"Can't pay - we'll take it away" - goods belonging to another householder

thomathy

Low-quality television programme "Can't pay, we'll take it away" popped up as I channel-hopped.

It features bailiffs collecting debt, armed with High Court judgments. It is a wonder how it's popular viewing but presumably it is. It looks almost as boring as television programmes about hospitals, which apparently are equally popular.

But it did contain a puzzle which caused me to pause and rewind to listen again: In the episode shown, the bailiffs visit a house belonging to a middle-aged couple. Their son, the debtor, lives with them. The bailiffs state - on camera and on record - that the householders must prove, by documents - i.e. individual receipts of payment, that they own everything in the house, item by item, "down to the last pencil." Otherwise, those items are taken and presumed to be the property of the debtor. One states "It is not up to us to prove that items in the house belong to your son. It is up to you to prove that they don't."

Is this legally correct? I am curious as though I have not always fallen the right side of the law over time, I have generally found it to be reasonable and logical. It seems unreasonable and illogical to require the owner of an item to prove their ownership of an item. What's the real story? Is it Bailiff's bluster, or is this really how the law stands?

sourcrates

Yes it is legally correct.

Whatever address the high court has for you is assumed to be correct, therefore the goods contained within must also be assumed to be the debtors.

Unless you have proof to the contrary that is !!!

DCFC79

I'm a fan of "Can't pay we'll take it away" as I like to see those who don't pay the debts happen to come by x amount of money to get the debts paid.

LABMAN

It should be renamed 'Won't pay we'll take it away'. From what I've seen most manage to find the money when push comes to shove.

Karonher

I enjoy it as most of the time it is someone who is being ripped off getting their money back.

There are a few when it seems that the person in debt is struggling rather than not being bothered to pay, but normally they are re-housed by the council.

Minnibix

Hi I must admit I do like this programme buy I don't understand the reasoning behind you having to prove that things belong to you and not the debtor. Who keeps receipts for 5, 10, or 20 years or more. I have also heard them say that the registration documents of a car do not prove ownership. You try telling a policeman that if the car is in an accident

Elsewhere

sourcrates wrote: »

Yes it is legally correct.

Whatever address the high court has for you is assumed to be correct, therefore the goods contained within must also be assumed to be the debtors.

Unless you have proof to the contrary that is !!!

That implies that someone in deep debt could quote any poor soul's address as their own and lumber them with the problem. Surely the debtor must have some association with the address the High Court has - a relative, or partner, for instance. Could the debtor put themselves on the electoral roll at an address where they have never lived?

Kim_13

Minnibix wrote: »

Hi I must admit I do like this programme buy I don't understand the reasoning behind you having to prove that things belong to you and not the debtor. Who keeps receipts for 5, 10, or 20 years or more. I have also heard them say that the registration documents of a car do not prove ownership. You try telling a policeman that if the car is in an accident

Agree with the car documents. They always ask for an invoice. What happens with private sales? Something written on paper is all they have, but easily faked by those expecting a visit so the V5 would make more sense. Not that DVLA do sense necessarily so that'll be why not.

Think having to prove ownership is fair if the debtor is a joint tenant/owner, but not if they're staying with someone who was kind enough to take them in. In that case the majority of the goods likely aren't the debtor's anyway. Until I knew of this, I discarded receipts once the warranty ran out. Many others are probably the same.

Don't like the way the bailiffs always try to get the debtor asking family/friends for money. I just don't think it's fair that someone is pressured into being out of pocket because of their friend's/relative's mistakes.

sourcrates

Elsewhere wrote: »

That implies that someone in deep debt could quote any poor soul's address as their own and lumber them with the problem. Surely the debtor must have some association with the address the High Court has - a relative, or partner, for instance. Could the debtor put themselves on the electoral roll at an address where they have never lived?

To execute a high court warrant, the bayliffs are sent to the debtors last known address they have on file.

You have to remember the high court does not deal with consumer credit act debts, only debts owed to individuals or companies for services rendered, if someone wants to hide there whereabouts, it's quiet difficult in today's society, you can usually be traced one way or another.

It seems to be siblings running up debts in there parents names that is a fairly common practice of late.

dealer_wins

Im a big fan of the program. Funny how as someone has already said, most debtors manage to pay the money within a few hours isnt it!