Channel 5 apologizes to OCD-prone woman for appearing on Can’t Pay. It’s All Away! She was forced to surrender her house by bailiffs despite saying that she did not want to be photographed.

  • Natasha Lowe was filmed in Woolwich, England for Can’t Pay. We’ll Take it Away
  • Her then-boyfriend had amassed a £6,000 debt which he owed to his ex-partner
  • This episode was broadcast to approximately 6,000,000 viewers in 2016-2017
  • Channel 5 opposed her claims, but apologized and offered damages

Channel 5 will pay “substantial damages” to a woman with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), who suffered distress after being featured on an episode. We will take it away.

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

The actress was captured returning to her flat in Woolwich (London) in 2016 to locate two bailiffs as well as a three-man crew. According to the claim, it was broadcast to approximately six million viewers from 2016 through 2017.

After the fourth episode of the series’ fourth season was broadcast, Ms Lowe filed legal action against Channel 5 Broadcasting and Brinkworth Films Limited.

Ms. Lowe admitted that she agreed to be interviewed by the film crew. However, she stated she was not sure it would broadcast her interview without her consent. 

Natasha Lowe sued for invasion of privacy after her face was shown during a broadcast of Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away! Ms Lowe accepted giving an interview to film crews, but argues she expected to be consented before it was broadcast

Natasha Lowe was sued for invading privacy when her face appeared on Can’t Pay? We will take it away! She’ll Take It Away! 

Also, she sought an injunction to stop it from being displayed again. A hearing at the High Court in London on Thursday was told that the legal dispute had been resolved through a settlement.

William Bennett, QC represented Ms Lowe and said that Channel 5 and the bailiffs company had denied her case. However, she accepted an offer to settle it by paying substantial damages and her legal fees.

Mrs Justice Tipples informed Ms Lowe at her hearing that, during filming in February 2016, she was living with her ex-partner and owed money back to him.

DCBL was instructed by his ex-girlfriend to collect the debt. High Court Enforcement Agents, HCEAs, appeared at Ms Lowe’s Woolwich apartment in south east London (February 16).

A crew of film-makers accompanied the bailiffs, and she invited them into her home while she commuted to work.

According to Mr Bennett, she was unable to provide receipts to prove that her items were hers when her ex-partner called to inform her that agents had threatened to take her belongings.

Bennett stated that after she returned, she told the film crew she was not interested in being filmed. The crew then agreed to leave the property.

According to him, Ms Lowe thought she was going to lose all her belongings since she didn’t keep receipts. This incident came as a shock to her. 

Ms. Lowe’s audio and video were recorded even though the film crew was gone. The bailiffs used radio microphones as well as bodycams to record her. 

Bennett claimed that broadcasting the program had caused significant distress to the claimant.

Lawyers for Ms Lowe said it was wrong to show footage of her 'visibly crying, behaving in a way which she would never behave in public' because she was upset by the way bailiffs were handling her possessions and walking on her carpet

Legal counsel for Ms Lowe stated that the footage should not be shown because of how she felt about bailiffs handling her stuff and her walking on her carpet.

“It was especially distressing because she did no owe that debt.”

According to the court, Channel 5 agreed not to air the programme or make it accessible on the internet again. Brinkworth Films also agreed to apologize publicly to Ms Lowe ‘for any distress caused by the programme.

Robbie Stern representing Channel 5 Films and Brinkworth Films stated that they believed the programme was part of a series that is of real public importance, in which each story involves careful balance between privacy and public interest.

He said: “They accept that they might have misbalanced the situation in this case, but they will settle the claim of the claimant and offer to apologise for any distress she has suffered from the broadcast.