DS Forums

 
 

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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30-09-2016, 09:34
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
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.
But they are privately renting, why can't they just privately rent somewhere else? They get lots and lots of warning and then act as if they had no idea when the bailiffs turn up.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-09-2016, 09:36
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
This thread needs to be renamed as the programme has not got the word "or" in it's title.
Well I doubt very much you are a Jedi Knight either but no-one is complaining about that.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2016, 10:05
Nakatomi
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: The North!
Posts: 2,201
But they are privately renting, why can't they just privately rent somewhere else? They get lots and lots of warning and then act as if they had no idea when the bailiffs turn up.
Housing benefit doesn't really allow that. You have to reclaim if you move somewhere else. Also, there might be a lack of other properties that housing benefit will cover.
Nakatomi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2016, 10:08
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
Housing benefit doesn't really allow that. You have to reclaim if you move somewhere else. Also, there might be a lack of other properties that housing benefit will cover.
So what's the solution? They get lots and lots of notice, far too much in my opinion, then get all upset at having to leave? The councils need to sort themselves out but from the bailiff point of view nothing is wrong.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2016, 14:30
kandi_kane
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 191
I may be in the minority here but I don't see any issues with the way the agents conduct themselves. People have commented on Stewart, Brian, Del and Dael's behaviour but they usually only become a bit aggressive when the debtors are blatantly lying or don't want to even attempt to resolve the situation. They are used to being lied to, sworn at, etc and it must affect their approach in certain situations.

It's a thankless task like parking wardens but somebody's got to do it otherwise we'll all be getting away with not paying our debts.

I understand the debtors are not happy to see them but at the end of the day if they had paid their debts or respected the court orders, they wouldn't have agents turning up at their door. Someone, somewhere is owed that money which the courts have decided is rightfully theirs. Pay up or make an arrangement. Problem solved!
kandi_kane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2016, 15:51
The_Moth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,687
So what's the solution? They get lots and lots of notice, far too much in my opinion, then get all upset at having to leave? The councils need to sort themselves out but from the bailiff point of view nothing is wrong.
Lots and lots? How much notice do you think tenants should get?
The_Moth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2016, 15:52
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
Lots and lots? How much notice do you think tenants should get?
Didn't you say yourself the process takes 7 months?
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2016, 17:18
The_Moth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,687
Didn't you say yourself the process takes 7 months?
I said it could take that long if the tenant refuses to leave when given notice or when the court grants an order of possession and if the landlord goes through the standard procedure of obtaining a warrant of possession and having it enforced by county court bailiffs.

However, for certain types of eviction, the landlord can go through accelerated process that doesn't require a court hearing and then escalate the case to the High Court to be enforced by the High Court Enforcement Officers we see in "Can't Pay ..." They don't give the tenant any notice of when they are coming to carry out the eviction. I don't have a problem with going to the High Court but I think it is patently unfair and unnecessary not to give the tenant any notice at all.

It also creates a problem because councils will often tell tenants that they will be given at least a few days advanced warning of the eviction date and as was said previously will refuse to consider someone homeless until they have received an eviction notice (even though they should not automatically do so). If the case has been escalated to the High Court there won't be an eviction notice which is why we so often see tenants having to go straight to the council when they are evicted.
The_Moth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2016, 17:21
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
So how long does the process take through the High Court?

I was referring to the 7 months as lots and lots, I didn't know it could be quicker.

I agree with you about the notice as well, I don't understand that. The High Court should send a letter saying 'we're coming next week' at the very least.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2016, 17:58
The_Moth
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,687
So how long does the process take through the High Court?

I was referring to the 7 months as lots and lots, I didn't know it could be quicker.

I agree with you about the notice as well, I don't understand that. The High Court should send a letter saying 'we're coming next week' at the very least.
The accelerated possession process (if it is applicable) could still take a few weeks once the original two months notice period has expired up to the point that an order of possession is issued. If the tenant still refuses to leave the landlord has to get a warrant of possession to authorise the order to be enforced.

The landlord can either apply to the County Court and wait for the county court bailiff to enforce it. This is where a lot of the delay occurs simply because County Court bailiffs are so busy.

The other option is that the landlord can ask permission to escalate the case to the High Court for enforcement. As we see in "Can't Pay ..", High Court Enforcement Officers are private firms rather than employees of the court. They trade on giving a fast response (perhaps days from when the warrant is granted).

Of course the landlord has to pay extra fees to the High Court and HCEOs but if they are not being paid rent it might still be worthwhile.

In general I agree with you that tenants should have known that they are being asked to leave for some time so in theory could be making arrangements to vacate the property. However, in practice many people don't really understand what is happening when court papers start arriving or will find it difficult to get new private rented accommodation and councils are giving them conflicting advice about the help they can expect. Some tenants definitely take the p*** but others really have nowhere else to go and won't get any help until they are literally thrown out. IMO the lack of notice from HCEOs just makes a bad situation worse.
The_Moth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 01:55
Jedi_Knight
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 569
Well I doubt very much you are a Jedi Knight either but no-one is complaining about that.

I had to pick a suitable username because it was the only one that I could think of.
Jedi_Knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 10:52
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,635
Seems like they've jumbled the episodes up for some reason.

Last week's, on the 28th of September, was Episode 15 but last night's was, apparently, Episode 18, but my Sky box didn't pick it up so I manually recorded it.

Next week's is scheduled to be Episode 17, but, rather randomly, Episode 16 is available on Saturday at 5pm.
JasonWatkins is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 12:23
Ondine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 907
I see last night's episode was the second to feature a firm of solicitors suing an ex-client in a personal injury claim case. I remember in the first case the client said that the solicitors wanted them to rewrite history and they refused to do it, dropped the claim and got sued.

Is this going to be a new racket?
Ondine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 12:36
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
I see last night's episode was the second to feature a firm of solicitors suing an ex-client in a personal injury claim case. I remember in the first case the client said that the solicitors wanted them to rewrite history and they refused to do it, dropped the claim and got sued.

Is this going to be a new racket?
I think there may be more to it than that.
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 12:46
gother
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Venus and Mars
Posts: 9,023
The two new bailiffs seem decent enough, i found them very understanding and they seemed to want to work with the debtors to get something sorteid out rather than use bully methods (i'm looking at you dael and del).
Drama queen brian made an appearance too although i did agree with del for once the resteraunt owner was taking the mic.
Dael once again seemed to push his way past a person to get into someones home it's high time legal sction was taken against him if he is forcing entry, as i said it only seemed like he did from the angle we saw it from.
He could very well of entered peacefully but i doubt kt from that thug.
gother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 12:53
Grouty
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nth East
Posts: 21,590
Seems like they've jumbled the episodes up for some reason.

Last week's, on the 28th of September, was Episode 15 but last night's was, apparently, Episode 18, but my Sky box didn't pick it up so I manually recorded it.

Next week's is scheduled to be Episode 17, but, rather randomly, Episode 16 is available on Saturday at 5pm.
It said before the start of last nights, that there was a change to the scheduled episode.
Grouty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 12:53
Paul_DNAP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,889
Well I doubt very much you are a Jedi Knight either but no-one is complaining about that.
His cells have the highest concentration of midi-chlorians I have seen in a life-form. It was possible he was conceived by the midi-chlorians.
Paul_DNAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 12:54
JasonWatkins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 53,635
It said before the start of last nights, that there was a change to the scheduled episode.
Aha, fair enough. I don't really watch anything "live" so i wouldn't have heard that.
JasonWatkins is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 12:59
Paul_DNAP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,889
I see last night's episode was the second to feature a firm of solicitors suing an ex-client in a personal injury claim case. I remember in the first case the client said that the solicitors wanted them to rewrite history and they refused to do it, dropped the claim and got sued.

Is this going to be a new racket?
It does sound like a bit of a racket, but then cold calling ambulance chasers aren't exactly the moral backbone of the country to start with are they.
Paul_DNAP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 14:13
Galaxy266
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,765
Why didn't the HCEO's take that bloke's (Sonny?) stock away as a part payment for the £47K debt. I thought something was said about the debtor not wanting them to take his stock away, but that doesn't normally stop them! They pulled it all out of his garage and then put it all back.

Does anybody know, please?
Galaxy266 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 14:45
Ondine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 907
Why didn't the HCEO's take that bloke's (Sonny?) stock away as a part payment for the £47K debt. I thought something was said about the debtor not wanting them to take his stock away, but that doesn't normally stop them! They pulled it all out of his garage and then put it all back.

Does anybody know, please?
I presumed that at auction the dresses would be worth next to nothing.
Ondine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 15:41
Jimmy Connors
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Home For The Bewildered
Posts: 86,529
Why didn't the HCEO's take that bloke's (Sonny?) stock away as a part payment for the £47K debt. I thought something was said about the debtor not wanting them to take his stock away, but that doesn't normally stop them! They pulled it all out of his garage and then put it all back.

Does anybody know, please?
I think they assumed the sight of all those dresses being piled up outside ready to be taken away would make Mr Poole suddenly come out and make an offer.

Nothing happened, and as already mentioned the dresses would not have come close to covering the debt.

.....................................

Felt sorry for the older couple at the end, but she did make me laugh telling them to take what they want.

'Take those sofas away if you like - you'll be doing me a favour'
Jimmy Connors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 15:44
koantemplation
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wolf359
Posts: 96,766
Why didn't the HCEO's take that bloke's (Sonny?) stock away as a part payment for the £47K debt. I thought something was said about the debtor not wanting them to take his stock away, but that doesn't normally stop them! They pulled it all out of his garage and then put it all back.

Does anybody know, please?
The claimant said they didn't want the items as part payment, so they had no choice but to put them back.
koantemplation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 15:58
Galaxy266
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,765
The claimant said they didn't want the items as part payment, so they had no choice but to put them back.
Ah, right, I must have missed that bit. Thanks!
Galaxy266 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 16:56
intoxication
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,283
The claimant said they didn't want the items as part payment, so they had no choice but to put them back.
What about the car they put a clamp on? Did they not want to accept that as part payment?

After the show aired I did some digging. Customers are not happy bunnies indeed (the first comments are recent due to the show but you can also see older reviews):

https://en-gb.facebook.com/Wantthatd...68385156695239
https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/w...hatdress.co.uk
http://www.complaintsboard.com/wantthatdress-b123061
https://www.yell.com/biz/egg-media-u...ester-7772346/
intoxication 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 04:36.