By: Creaking Door - 17th April 2015 at 22:33
Right, I understand the situation better now; sorry, I can’t watch your video as there is extremely bad wi-fi where I am now and it is always dangerous to make assumptions!
On the face of it that seems extremely short-sighted on the part of the council. One department recovering a debt but only at the, far greater, cost to another department within the same council; not ‘joined-up thinking’ at all!
How is it that the man’s debt has increased to £60K- £70K as a result of the council’s action? It is a very fine line between being in debt and being bankrupt; at any point if you cannot pay any of your creditors all that they are owed you can be declared ‘bankrupt’. That is not exactly the same as the council ‘making’ him bankrupt.
By: paul1867 - 17th April 2015 at 22:17
Thanks for the comments, much appreciated.
The man evicted owned the property and owed a council around £6,000 in business rates. The council made him bankrupt in order to recover their money and I believe that process has increased his debt to something in the order of £60-70K.
By: charliehunt - 17th April 2015 at 22:12
Well if the consequence is that the culprit is rehoused what is the incentive to pay??
By: Creaking Door - 17th April 2015 at 22:06
So what is served by the original eviction?
I would have thought that was obvious…
…if there are no consequences for not paying the rent why would anybody bother?
By: paul178 - 17th April 2015 at 21:51
Nothing Charlie! As this man has children as stated in the video I think (2) of the attached link applies.
http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-legal-information/public-housing/homeless-people.html
By: charliehunt - 17th April 2015 at 21:40
Without commenting on e specific incident about which we do not have all the facts an element of your comment puzzles me. An individual is evicted from rented accommodation by the local authority who are then obliged to rehouse the individual. So what is served by the original eviction?
By: paul178 - 17th April 2015 at 21:25
Paul, OK the man owes money and the process of law in this case is probably legal for the property to be repossessed.
Bailiffs or High Court Sheriffs are allowed to gain access and remove the occupants and change the locks. The Police are only there to prevent assaults and a breach of the peace and not smash their way in and in any way touch the occupants possessions. What I saw on this video was shocking and I believe illegal.
The other point was why so many Police in full riot gear were involved. Surely a couple of ordinary officers in uniform would be sufficient.
Now this man and his children have been made homeless it is the duty of the council that ordered the eviction to find them accommodation.
The Police wonder why they don’t get help from the public. I would never help them and I would not p*** on them if they were on fire!
Just as a matter of interest our chief Constable has been suspended for a year now on full pay £150,000 pa the matter was supposed to be dealt with this month but yesterday it was postponed to a later date to be advised, so another £12,500 a month for sitting on his ar*e at the tax payers expense
Sign In
April 17, 2015 at 6:28 pm