligence over her minions in DCBL, she should have her authorisation removed forthwith.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

They appear to be at it again

,https://www.my5.tv/cant-pay-well-take-it-away/season-5/episode-7

 

@13:50 into this episode Max And Steve illegally prevent the occupier closing the door,

 

 

what right do they have to do this when they were not invited in and it wouldn't be considered peaceful entry with the guy telling them to leave was stood in their path,

 

 

And proved to be futile anyway as well as a waste of police time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note to burglars- wear a white shirt and black jacket, call the police to the address you want to break into and and then tell them you have a warrent to seize all of the goods there without showing any authority to even be on the doorstep. The police will then most likey stand by why you go about your thievery.

 

The problem is the police are not trained in any aspect of civil procedure ( they get court training for being a witness in a crown court) so dont know what is waht bur are instructed to take control of any situation they fond themselves in so will always do smomething, even if that something is the wrong thing. Also, why was it a breach of the peace? The Breach of the peace Act is to prevent people reacting to a situation and then committing another offence so why werent teh bailiffs arrested for that as they caused the disorder.

 

Look at govt documents about what they would do in the case of a complete breakdown of civil order after an evernt like a nuclear attack. anyone in uniform- traffic wardens, St Johns ambulance brigade, boy scouts etc would be given summary powers just because they have a uniform. Would you lie in your bed feeling safer knowing that after a nuclear attck these people were armed and put in charge of road blocks?

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just about to go out to find a uniform, black stab type vest and reflective labels that look like Police. Also buy a van and apply reflective strips that make it look like a Police vehicle.

 

The people appearing on these programmes are close to impersonating Police Officers and they are carrying out their jobs in a way that is often close to breaking the law. The should release that they only have protection of not being prosecuted while carrying courts writ work, if they carry out their work in full compliance with the law that applies.

 

And it should never be allowed for any HCEO to be based in Florida and to delegate their authority to employees in the UK.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...