DS Forums

 
 

Can't Pay or We'll take it away (Series 4 Part 2)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16-11-2016, 12:52
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
Yes to be fair I bought my first house in 1994 for £27000 my mortgage was £80 a month. The £225 mortgage was my third house for which I paid £109000 but even so rent in that road are now £875 plus and the houses either side of my old one are owned by same people and I bet the rents have gone up, the cost of renting is just stupid,now ) I'm fine now personally I have no mortgage at all) but did feel sorry for people who CANT pay and get kicked out by bailiffs rent control is deff required
What control would you put in though? If their mortgage on the house is £600 then it's reasonable to charge £800 rent isn't it?
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-11-2016, 21:19
ChateauMarmont
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Durham
Posts: 1,098
What's with the close up shots of McCrackens head?! *puke*

Like more and more a Ricky Gervais character every day.
ChateauMarmont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-11-2016, 18:40
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Home For The Bewildered
Posts: 86,529
One thing I don't understand, but there's probably a very simple explanation.

Last night the suspected debtor asked how the bailiffs know who the car (Mercedes) belongs to. They told him they had proof - as according to the DVLA it was him (the suspected debtor)

However in the past when bailiffs ask debtors to prove who a particular car belongs to, they (suspected debtor) produce the log book from the DVLA. This is always refused as proof of ownership, sometimes without even giving it a glance.

So which is it? How come it's okay for the bailiffs to use the DVLA as proof of ownership, but not the other way around? The DVLA only knows who the registered keeper is. That's the same for whoever is asking.
Jimmy Connors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-11-2016, 19:18
Keefy-boy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 9,427
One thing I don't understand, but there's probably a very simple explanation.

Last night the suspected debtor asked how the bailiffs know who the car (Mercedes) belongs to. They told him they had proof - as according to the DVLA it was him (the suspected debtor)

However in the past when bailiffs ask debtors to prove who a particular car belongs to, they (suspected debtor) produce the log book from the DVLA. This is always refused as proof of ownership, sometimes without even giving it a glance.

So which is it? How come it's okay for the bailiffs to use the DVLA as proof of ownership, but not the other way around? The DVLA only knows who the registered keeper is. That's the same for whoever is asking.
Exact same thought occurred to me. Double standards. The burden of proof is somewhat flexible when it suits them.
Keefy-boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 02:45
Hercule Parrow
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 323
so, how can you prove you are the owner [ rather than just the keeper ] of a vehicle ?
Hercule Parrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 06:01
roddydogs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,347
& how do you sell a car with no docs or keys?
roddydogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 09:08
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
so, how can you prove you are the owner [ rather than just the keeper ] of a vehicle ?
Same as you prove how you own anything. With a receipt.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 13:58
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Home For The Bewildered
Posts: 86,529
Exact same thought occurred to me. Double standards. The burden of proof is somewhat flexible when it suits them.
Seems to be (as you say) a case of double standards.

I wonder how they can remove a car from a public road with just 'proof' from the DVLA that it belongs and is owned by a certain person - yet the same evidence in reverse is refused point blank as meaningless.
Jimmy Connors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 14:47
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
Seems to be (as you say) a case of double standards.

I wonder how they can remove a car from a public road with just 'proof' from the DVLA that it belongs and is owned by a certain person - yet the same evidence in reverse is refused point blank as meaningless.
Because the onus is on the debtor to prove the vehicle isn't there's, not the other way round.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 15:31
Hercule Parrow
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 323
Seems to be (as you say) a case of double standards.

I wonder how they can remove a car from a public road with just 'proof' from the DVLA that it belongs and is owned by a certain person - yet the same evidence in reverse is refused point blank as meaningless.
in every episode Ive seen the high end cars removed have been reclaimed by the debtor anyway, but it is an interesting point of mootness.
Hercule Parrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 16:24
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Home For The Bewildered
Posts: 86,529
Because the onus is on the debtor to prove the vehicle isn't there's, not the other way round.
But surely it's against the law to put a car on the back of a low loader and remove it without any proof whatsoever that the car belongs to the debtor. In the last episode they did not even ask the debtor to prove anything - just that they were going to remove the car as according to the DVLA it belonged to him (which we know is proof of nothing)

How can a debtor prove that a car sitting outside doesn't belong to him?

What's to stop them relocating any car that happens to be parked outside the debtor's house?
Jimmy Connors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 16:27
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Home For The Bewildered
Posts: 86,529
in every episode Ive seen the high end cars removed have been reclaimed by the debtor anyway, but it is an interesting point of mootness.
I found it very interesting. A point that maybe is being abused.
Jimmy Connors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 16:52
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
But surely it's against the law to put a car on the back of a low loader and remove it without any proof whatsoever that the car belongs to the debtor. In the last episode they did not even ask the debtor to prove anything - just that they were going to remove the car as according to the DVLA it belonged to him (which we know is proof of nothing)

How can a debtor prove that a car sitting outside doesn't belong to him?

What's to stop them relocating any car that happens to be parked outside the debtor's house?
Like i've already said you prove it with a receipt like you prove ownership of any item. The bailiffs have reasonable belief that the car belongs to him so if it doesn't it's up to him to prove otherwise.

They have never just taken any car, they would need to be reasonably sure that it was there's. The fact the DVLA have it registered in his name is enough to prove it's not just a random car parked outside his house.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 17:08
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Home For The Bewildered
Posts: 86,529
Like i've already said you prove it with a receipt like you prove ownership of any item. The bailiffs have reasonable belief that the car belongs to him so if it doesn't it's up to him to prove otherwise.

They have never just taken any car, they would need to be reasonably sure that it was there's. The fact the DVLA have it registered in his name is enough to prove it's not just a random car parked outside his house.
Okay. I will accept your view on this Walter. I just wanted clarification on how bailiffs can use the DVLA but debtor's couldn't.

Seems a strange situation, but as I know very little about this I'll just have to accept what you are saying.
Jimmy Connors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2016, 18:08
Galaxy266
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,765
& how do you sell a car with no docs or keys?
Very easily at an auction!

There will be plenty of motor traders there for whom the lack of keys and/or documents will only be a very small problem. However, it does involve extra work and costs so they will factor-in how much this will cost them when considering how much to bid for a particular vehicle.
Galaxy266 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2016, 21:39
Gordon g
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 449
Wreck the house. Don't pay the rent and then have the cheek to slag off the landlord.
As someone who has been on the receiving end off this. It pisses me off.
Not all landlords are millionaires. We only rented ours out because I was made redundant ant we had to wither spend the redundancy money on a mortgage or rent out and live with parents whilst I found another job.
Gordon g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2016, 21:51
Flying4X
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Woking
Posts: 385
It's awful Gordon. That landlord probably had to pay 5 + grand to get house renovated.

On a positive note, I'm happy to see Elmore/Victor as he's my favourite. More close ups of McCracken this week. When he said it was like Christmas to see cars on the drive!
Flying4X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2016, 22:21
IJoinedInMay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 12,988
Stewart and the South African(?) bloke over-do their parts IMO. All these "how can you not pay for *insert length of time*?!" and "how can people live this way?!" type comments are for the audience to possibly make, not them. I'm interested to see how they go about doing their job, not what they think of each individual case, or how appalled they are by a pile of clothes on the floor.
IJoinedInMay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2016, 08:59
The_Moth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,687
It's awful Gordon. That landlord probably had to pay 5 + grand to get house renovated.

On a positive note, I'm happy to see Elmore/Victor as he's my favourite. More close ups of McCracken this week. When he said it was like Christmas to see cars on the drive!
What has McCracken done to his hair?
The_Moth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2016, 09:18
Charlie_the_cat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 944
This week's episode wasn't 'new' at all, another 'special' which is an excuse to cobble together old stuff that's been shown before.
Charlie_the_cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2016, 11:18
Hercule Parrow
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 323
Stewart and the South African(?) bloke over-do their parts IMO. All these "how can you not pay for *insert length of time*?!" and "how can people live this way?!" type comments are for the audience to possibly make, not them. I'm interested to see how they go about doing their job, not what they think of each individual case, or how appalled they are by a pile of clothes on the floor.
what a strange thing to say, the show , like any reality show, is about the bailiffs as much as the work, , their views, personalities , character traits, you don't think the bailiffs should opine any views on the bloody awful or decent people they are forced to spend time with during their working day ?
Hercule Parrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2016, 13:02
Paul_DNAP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,889
This week's episode wasn't 'new' at all, another 'special' which is an excuse to cobble together old stuff that's been shown before.
Well, it is C5 isn't it. they could edit in a one second clip of someone shouting "banana" and then list it as "All New Can't Pay"
Paul_DNAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2016, 13:31
ChateauMarmont
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Durham
Posts: 1,098
I don't think McCracken should be coming out with lines such as 'It's like Christmas when we see cars on the drive'. Nothing like sounding so arrogant about taking peoples belongings.

I can understand why people get into debt, and I understand the purpose of bailiffs but McCracken and the South African bring on every bit of grief themselves with their attitude. I really hope they're an exception and most other bailiffs possess some compassion and common sense.
ChateauMarmont is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2016, 17:34
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Home For The Bewildered
Posts: 86,529
This week's episode wasn't 'new' at all, another 'special' which is an excuse to cobble together old stuff that's been shown before.
Yes, only two new stories this week (last week too) The rest we have seen before. An old trick for Channel 5. They do similar with their Nightmare Neighbours programme.
Jimmy Connors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2016, 17:57
Ess_Bee
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,031
Yes, only two new stories this week (last week too) The rest we have seen before. An old trick for Channel 5. They do similar with their Nightmare Neighbours programme.
Worst of all are the 'Hotel Inspector Revisited' type repeats - when we are supposed to see Alex revisiting hotels she's been to before and it's only the last 7 minutes or so that is actually new. Cheap and lazy TV.
Ess_Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:37.