She's gotten herself into yet another flame war on the CAG board. The Hereford template she referred to is R v Hereford and Worcester Magistrates Court ex parte MacRae (1999). She clearly doesn't know it no longer applies because of Section 88(8) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. HMCTS stopped using it long ago when Marston lost a claim for enforcement of fees by threatening a locksmith.
As for the rest of her advice, she provided no source legislation to back it up. It's all theory and fiction. As for Channel 4, they have their own lawyers that decide to green-light a client's property or car to be put under surveillance.
That is also wrong advice. The contact is not binding on debtors. The contracting parties are the bailiff company and HMCTS. The law does not prevent HMCTS receiving money in discharge of a sum adjudged. In fact, CPR 52.3 obligated HMCTS to give a receipt. The RETMAR letter is to appease the bailiff companies to protect their commercial interests. Nothing in CPR 52 or Schedule 12 revives a warrant after it ceases under Paragraph 6(3)(a) of schedule 12.That contract specifically provides that once a warrant had been issued, and passed to one of the above four companies that HMCTS.........will not accept direct payments and to do so, would be a a specific breach by HMCTS of their own contract.