Because only the ones that allow the filming can be shown (obviously)

I wouldn't say it was obvious at all. The law is complex and as they are court appointed bailiffs they may be able to get round it.

It may be they are offered money afterwards as well, wouldn't rule that out. The thing that gets me is no-one ever asks for the cameras to be turned off, surely you'd expect a lot of them to keep going on about that. Perhaps it's cut out, but I find it strange.

Sometimes people do say put the camera away , or words of that effect

A lot of people do ask the cameras to stay outside. But some people either forget or don't know they can ask them to leave.

But one thing that is questionable is the use of the body cameras by the bailiffs in the homes.

Most people probably wouldn't take them into consideration, but I'm not sure if the bailiffs have a right to film you in your own home without your permission.

Obviously they can do it in public.

I have little sympathy for scrotes wilfully not paying rent for 6 months then expressing utter bewilderment and anger at the landlord actually doing something about it.

in their dreamlike reality did they really think the day of reckoning would never come ?

yes, people in debt IS entertainment, all reality shows are entertainment

Del and Dael are like Jekyll and Hyde they were absolute scumbags to the couple and Del looked like he had his foot in the door too.
Yet the janet case i thought Dael was great he took a chance on janets husband by letting him use the 4x4 to get some money and it paid off.

Very rarely though.

The guy last night was going mental about their van being on his drive but didn't seem to care about the filming.

They are absolutely ridiculous. Yes, bailiffs are not nice people but they are a necessary evil and a darn sight more respectable than the sort of scum who thinks it should be fine not to pay a bill or your rent and you should be able to just get away with that without anyone coming and asking you to pay it.

And they were incredibly aggressive, almost baiting the bailiff into saying the wrong thing, standing right up in their face ready to report any physical contact as an assault.

I wonder if they will change their tune of anyone ever owes them any money, can't see that shouty fat woman saying "it's okay, forget about that six grand, it would be against your human rights and a pressure bully tactic for me to ask for it back"

Indeed. While some bailiffs rightly have a bad name, the process is unavoidable. Stewart and Elmore conducted themselves perfectly in the face of being lied to and sworn at repeatedly, i couldn't have stayed that calm.

Think a few of them post on this thread.

I agree with this those so called protestors were absolute twonks and clearly knew nothing about the law, if the debtor had just spoken to Elmore instead of shouting and f-ing and blinding it might of been sorted out a lot sooner.
Full kudos to Stewart and Elmore for giving the guy a break after his and those stupid idiot protestors behaviour.

That figure came from the Daily Mail. Say no more!
The actual figure is about two million
It is still one of the most popular shows on tv
It has opened our eyes to a previously little publicised area of debt, deceit, despair and its consequences
I marvel at how the officers keep their cool in the most trying of circumstances, carry out their tasks with efficiency and humanity and do their best to help those vulnerable people who, through no fault of their own end up in a terrible place
Wish the OP had got the title of the thread right- annoying!

To be fair, there aren't that many people featured who are vulnerable and in debt through no fault of their own.

BvcI 'm thinking if those who have always paid their rent, and been good tenants, but have to get out because the landlord has decided to sell
There seems to be no protection for these people, especially if they have small children
There should be a clause stating that there has to be at least 6 months notice to enable the council to rehouse them, or for them to find their own property
Perhaps there is such a clause, but it always appears they have to get out quickly with nowhere to go, plus it disrupts friends, schooling etc

They are given notice. Once that elapses the landlord takes them to court to get an eviction order, all this takes lots of time. I realise in some cases they may have problems finding alternative accommodation but I think a lot of them are winging it.

That anti bailiff group were cringe. Absolute group of oddballs and freaks

I loved the bit where Elmore said 'if you don't pay it we'll be back ok' and the woman shouted 'he threatened him'.

Nothing to do with that. It's the fact that the council will class you as "intentionally homeless" if you actually leave on time, they advise you to wait until bailiffs turn up and then they have an obligation to find you accomodation. Before that and they don't.

Nobody's fault really, just blame the Tory government, who brought that stupid rule in.

That was the worse thing about the whole event but also the funniest for how utterly stupid she came across

I thought the guy who was being chased for the money called them?

By the couple do you mean the guy who owed his ex money and was now with a new GF?

I felt sorry for his new GF but not him. He started lying straight away about not living there then refused to do anything to sort it. He let his GF get upset and have the threat of things being taken before she basically told him to sort it by calling his mum.

Most tenants of private rented accommodation have assured shorthand tenancy agreements. Landlords are required to give them two months notice to leave. They do not need a reason. If the tenant does not leave, the landlord must go to court to get a possession order and if the tenant still refuses to leave, a warrant of possession. The standard process can take 7 months from notice to eviction. There are ways to accelerate the process and increasingly landlords are choosing to do so.


Some councils do this but they shouldn't as a matter of course. The Housing Minister wrote to councils in March to clarify the matter. In particular in cases where there would be no defence to the application for possession e.g. in case of a S.21 notice of an assured shorthand tenancy, it is very unlikely that it would be reasonable for a council to take this approach.

That's the one yeah i thought it was pretty petty of his ex, but then again we don't know the full story so can't really judge who was in the wrong.
Del was in the wrong if he did have his foot in the door not saying he did but kt lolked like it.
On the other hand he was given plenty of chances to phone around and try and raise some funds so the guy was a prat for refusing to try to sort it in the first place.

Oh Gawd, say no more indeed. Surprised they even got the channel right.

This thread needs to be renamed as the programme has not got the word "or" in it's title.