Channel 5 apologizes for paying a woman unhappy with her appearance on Can’t Pay? We’ll take it away

Channel 5 apologizes and makes huge payments to an OCD woman feeling upset by appearing on a TV show Can’t Pay? We’ll take her away when the bailiffs entered her house even though she said she didn’t want to be photographed

  • Natasha Lowe was filmed at home in Woolwich in Can’t Pay We’ll Take It Away
  • Her then-boyfriend had amassed £6000 of debt that he owed to his ex-partner
  • The episode was broadcast to nearly 6 million viewers between 2016 and 2017
  • Channel 5 opposed its legal claims, but apologized and offered to pay compensation

Channel 5 offered a “big damages” to a woman with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) who became upset after appearing on an episode of the TV show Can’t Pay? We’ll take it away.

Bailiffs told Natasha Lowe they were withdrawing £6,000 worth of her goods due to debts allegedly owed by boyfriend Daniel White to his ex-partner.

She was photographed returning to the apartment in Woolwich, London, in 2016, to find two bailiffs and a three-man film crew. The episode was subsequently broadcast to about six million viewers between 2016 and 2017, allegedly.

Ms Lowe launched a legal case against Channel 5 Broadcasting, Brinkworth Films Limited and Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited (DCBL) after the episode aired in the show’s fourth series.

Ms Lowe agreed to be interviewed by the film’s crew, but said she did not believe it would be broadcast without her permission.

Natasha Lowe sued for breach of privacy after her face appeared during the broadcast of Can’t Pay? We’ll take it away! Ms. Lowe has accepted to be interviewed by the filming crews, but says she expects to get the approval before it airs

She also requested an injunction preventing her from being shown again. A hearing in London’s High Court on Thursday was informed that the legal dispute had been resolved through a settlement.

William Bennett, representing Ms. Lowe, told the court that Channel 5, the television production company and the bailiffs company had dismissed her case, but had accepted an offer to resolve it with significant damages and its legal costs.

The hearing before Mrs. Justice Tables was told that at the time of filming in February 2016, Mrs. Lowe lived with her then-partner who owed money to his ex-girlfriend.

His ex-girlfriend has asked DCBL for debt recovery and High Court Enforcement Agents (HCEAs) appeared at Ms Lowe’s flat in Woolwich, southeast London, on February 16.

The film crew accompanied the preparers and her now ex-partner invited him home while she was commuting to work.

Bennett told the court that she returned home “in a state of concern” after her ex-partner phoned to say clients were “on the verge of forfeiting her property unless she can produce receipts proving ownership.”

“On her return, she made it clear to the film crew that she did not want to be filmed, and so the crew agreed to leave the property,” Bennett said.

He said Ms Lowe thought she was about to lose her belongings because she didn’t keep the receipts, and the incident was a “complete shock” to her.

Although the film crew had left, Ms. Lowe was recorded by the body cameras and radio microphones of debt collectors (Bailiffs), with video and audio edited and used in the episode.

“The broadcast of the program has caused great alarm and concern to the plaintiff,” said Mr. Bennett.

Ms Lowe's lawyers said it was a mistake to show her footage

Ms Lowe’s lawyers said it was wrong to show footage of her “clearly crying, behaving in a way she would never have done in public” because she was upset by the way bailiffs handled her property and walked on her carpet.

“It was especially upsetting to her because she was not in debt related to her.”

The court was told that Channel 5 had agreed not to broadcast the program again, or make it available online, and also agreed to join Brinkworth Films in publicly apologizing to Ms. Lowe for the inconvenience caused by the programme. .

Robbie Stern, who represents Channel 5 and Brinkworth Films, said their case is that they “at all times believed that this program was part of a series of genuine public interest, where each story includes a careful exercise of balancing matters of public interest and the right to respect privacy.” .

He added: ‘They are prepared to accept, however, that on this occasion, as far as the plaintiff is concerned, they may have erred in this balance and for that reason are willing to settle her claim and also apologize to her for the ordeal. Because of the broadcast of the episode in question.


Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button