Cant Pay on Channel 5 is to be pulled from public airwaves

[zeke]

Ofcom is investigating whether the show Can't Pay We'll take it away continues on Channel 5.

There has been a complaint the show featured bailiffs breaching numerous provisions of Schedule 12 on camera, and this is contrary to Ofcom Broadcasting Code introduced in April 2017. The program content features a company and its agents demonstrating its policies are consistent with organised crime, offences under section 992 of the Companies Act 2006 and breaches of the provisions of the Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

The regulator is to decide whether the company should continue access to public airwaves in light of the behaviour of the agents on camera and publically broadcast. In any case, the show cannot be classed as journalism because it not current affairs of national interest. It leaves "entertainment" as its remaining classification.

I cannot give the source at this time, I can only say the above. I'll follow this up when I have more information.


For now, see page 21 and others of >> https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/ ... l-2017.pdf

Many of you will remember that JBW's TV show Beat the Bailiffs (Lion Television) was cancelled without notice by Ofcom for precisely the same reason.

[Daniellecee93]

Hi Nigel , I have recieved a letter from this dcbl todau regarding unpaid nursery fees

" we act for kids r us nursery limited and refer you to the outstanding balance due.

Unless we recieve you immediate proposals regarding payment of this debt, the recovery process will commence 7 days from the above date of this letter.

We may also make arragements for our reprasentative to call upon you to open lines of communication regarding payment.

My daughter has not attended this nursery since feb 2011 and i have had no letters from them to my current address.

What does this letter mean ?

Any advice would be appreciated.

[zeke]

The liability probably is out of time because the judgement is more than 6 years. Section 24 of the Limitation Act states:

• 24 Time limit for actions to enforce judgments.
  
  (1)An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

The bailiff company is probably trying it on, and by exercising an enforcement power for an expired debt is an offence of false representation.

[Syd Snitkin]

Remind us which bailiff co feature on "Can't Pay"..... I can't quite recall.

[Daniellecee93]

The liability probably is out of time because the judgement is more than 6 years. Section 24 of the Limitation Act states:

• 24 Time limit for actions to enforce judgments.
  
  (1)An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

The bailiff company is probably trying it on, and by exercising an enforcement power for an expired debt is an offence of false representation.

My daughter stopped attending in febuary 2011 and the nursery have said the outstandinf debt is £1440.00 and interest is 0.8% from 14/09/2011. What does this mean ?

Thank you

[Daniellecee93]

Remind us which bailiff co feature on "Can't Pay"..... I can't quite recall.

DCBL is the bailiff.

[zeke]

Hi Nigel , I have recieved a letter from this dcbl todau regarding unpaid nursery fees

" we act for kids r us nursery limited and refer you to the outstanding balance due.

Unless we recieve you immediate proposals regarding payment of this debt, the recovery process will commence 7 days from the above date of this letter.

We may also make arragements for our reprasentative to call upon you to open lines of communication regarding payment.

My daughter has not attended this nursery since feb 2011 and i have had no letters from them to my current address.

What does this letter mean ?

Any advice would be appreciated.

I would like to say a big congrats for your Ofcom complaint. Well done.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/ ... letin-.pdf from Page 41.

• Ofcom has upheld Ms Y’s complaint, made on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter, of unwarranted infringement of privacy in connection with the obtaining of material included in the programme, and in the programme as broadcast.

Time to let the legal machinery do its job.