Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Russia’s economy has been cut off from the global financial system - but it is still growing. Why?View the full article
    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

DCBL...Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away....High Court orders Channel 5 to pay costs of £20,000.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2008 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

The following is an extract of the news report published in the Guardian:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/22/couple-filmed-evicted-channel-5-tv-show-win-damages-high-court

 

A family filmed being abruptly evicted from their home for Channel 5 series Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away has won a high court legal battle, which could force broadcasters to tone down the content of observational documentaries.

 

The episode of the show, which says it features “Britain’s favourite high court enforcement agents”, involved the filming of the eviction of a married couple for failing to pay rent.

 

Shakir Ali and Shahida Aslam, who have two children, were caught by surprise by the landlord and filmed by Channel 5 for the show.

 

The one-hour episode featured shots of Ali having just woken up, wearing pyjama bottoms and a vest, and shots of their bedroom and their children’s rooms and of family possessions stored in bags. It also showed the landlord’s son humiliating the couple, and revealed details including that the couple were unemployed and receiving housing benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The following is also taken from the press report:

 

The show, which was watched 9.6m times on Channel 5 channels over an 18-month period, also resulted in the couple’s daughter being bullied at school, the court heard.

 

The couple engaged the law firm Hamlins to take Channel 5 to court, claiming they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

Channel 5 defended the filming tactics as in the public interest as the show addressed real-life issues including personal debt and the dependence of tenants on benefits, and claimed viewing such scenes “was the best way to engage the public and stimulate debate”.

 

However, the production notes on the “story synopsis” showed capturing the drama of the scene was the main focus. It described the “eviction of a seemingly gentle tenant from hell and his very stroppy wife ... the main drama here is the confrontation between the landlord and the tenants”.

 

During the show, Paul Bohill, one of the eviction officers, tells the landlord to provoke the tenants and “say whatever you like, just give it some wellie”. He is heard twice saying that it made “good television”.

 

Mr Justice Arnold backed the couple, awarding them £20,000 and saying that Channel 5 went too far.

 

“The focus of the programme was not upon the matters of public interest, but upon the drama of the conflict,” he said in a ruling handed down on Thursday. “The programme did contribute to a debate of general interest, but I consider the inclusion of the claimants’ private information went beyond what was justified for that purpose.”

 

The ruling means that broadcasters will have to make sure they have a strong public interest argument for filming, or adopt a less intrusive approach.

 

Channel 5 made the following comment:

 

“Channel 5 welcomes the judge’s assessment, which recognises that the programme is made in good faith and in the public interest,” said a spokesman for Channel

 

“We are encouraged by the judge’s acceptance that Channel 5’s editorial discretion extended to the presentation of the story, the tone of the programme and the material included, providing a fair and accurate account of the eviction of the claimants. We also note that the case’s final verdict was based on the specific facts related to a segment involving the Ali family and not the series in general.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law firm that represented the claimants was Hamblins. I have spoken with one of the key members of the team dealing with this case and they have just sent me a copy of the judgment.

 

The following is a copy of what they published on their website a short while ago:

 

https://www.hamlins.co.uk/landmark-win-in-the-high-court-against-channel-5-for-invasion-of-privacy-on-the-tv-show-cant-pay-well-take-it-away

 

Our media team has won a landmark case against Channel 5 for the TV programme Can’t Pay We’ll Take It Away, which went to a full Trial in the High Court earlier this month.

 

The case:

 

Channel 5, who broadcast the observational documentary series, were sued for invasion of privacy by our clients Shakir Ali and Shahida Aslam, a married couple. Our clients were filmed being lawfully evicted from the inside of their home. The husband was not fully dressed, was on crutches and in a vulnerable state due to ongoing medical treatment. The couple also claimed that they were verbally baited by the landlord’s son during the course of the filmed eviction. The resulting programme was broadcast to an estimated 9 million viewers in total through re-runs of the episode over a course of two years, resulting in significant distress and ongoing humiliation for the couple and their wider family.

 

The judgment:

 

The Judge presiding over the case, Justice Arnold, held that our clients did have a reasonable expectation of privacy outweighing the right of the TV company to freedom of expression. He held that whilst the programme itself contributed to a debate of general interest, this did not justify the extensive inclusion of such intrusive footage of the claimant’s private lives.

 

Justice Arnold also noted in his judgment that in this broadcast of Can’t Pay We’ll Take It Away:

 

“The focus of the Programme was not upon matters of public interest, but upon the drama of the conflict between Omar Ahmed and the Claimants, a conflict which had been encouraged by Mr Bohill a High Court Enforcement Agent who appears on the show to make “good television” “

 

Justice Arnold held that ultimately the restriction against Channel 5’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression and information was justified in favour of protecting our clients Article 8 right to respect for one’s private life.

 

A landmark win:

 

This case is ground-breaking in setting a precedent as to the rights and freedom of reality TV and observational documentary producers and broadcasters. This judgment will help determine the extent to which producers and broadcasters can use non-consenting footage of the general public in their TV shows, and the extent to which this can be justified by reference to the public interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also mention that a few months ago, OFCOM upheld a complaint regarding Channel 5 and DCBL.

 

In that particular case, there was concern about the BWV (Body Worn Video). Brinkworth Films have been working with DCBL Ltd and it was felt that the camera quality was not good enough for TV programmes. Accordingly, Brinkworth Films purchased better quality BWV's. What this meant, was that the production company and not DCBL Ltd owned the images.

 

If that is not bad enough, if a debtor made a request to DCBL for a copy of the footage.....they had to get permission from Brinkworth. I will publish a copy of the OFCOM decision shortly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This judgment today has significant implications for other debtors who may have been affected by a visit from DCBL and where the Channel 5 film crew were in attendance.

 

The legal team at Hamlins have worked amazingly hard to secure this ruling and having spoken with their Paralegal today (Miss Emma Brown) they would be interested to hear from anybody else who may have been affected by the Channel 5 film crew when visited by DCBL Ltd. They too would be able to make a legal claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to say this could open the floodgates to other claims... It does set a precedent aswell...

Do you think that Channel 5 will challenge this ruling?

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to say this could open the floodgates to other claims... It does set a precedent aswell...

Do you think that Channel 5 will challenge this ruling?

 

I have not had time to read the judgment yet but will be looking forward to doing so later this evening. It was literally only handed down this morning.

Edited by honeybee13
Ref to clients removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note... I'd probably want my selfie with him

 

TL;DR for the attachment...

 

- DCBL and channel 5 sorta acted like they wanted the conflict also lots of bits not shown in programme,

- Family were affected and children bullied

- Privacy may have been breached...

- There may or may not have been a deposit...

- One of the people may have been a political figure...

- The family expressed they didn't want to be filmed numerous times

- Some OFCom bits...

- 20k in damages... Possibly more if not postings by the LL

 

And there is FKOs TLDR review of the case...

It's a doozy...

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with both your posts HCEOs, Bohill is an arrogant twerp, Sandbrook should not be allowed to pay Dog The Bounty Hunter via DCBL from Florida, she cannot exercise any form of due diligence so should be removed from any UK Register and disbarred. Sandbrook and Bohill bring HCEOS who do the job right into unwarranted disrepute as in all tarred and feathered together.

Anywaqy a good result against the TV Channel cashing in on misery, hope more sue them, you never know, a reputable HCEO might have to enforce against CH 5 in the future, serve 'em right.

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

Maybe it's time the press understood the farce of the authorised HCEO system and just how much it's been abused by the well known few. I guess this story could spark that interest.

It puts you all in a bad light undeserved by most HCEOS. The thing is the system as a whole is a farce when a media provider can call the shots and stage manage a situation that is stressful for the debtor,

 

I cannot disagree in any way with the Judge's comments in the Judgement document.

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

It puts you all in a bad light undeserved by most HCEOS. The thing is the system as a whole is a farce when a media provider can call the shots and stage manage a situation that is stressful for the debtor,

 

I cannot disagree in any way with the Judge's comments in the Judgement document.

 

Not that I would get into the position ( touch wood) but if I were confronted with HCEO's and a camera crew, I would turn violent with no action excluded. Of course I would warn them first and if they refused to stop filming, I would take action against the camera/sound crew. They would be carrying some very expensive equipment and that would be the first target.

 

Many of the people filmed are vulnerable, often with mental health issues and CH5 production company by filming them are taking part in an abuse.

 

I would question whether DCBL and CH5 are committing criminal offences in some cases ?

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

Not that I would get into the position ( touch wood) but if I were confronted with HCEO's and a camera crew, I would turn violent with no action excluded. Of course I would warn them first and if they refused to stop filming, I would take action against the camera/sound crew. They would be carrying some very expensive equipment and that would be the first target.

 

Many of the people filmed are vulnerable, often with mental health issues and CH5 production company by filming them are taking part in an abuse.

 

I would question whether DCBL and CH5 are committing criminal offences in some cases ?

 

I think they may well be on the wrong side of the law more often than not judging by the shenanigans on screen. Incidentally if I were a passer by or their victim, I would be filming them with my phone, which can capture some decent video, and like yourself an accidental "trip" causing me to knock into the camera operator, or something on a tripod would happen.forewarned I would use a decent camcorder, and it would be on YouTube within the hour. One thing to bear in mind is that the GDPR data protection regulations might be breached after May with this sort of filming by C 5.

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

Now wouldn't it be funny if the claimants raised this to the High Court and it was farmed out to DCBL for non payment of damages.... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only wish pain on the corporations that have given so much pain to their customers...

 

RBS and GRG... Target on you

Welcome Finance... Target on you

All Payday Loan firms... Massive target on you..

 

That's why we wrote the irresponsible lending guide for CAG ...

 

But back to topic... Pauly B... I actually like him however very shocked by what i read...

 

GPDR would certainly be breached if this had occurred after May

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...