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

Mr Jack · 11 Sep 2016 at 16:13

dowie said:
Right.. making a comment that spending thousands on electrical good when you're in rent arrears is 'making a stupid point'?

Thousands? But as has been pointed out it's not thousands of pounds, it's a few hundred. You also haven't a clue how long they've had that telly - who says they were in arrears when they brought it? You've made a load of unjustified assumptions about the people who appear.

You're the one making the stupid observation here, 'oh but the fekless family might have budgeted carefully and chosen two very cheap 50 inch TVs' - as if someone who was carefully budgeting and had no savings would make sure to buy a second massive one for the bedroom too. It just doesn't make sense, note I mentioned in the previous post there were plenty of other electrical goods present.

Telly is a cheap form of entertainment. Buying a telly isn't a wild extravagance, it's about the cheapest way to entertain yourself for long periods of time.

Hotwired · 11 Sep 2016 at 16:51

LeeUK said:
What if you DON'T have the money?

Most of the cases on this programme have already been through the county court and been found to have no money to pay, or offered payment plans etc. It's the greedy creditor who has upgraded to the High Court, and the debtor having to beg and borrow money just proves they can't afford to pay it rather than they just don't want to pay it.

If someone borrows money and is in a situation where they can't pay it back at all then they've screwed the lender over.

What do you think a lender should do when they've effectively been robbed by someone who is not returning their money.

The one who borrowed has trashed the deal by failing to be secure in their own finances and by extension is damaging the finances of their lender.

So like I said, the lender is just meant to forget about it?

LeeUK · 11 Sep 2016 at 18:25

dowie said:
Thy're high court enforcement officers so they will be getting in and you'll be committing a criminal offence if you obstruct them. They can break the door down if necessary.

They'll only be getting in no matter what if it's an eviction case. Any other case and they'll need peaceful entry. Unless it's a business premises.

Hotwired said:
If someone borrows money and is in a situation where they can't pay it back at all then they've screwed the lender over.

What do you think a lender should do when they've effectively been robbed by someone who is not returning their money.

The one who borrowed has trashed the deal by failing to be secure in their own finances and by extension is damaging the finances of their lender.

So like I said, the lender is just meant to forget about it?

Like I already said, they might have afforded it when they took the debt out and have since falling on hard times.

This programme doesn't show the whole picture, only shows cases of evictions from folk who don't want to pay their rent/debts rather than genuine hardship. Typical Channel5 telly.

Energize · 13 Sep 2016 at 00:57

This show is great poverty porn, great to see the ****** etc get kicked out.

iamtheoneneo · 13 Sep 2016 at 09:40

I hope the editors of this show are on a decent wage because its core elements are put together nicely and brings out a lot of emotions.

The best are where you sort of feel sorry for the individual , then it turns out that they are just total scumbags, left the property in a state and generally DGAF.

There are a few cases that seem harsh, and they all seem to centre around landlords not caring enough to fix issues and just tossing people out to make more money.

dowie · 13 Sep 2016 at 14:46

Mr Jack said:
Thousands? But as has been pointed out it's not thousands of pounds, it's a few hundred. You also haven't a clue how long they've had that telly - who says they were in arrears when they brought it? You've made a load of unjustified assumptions about the people who appear.

The other poster made an assumption when he tried to cherry pick the cheapest possible TVs he could find. If they were budgeting that much then why get a second 50 inch TV for the bedroom in the first place. And given the vast quantity of other electrical goods I reckon my assumption is far more reasonable - that they've spent money recklessly.

Telly is a cheap form of entertainment. Buying a telly isn't a wild extravagance, it's about the cheapest way to entertain yourself for long periods of time.

Buying a TV isn't but I'm not complaining about 'a telly', putting up a couple of 50 inch flat screens in both the lounge and bedroom perhaps is!

dowie · 13 Sep 2016 at 14:50

Moses said:
No, you insisted 50" TVs are expensive purchases, when they're not. You then said they're £400-600, when they not (and not even when new... second hand they'll be even less than what I said). I think that's pretty dumb. You were wrong to say they're the big purchase you thought - you wrongly thought they cost £400-600, but seemingly find it hard to accept that fact.

I'm not wrong in suggest they cost £400-£600, that is quite a typical price for that sort of TV. You can't claim as 'fact' that the TVs shown were the cherry picked cheapest ones you could find.

I'm saying your assumption is dubious, and I'm citing the presence of plenty of other electrical goods in addition to the large TVs in both the lounge and bedroom as the reason for my assumptions that they're reckless spenders.

On the other hand you're claiming I'm factually wrong, which is an utterly stupid point to make as you've got no evidence. We're both making assumptions only mine are perhaps more reasonable than your cherry picked budget TVs that they carefully chose for both the lounge and bedroom... (rather than simply just buying one TV in the first place!)

LeeUK · 13 Sep 2016 at 16:41

Places like Bright House and Perfect Home pray on people on benefits and low income. That's where most of these 50" TVs and "american style" fridge freezers come from. The low weekly payments they tout are anything but low after you add them all up over a month when they have multiple items.

dowie · 13 Sep 2016 at 18:57

Well that just furthers the point about reckless spending as they'll be forking out even more than the RRP if going via brighthouse, anyway I was a bit bored and decided to watch a couple of episodes of this, amusingly second episode in and it is the eviction I was referring to re: the massive TVs (actually it seems there were three rather than two)

Still lets see who's assumption was correct - decent TVs vs budget Argos specials:

TV in the lounge:

TV in the conservatory:

TV in the bedroom:

Well that looks like a Samsung in the lounge complete with surround sound system, not sure on the one in the conservatory but the bedroom is an LG and a pretty big one at that. (so much for the cheery picked Argos specials assumption earlier).

Moses, after your silly assumption I think you should follow your own advice:

Moses said:
You made a stupid point. Just take the ownage and move on with your life.

Jimbeam3678 · 13 Sep 2016 at 19:13

Awkward

LeeUK · 13 Sep 2016 at 23:15

I just watched an episode on Demand5 where some lad had hired a van for a day but dumped it somewhere which took the rental company 2 weeks to find...

Anyway, the HCEO forced his way in when the father of the debtor was showing the HCEO the proof of ownership for the cars on the driveway. Most certainly illegal or in a gray area at least.

Sankari · 13 Sep 2016 at 23:48

LeeUK said:
I just watched an episode on Demand5 where some lad had hired a van for a day but dumped it somewhere which took the rental company 2 weeks to find...

Anyway, the HCEO forced his way in when the father of the debtor was showing the HCEO the proof of ownership for the cars on the driveway. Most certainly illegal or in a gray area at least.

I saw that episode, and they didn't force their way in. They simply walked in, which they're perfectly entitled to do.

The family was a train wreck. Bunch of dysfunctional nutters.

Jimbeam3678 · 14 Sep 2016 at 07:27

We've had our differences in the past over cricket ,but the last part of your post had in me tears!

SexyGreyFox · 14 Sep 2016 at 07:38

LeeUK said:
I just watched an episode on Demand5 where some lad had hired a van for a day but dumped it somewhere which took the rental company 2 weeks to find...

Anyway, the HCEO forced his way in when the father of the debtor was showing the HCEO the proof of ownership for the cars on the driveway. Most certainly illegal or in a gray area at least.

It's like posts 40 & 79 didn't exist

Nitefly · 14 Sep 2016 at 08:13

HCEO.... Euuuuuuugh! It's like douchebag superiority complex policemen on steroids. Mega dodgy in practice. Everyone just turns a blind eye and let's them get on with it... Conveniently excusing themselves from the unlawful behaviour.

Energize · 14 Sep 2016 at 08:42

Nitefly said:
HCEO.... Euuuuuuugh! It's like douchebag superiority complex policemen on steroids. Mega dodgy in practice. Everyone just turns a blind eye and let's them get on with it... Conveniently excusing themselves from the unlawful behaviour.

Not actually watched the programme then I see...

Nitefly · 14 Sep 2016 at 10:43

No - I haven't. Don't need to...

LeeUK · 14 Sep 2016 at 11:14

Evangelion said:
I saw that episode, and they didn't force their way in. They simply walked in, which they're perfectly entitled to do.

The family was a train wreck. Bunch of dysfunctional nutters.

SexyGreyFox said:
It's like posts 40 & 79 didn't exist

It was obviously not the lad's house and that all the worthwhile possessions were not his yet they still pushed their way in. They pray on fear to get results.

Sankari · 14 Sep 2016 at 13:28

LeeUK said:
It was obviously not the lad's house

Irrelevant. It's where he lives, so the HCEO have the right to enter.

and that all the worthwhile possessions were not his

Which possessions are you referring to? They couldn't know what possessions he owned until entering the house to check. That was the whole point of going in.

yet they still pushed their way in.

No they didn't.

They pray on fear to get results.

They rely on the law to get results. It works. Moral of the story: pay your bloody bills and don't be a ****** about it.

dowie · 14 Sep 2016 at 14:47

I've gotta admit, while plenty of them are either scumbags or just really stupid for letting it get to that stage the instances where they enter someone's parent's home are a bit sad.

There was one where they turned up at an address and the bloke's mum was in, she locked the door and called the police however when the police arrived the HCEO followed them into the house. the mum then got emotional and shouted that the police had let them in (they basically had) police officer then shouted at the mum that she needs to let them do their jobs and then threatened her with arrest for breach of the peace. It is a bit dubious when it isn't the debtor's house as quite obviously the dining room table and big TV in the lounge etc.. likely doesn't belong to the deadbeat son still living in his childhood bedroom. It isn't as though everyone keeps receipts for every single thing they own either.

That is the other thing, the police do seem to be quite variable and rather crap at times, in the above instance they essentially helped the HCEO gain access to the property and threatened the woman who wasn't in debt (and was quite rightly a bit emotional at the prospect any of her possessions could be seized) with arrest.

On the other hand there was an eviction of a family of complete scumbags where a police van was already present (obviously family had a reputation). They were able to scream and yell in the street through the eviction, make threats of violence towards the landlord, one of them followed the landlord to his car and carried on threatening him in front of the police officer. Another threatened to burn the house. What did the police do - arrest them for the threats of violence? Nope... not even a warning re: breach of the peace.

Ditto to the ****** throwing stones etc.., police did nothing. Seems shouting at a middle aged woman in her own home is fine but actually dealing with real scumbags requires a much higher threshold before the police will risk taking action.