Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!

muon · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:18

Don't know if anyone watches this but I have a question.

The HCEOs multiple times have entered places where the ownership of goods are in doubt. Half the time it is people playing games, but half the time it obviously isn't. In the case of family homes, most stuff obviously doesn't belong to the debtor.

So the question is, how can they expect receipts for everything, otherwise assume it all belongs to the debtor, how can that possibly work? Then apply pressure on people who isn't the debtor to get them to pay on their behalf? The burden of proof seems to be the wrong way round.

G-MAN2004 · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:26

If they can get away with it, they will.

muon · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:27

G-MAN2004 said:
If they can get away with it, they will.

Aren't they representatives of the High Court though? Surely they can't claim ignorance in what I would define as threatening or actually stealing other people's goods. The writ didn't give them the authority to do that.

RaohNS · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:29

It doesn't always work how you think beyond that.

HCEOs (aka Bailiffs) are not debt collectors. They are still subject to some really nice pieces of legislation that can leave them liable to arrest/prosecution if they do not do their job properly.

Eg some bailiffs will use the peaceful entry by sticking their foot in the door the second its opened and wrongly claiming it constitutes peaceful entry. Bailiffs who do that leave themselves open to prosecution. This idea was ruled trespass and one particular bailiff firm was sued for tens of thousands after their bailiff took this action that resulted in a person breaking their foot!

Seen some cracking stories on the dealing with bailiffs forums over the years.

I don't watch it as it just annoys me for two reasons. I) you know sone of the people are just liars and II) you know the bailiffs can be jerks

Haggisman · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:31

muon said:
Aren't they representatives of the High Court though? Surely they can't claim ignorance in what I would define as threatening or actually stealing other people's goods. The writ didn't give them the authority to do that.

I agree completely, and in that situation my response would be the same as I would if any other meathead had invaded my home and threatened my family and to steal my property. Which would probably involve various pieces of heavy or sharp metal

muon · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:32

One of the cases on the programme was one of the adult children of the family who obviously doesn't have a penny to his name, owed £3k or something.

They effectively managed to get payment from the family with zero genuine leverage. Threatening to take away the family car and things like that.

Haggisman said:
I agree completely, and in that situation my response would be the same as I would if any other meathead had invaded my home and threatened my family and to steal my property. Which would probably involve various pieces of heavy or sharp metal

In the programme though they just call the police who would obviously stop all violence. Nor would the police challenge any actions the HCEOs are taking in terms of taking other people's goods.

G-MAN2004 · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:33

If I'm understanding your post correctly, can't they take whatever they want up to the value of what is owed? But if there is someone else present that tells them that the stuff they want to take is not owned by the debtor, then they can't?

I imagine a lot of them are pretty dodgy and do not care.

Buffman · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:35

hah this programme is a proper guilty watch!! Very "poverty porn" as the papers like to call it.

muon · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:36

G-MAN2004 said:
If I'm understanding your post correctly, can't they take whatever they want up to the value of what is owed? But if there is someone else present that tells them that the stuff they want to take is not owned by the debtor, then they can't?

Nope they want proof of ownership. They effectively threaten to take everything (well up to the value of the debt as you say) unless you can prove it isn't the debtor's.

In some of the scene's shown they even dispute some of the evidence if it isn't concrete (i.e. the evidence only confirms ownership to a very high probability).

Haggisman · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:39

muon said:
In the programme though they just call the police who would obviously stop all violence. Nor would the police challenge any actions the HCEOs are taking in terms of taking other people's goods.

I wonder where you would stand if you peacefully prevented them from removing your stuff, e.g. by blocking their van in so they couldn't leave. If they're stealing your stuff then by doing so effectively you're preventing a crime in progress?

Haggisman · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:41

muon said:
Nope they want proof of ownership. They effectively threaten to take everything (well up to the value of the debt as you say) unless you can prove it isn't the debtor's.

In some of the scene's shown they even dispute some of the evidence if it isn't concrete (i.e. the evidence only confirms ownership to a very high probability).

As you say, they "threaten" to in order to pressurise people to pay, but I wonder how far they'd get actually trying to take it?

G-MAN2004 · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:42

muon said:
Nope they want proof of ownership. They effectively threaten to take everything (well up to the value of the debt as you say) unless you can prove it isn't the debtor's.

In some of the scene's shown they even dispute some of the evidence if it isn't concrete (i.e. the evidence only confirms ownership to a very high probability).

Ah, that's rather bad then. I used to live with a guy that owed a few grand, but fortunately no one ever came round. It's pretty unsettling to know that they would have been able to take anything they want whilst I'm out without any proof of ownership! To be honest I wouldn't trust such people anyway, so I'm really not surprised if it happens.

muon · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:43

I can understand that a lot of companies and people do play games changing ownership notionally to avoid seizure of goods.

However, in some cases it is obvious nothing like that is happening. The debtor is obviously bankrupt and the other people have no duty to pay the debt.

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW...enforcement/highcourtbailiffs.aspx#quicklink7

This website writes what you have to do if a third party's goods are taken.

Can HCEOs take goods belonging to someone else?

HCEOs should not take goods that belong to other people. If they threaten to do this, explain that the goods do not belong to you. Show a receipt or credit agreement as proof. If the owner hasn’t got a receipt, they can provide a sworn statement called a ‘statutory declaration’ instead.

If an HCEO takes goods belonging to a third party, the third party should write to the HCEO to show that they own the goods. The HCEO should pass this information onto the creditor. The creditor should then decide whether to accept or reject the third party's claim. If the creditor rejects it, the third party can apply to court to get the goods back. However, they will need to pay the court a deposit. The size of the deposit depends on the value of the goods that have been taken.

HCEOs can take goods that are jointly owned by you and your partner, but they are only entitled to your share of the goods.

There doesn't seem to be any consequence to taking a third party's goods.

Getting a statutory declaration at short notice is also unreasonable and never once mentioned by any of the HCEOs so far.

In today's episode the HCEO was saying he isn't going to wait around asking for proof for every item, implying he will just take it.

muon · 10 Sep 2016 at 18:52

Again is today's episode.

They have gone into a laptop repair shop. Plenty of laptops all around, the owner says most are customer laptops.

They said without proof they will take it all and will go into auction in 7 days unless proof of ownership is shown.

NoobCannon · 10 Sep 2016 at 20:07

Great program, watch all the dodgers get turfed out and listening to their excuses of why they havent bothered to pay the rent but have a 50 inch flatscreen in the living room is epic entertainment.

dowie · 10 Sep 2016 at 20:13

have watched it a few times, the two old blokes on it who regularly evict people seem very fair tbh...

I have seen an episode where some bloke has changed companies and they've had to back down - IIRC there was one with a taxi firm where the bloke was adamant that the computers belonged to his new ltd company at the same address not his old ltd company... in the end he won the argument ?(which was a bit annoying really as he was ultimately the person responsible for running up the debt)

then again there have been other episodes (again with a company changing but keeping the same address) where they've found recent invoices/paper work relating to the company they're after and so start removing computers etc...

dowie · 10 Sep 2016 at 20:14

NoobCannon said:
Great program, watch all the dodgers get turfed out and listening to their excuses of why they havent bothered to pay the rent but have a 50 inch flatscreen in the living room is epic entertainment.

that is the odd thing - some of the cases are strange, massive 50inch flatscreen TVs in the lounge and bedroom... but can't pay the rent...

stranger still they act surprised when they get evicted despite having not paid for months and being taken to court

Uther · 10 Sep 2016 at 20:28

muon said:
Again is today's episode.

They have gone into a laptop repair shop. Plenty of laptops all around, the owner says most are customer laptops.

They said without proof they will take it all and will go into auction in 7 days unless proof of ownership is shown.

I can't stand these programmes, and I can't understand why anyone would want to watch other peoples misery.

dowie · 10 Sep 2016 at 20:33

muon said:
Again is today's episode.

They have gone into a laptop repair shop. Plenty of laptops all around, the owner says most are customer laptops.

They said without proof they will take it all and will go into auction in 7 days unless proof of ownership is shown.

is this available on some catchup service? I've only ever caught the show previously if it was on in the background or something

NoobCannon · 10 Sep 2016 at 20:36

Uther said:
I can't stand these programmes, and I can't understand why anyone would want to watch other peoples misery.

Because its great to know that i work 5-7 days a week to pay the bills and all the dodgers (actual word if it wasnt for sware filter would be much stronger) who live the life of riley whilst not paying their bills get caught eventually. Or at least some of them do