Can high court debt collectors take goods without proof?
Discussion
Watching "Can't pay we'll take it away", I gather that the high court enforcement agents have rights to seize goods from a debtor's residence without proof that they are the property of the actual debtor. The onus is on the household to prove that the laptop/car/whatever doesn't belong to the debtor, rather than the other way around.
Is this a scare tactic, or do they really have rights to do this?
If so, I will be a lot more cautious about taking lodgers from now on, in case they later turn out to be in debt and I can't prove ownership of my own stuff.
Is this a scare tactic, or do they really have rights to do this?
If so, I will be a lot more cautious about taking lodgers from now on, in case they later turn out to be in debt and I can't prove ownership of my own stuff.
Yes they are allowed to take goods. Although they have to hold them to give you time to prove ownership.
I guess it would be very difficult for them to prove goods are owned by the debtor , so everyone would just say nothing is theirs.
They also have to have good reason to think its the debtors. If you were a lodger and lived with the landlord it would be unreasonable to assume all goods belonged to the lodger.
I guess it would be very difficult for them to prove goods are owned by the debtor , so everyone would just say nothing is theirs.
They also have to have good reason to think its the debtors. If you were a lodger and lived with the landlord it would be unreasonable to assume all goods belonged to the lodger.
They seem to make vague statements initially, presumably to try and shock blaggers into action, then when the person comes up with a reasonable excuse they back down. I assume there is case law guiding the presumption of ownership, for example if a person has just moved in with their girl/boyfriend then I imagine it would be unreasonable to empty the house and ask the non-debtor to prove they own everything.
The other thing is that the debt collectors are quite interested in making good TV as well as doing their jobs - see paragraph this case:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2018/298.h...
The other thing is that the debt collectors are quite interested in making good TV as well as doing their jobs - see paragraph this case:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2018/298.h...
Gareth79 said:
They seem to make vague statements initially, presumably to try and shock blaggers into action, then when the person comes up with a reasonable excuse they back down. I assume there is case law guiding the presumption of ownership, for example if a person has just moved in with their girl/boyfriend then I imagine it would be unreasonable to empty the house and ask the non-debtor to prove they own everything.
The other thing is that the debt collectors are quite interested in making good TV as well as doing their jobs - see paragraph this case:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2018/298.h...
An interesting read. Many thanks.The other thing is that the debt collectors are quite interested in making good TV as well as doing their jobs - see paragraph this case:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2018/298.h...
I think there's a lot of bluff and bluster on those programes and people fall for it. I did like the one where the car dealer shoved the bailiff off his premises and locked the gate. He said he had to remove the bailiff because the yard hadn't got any insurance so was doing it for the bailiff's own good :-)
Nothing came of it either, just one bailiff looking pretty stupid.
Nothing came of it either, just one bailiff looking pretty stupid.
Boosted LS1 said:
I think there's a lot of bluff and bluster on those programes and people fall for it. I did like the one where the car dealer shoved the bailiff off his premises and locked the gate. He said he had to remove the bailiff because the yard hadn't got any insurance so was doing it for the bailiff's own good :-)
Nothing came of it either, just one bailiff looking pretty stupid.
Exactly this. 90% of the program is bluff and bluster. They rely on the ignorance and fear of the debtor much like 99% of single mums who get criminal convictions for non-payment of the TV Licence. About the only time they can force entry is for possession of a property or successfully levy if there is a car parked outside. 99% of the time, not answering or opening the door to them will stop them in their tracks.Nothing came of it either, just one bailiff looking pretty stupid.
I also suspect that they are claiming to be High Court Bailiffs when they are attempting to enforce normal Court debts. There are loads of YT videos of bailiffs with foot in the door, or trying to force debtors from closing doors or push past them - something they are not allowed to do.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff