Dodgy Practices in "Can't Pay We'll Take It Away"

[evilcartman]

I've seen a few of these programmes now, which essentially project a very fluffy image of High Court Enforcement Officers, where they are just nice compassionate people who are only doing their job.

One tactic I've seen come up a few times is when they have sought to seize goods from someone who is living with a partner and the debtor has said that everything in the home belongs to their partner. The HCEOs have then insisted that they will need to show receipts for every single item in the house. That is surely impractical - I don't still hold receipts for every single thing I own. Surely a signed statement by the partner to the effect that they own the goods is sufficient in law?

I would have thought that insisting on receipts for absolutely everything would be considered vexatious in a court?

Does anyone else watch this show and have they spotted other dodgy practices?

[SXGuy]

Re: Dodgy Practices in "Can't Pay We'll Take It Away"

i dont know about the law, but yes i have often thought to myself, would i still have a receipt for a pc that was 4 or 5 years old? probably not.

Another thing that makes me laugh about this show, is when they try to take a car from a debtor, and the debtor says, its not mine and provides the V5 document, their reply, logbook isnt proof of ownership. Although in law, this is correct, it doesnt prove the debtor owns it either, if anything, the DVLA does, if they wish to get smart. But what really makes me chuckle, is they arnt willing to accept a V5 is proof, but are quite happy to take random items for somebodies house, simply because the debtor lives there.....um.. residency isnt proof of ownership either fuckwits!

[evilcartman]

Re: Dodgy Practices in "Can't Pay We'll Take It Away"

Seen another iffy one today, where they blocked a man's car in the road so that they could seize it. Surely obstruction of that kind is unlawful? Not that I think the police would have helped the debtor in this case, considering that he assaulted the bailiff.

[BuzzyBee]

Re: Dodgy Practices in "Can't Pay We'll Take It Away"

Seen another iffy one today, where they blocked a man's car in the road so that they could seize it. Surely obstruction of that kind is unlawful? Not that I think the police would have helped the debtor in this case, considering that he assaulted the bailiff.

The police would be inclined to say its a "civil matter". Bailiffs are allowed to clamp a car on a public road, it's only when it's parked on private land belonging to someone else that they are not allowed to interfere with it. They have to give you at least two hours to negotiate, which isn't very much time, otherwise they can take it away and add a £110 sale stage fee to an already inflated debt. Once bailiffs get involved, things really get ugly and small debts can increase dramatically.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Dodgy Practices in "Can't Pay We'll Take It Away"

If you have a ccj that you aren't paying and worried about enforcement; you need a Statutory Declaration.

More info here -> https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/de...ople-bailiffs/

Specifically -> https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/de...tems-bailiffs/