Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!: Ch5 9pm

[Laurel Green]

Indeed. One should always stay on top of these things - this program is a testament to that. According to her brother(?) she had gone through 'a lot' over the past three years, perhaps why things slid so much. Doesn't make it right though.

[DSLiverpool]

The parking fine woman has the fines run up after she sold the car. It wasn’t her debt but obviously didn’t defend it.

[nicanary]

DSLiverpool said:

The parking fine woman has the fines run up after she sold the car. It wasn’t her debt but obviously didn’t defend it.

I missed that, but it makes the case more understandable. Her "problems" at the time must have been pretty severe that she couldn't find half a day to attend court and explain what actually happened.

The guy who ordered doors he couldn't pay for is still doing my head in. Home improvement companies ALWAYS offer finance. They want you to take it, they get a fat commission from the finance house. They prefer it to cash in many cases. I don't understand why he didn't ask, and why they didn't offer. Going through County Court and then High Court was all so unnecessary.

[FiF]

Out of interest, the windows case, where they were in the holiday apartment and trying to use pliers to unlock the door into the other property, is that not pushing the boundaries of "peaceful entry"?

[nicanary]

FiF said:

Out of interest, the windows case, where they were in the holiday apartment and trying to use pliers to unlock the door into the other property, is that not pushing the boundaries of "peaceful entry"?

I thought the same as you. That's breaking and entering in my book.

[mgtony]

Re the parking fine case, if she had sold the car and done the paperwork then she wouldn't have been down as the registered keeper. Could have been her partner at the time racking up the parking tickets, ignoring/hiding all the post that came regarding them and then her leaving and moving to different addresses so not aware of the issue. Now they had traced her to this address, I wonder if they had sent her anything there or straight to a visit from the HCEO's.

[CoolHands]

they were already in the property so maybe it's the same as a locked cupboard ie once you're in you can force entry to other areas (guessing)

[tannhauser]

nicanary said:

FiF said:

Out of interest, the windows case, where they were in the holiday apartment and trying to use pliers to unlock the door into the other property, is that not pushing the boundaries of "peaceful entry"?

I thought the same as you. That's breaking and entering in my book.

They said that they had the authority to break and enter, but prefer not to.

[FiF]

tannhauser said:

nicanary said:

FiF said:

Out of interest, the windows case, where they were in the holiday apartment and trying to use pliers to unlock the door into the other property, is that not pushing the boundaries of "peaceful entry"?

I thought the same as you. That's breaking and entering in my book.

They said that they had the authority to break and enter, but prefer not to.

As far as I am concerned they have the authority to break and enter if the debt and premises are related to a company or commercial operation. Private debt / premises definitely not.

[Pieman68]

FiF said:

As far as I am concerned they have the authority to break and enter if the debt and premises are related to a company or commercial operation. Private debt / premises definitely not.

But being that the premises was a holiday rental would that not constitute a commercial purpose?

[FiF]

Pieman68 said:

FiF said:

As far as I am concerned they have the authority to break and enter if the debt and premises are related to a company or commercial operation. Private debt / premises definitely not.

But being that the premises was a holiday rental would that not constitute a commercial purpose?

Seeing as it was shown, and maybe presumably because they were unsuccessful in unlocking with the pliers they feel it's ok. They were in the holiday let and trying to break into the private residence so it seems like pushing the boundaries, much like pushing their way past a resident.

Equally although there is an open door, with someone saying they can't enter, threatening to call the police because of interference is again a hit sharp.

On the other hand do accept that they get lied to and obstructed every day, denials of ability to pay, yet roll of notes fit to choke a dozen donkeys suddenly appears.

[Laurel Green]

Some weird behavior from tonight's 'victim'. Removing things of value to next door will not go down well with the bailifs, am sure.

[nicanary]

Laurel Green said:

Some weird behavior from tonight's 'victim'. Removing things of value to next door will not go down well with the bailifs, am sure.

His behaviour has been odd throughout. He suddenly and miraculously finds £500 in cash in his house. Yet again another person who has dogs he hasn't bothered to train - claiming one is only 10 months old is hardly an excuse. Dogs can be trained from a much younger age. It's sheer laziness.

[nicanary]

The next case - they add on £600 for a recovery truck, but it isn't needed, yet they still insist on payment for it. Eh?

[Laurel Green]

Yeah, think I mentioned that in last week's episode - sounds like a right ripp-off to me.

[nicanary]

Third case now - not for the first time, a car on finance yet the finance house didn't recover the car. Instead they go through all this rigmaole. Surely the point of a secured finance deal is that they take the goods back?

[Laurel Green]

I hope Mr Fanando is watching this episode - what a wker!

[The Mad Monk]

nicanary said:

The next case - they add on £600 for a recovery truck, but it isn't needed, yet they still insist on payment for it. Eh?

I haven't seen this episode.

Did they suddenly manage to find the money after the blokes said 'well, if you are not going to pay cash, we will take your cars away'?

If so, it's their own fault.

[nicanary]

The Mad Monk said:

nicanary said:

The next case - they add on £600 for a recovery truck, but it isn't needed, yet they still insist on payment for it. Eh?

I haven't seen this episode.

Did they suddenly manage to find the money after the blokes said 'well, if you are not going to pay cash, we will take your cars away'?

If so, it's their own fault.

Somebody else paid the debt for them. The bailiffs simply had to clamp the car and then unclamp it - leaving that recovery truck bill on the debt is ludicrous, but apparently lawful. This show is an eye-opener.

[The Mad Monk]

nicanary said:

The Mad Monk said:

nicanary said:

The next case - they add on £600 for a recovery truck, but it isn't needed, yet they still insist on payment for it. Eh?

I haven't seen this episode.

Did they suddenly manage to find the money after the blokes said 'well, if you are not going to pay cash, we will take your cars away'?

If so, it's their own fault.

Somebody else paid the debt for them. The bailiffs simply had to clamp the car and then unclamp it - leaving that recovery truck bill on the debt is ludicrous, but apparently lawful. This show is an eye-opener.

Why didn't they pay when the creditor said 'you owe me money'.

Why didn't they pay when the creditor said 'I am taking you to court'.

Why didn't they pay when they got the notice to say they have lost the court case.

Why didn't they pay when etc etc.....