Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

[alan1984b]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

I now have a letter which arrived in the post the same day in which the bailiff visited, but the charges are as before, i dont know what the hell is going on, i have photographed the Warrent letter and statement. They have not as you can see specified what they have made a levey against nor explained how the charged directly apply to the legeslation noted.

coming to the warrent PlodderTom mentioned the warrent is photographed the address seems to have been edited as it has my whole old address, but only the town of my current address. i know it also expires on th 2nd of febuary.

Bristow are now denying sending anyone to my door the other day and he didnt leave anything at my property as i didnt want to accept anything unless it ment i took liability in any way.

Can you just guide me in a slight way as to how my letter should pick their reply apart to mainly delay them.

Guys thank you for your help.

[alan1984b]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

Have a read of these FAQ's & remember nothing i set in stone http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/nor...sked-questions

theres a copy of the warrent attatched to the post above, i think they've data clensed it like you mentioned.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

Data cleansing of warrants, which are legal documents, is strictly forbidden and totally illegal. If a certificated bailiff discovers a debtor has changed addresses, they must return the warrant to the court of issue (local authority in the case of a TEC warrant) for cancellation and re-issue with the current address on it. Bailiffs and bailiff companies must not make alterations themselves. If they do so, the warrant is potentially invalid and the bailiff's legal protection against being sued for trespass is compromised, if not, flushed down the toilet.

I have noticed that they have tried to levy and remove on the same visit. I will bump this post for another of our bailiff experts to look in and confirm, but to the best of my knowledge and belief, they cannot levy and remove on the same visit. I would certainly query their abortive van fee, too. Subject to confirmation, the most they can legitimately charge, by my calculations, is £300.21.

The comment they make about the OFT simply shows their ignorance or, more accurately, their arrogance. If they lose their OFT licence, any public debt contracts they hold could be put at risk, as most public debt contracts require bailiff companies to hold a valid OFT Debt Collection Licence. In addition to that, they would be unable to collect any non-public debt they also collect. In short, if they lost their licence, they would be well and truly buggered.

If the bailiff has levied on a vehicle standing on a public highway and it is a third-party vehicle and B & S try to remove it, the bailiff and removal contractor risk being prosecuted for Theft. The removal contractor could also risk forfeiting their vehicle, which can happen if a vehicle is used in the commission of a criminal act. If only certificated bailiffs and bailiff companies stopped and thought about the consequences of their actions, a lot of them wouldn't find themselves in the proverbial so often.

I have just run a check on the bailiff whose name appears in the letter you have received from B & S. His first name does not correspond with what is on the register. I would contact Worcester Combined Court and enquire if someone of that name has applied for and been granted a certificated bailiff certificate and the issue and expiry dates. I will PM you what is on the register. However, ask B & S to confirm the bailiff's full name. If they insist it is what is written in the letter, it is possible he is not registered, in which case the fees they are charging are totally illegal.

:bump:

[alan1984b]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

Data cleansing of warrants, which are legal documents, is strictly forbidden and totally illegal. If a certificated bailiff discovers a debtor has changed addresses, they must return the warrant to the court of issue (local authority in the case of a TEC warrant) for cancellation and re-issue with the current address on it. Bailiffs and bailiff companies must not make alterations themselves. If they do so, the warrant is potentially invalid and the bailiff's legal protection against being sued for trespass is compromised, if not, flushed down the toilet.

I have noticed that they have tried to levy and remove on the same visit. I will bump this post for another of our bailiff experts to look in and confirm, but to the best of my knowledge and belief, they cannot levy and remove on the same visit. I would certainly query their abortive van fee, too. Subject to confirmation, the most they can legitimately charge, by my calculations, is £300.21.

The comment they make about the OFT simply shows their ignorance or, more accurately, their arrogance. If they lose their OFT licence, any public debt contracts they hold could be put at risk, as most public debt contracts require bailiff companies to hold a valid OFT Debt Collection Licence. In addition to that, they would be unable to collect any non-public debt they also collect. In short, if they lost their licence, they would be well and truly buggered.

If the bailiff has levied on a vehicle standing on a public highway and it is a third-party vehicle and B & S try to remove it, the bailiff and removal contractor risk being prosecuted for Theft. The removal contractor could also risk forfeiting their vehicle, which can happen if a vehicle is used in the commission of a criminal act. If only certificated bailiffs and bailiff companies stopped and thought about the consequences of their actions, a lot of them wouldn't find themselves in the proverbial so often.

I have just run a check on the bailiff whose name appears in the letter you have received from B & S. His first name does not correspond with what is on the register. I would contact Worcester Combined Court and enquire if someone of that name has applied for and been granted a certificated bailiff certificate and the issue and expiry dates. I will PM you what is on the register. However, ask B & S to confirm the bailiff's full name. If they insist it is what is written in the letter, it is possible he is not registered, in which case the fees they are charging are totally illegal.

:bump:

are they allowed to say this;

we do not take instruction from CAB or national debtline and as we are not trading with me OFT are not applicable to them?

as said in the fourth paragraph of the opening letter?

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

Not unless they want OFT Credit Fitness Team and Trading Standards jumping all over them. One bailiff company, Equita, is currently being investigated by Northamptonshire Trading Standards over fee irregularities. B & S is not exempt or immune from investigation by either OFT or TS.

[alan1984b]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

Not unless they want OFT Credit Fitness Team and Trading Standards jumping all over them. One bailiff company, Equita, is currently being investigated by Northamptonshire Trading Standards over fee irregularities. B & S is not exempt or immune from investigation by either OFT or TS.

How does this sound;

Dear Sirs;
I am replying to your letter as I believe the information is incorrect, and has been falsified by someone in your office/company, which leads me to doubt the substance of any claim you may have in recovering this sum of money i apparently owe to Bristow & Sutor.
Firstly i would like to highlight the claim you have an accurate levy for any of my property, you nor anyone i had spoken to in a telephone conversation around the 22^nd August 2012, has specified what property has been levied. The only items that your bailiffs have made levies against are a motorcycle at 63 Lowther Street and a car at my address. Now i shall bring to you attention that neither of these vehicles are registered to me or has ANY of my income gone into the purchase of these items. I would like to make you aware that if you attempt to remove either of these vehicles i shall ensure that the owners do prosecute for theft of a motor vehicle, which as you also should be aware that both the bailiff and removal contractor risk being prosecuted for Theft. The removal contractor could also risk forfeiting their vehicle, which can happen if a vehicle is used in the commission of a criminal act.
Secondly i would like to highlight that the warrant you attatched to your reply seems in-accurate and somewhat tampered with. Warrants cannot simply be “data-cleansed” as seems with this. Warrants are legal documents which cannot be altered by anyone other than the court of issue for it to be re-issued, since the apparent alterations do not seem to be made through the correct channels i am seriously doubting Bristow & Sutors’ legal position upon making any levy’s or walking possessions on my property.
Adding these two anomalies so far you or your staff have not complied with legislation/laws that you hide behind. So when i requested; Could you please confirm, IN WRITING, that the fees you are charging me are a true, complete and accurate account and comply, in all respects, with the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993-2003 and are not false, misleading or deceptive in any material particular. I expect you to provide proof of invoices, receipts, etc., to prove all and any fees you are charging? The vague reply was not sufficient, because from what i can see you have Attended to Levy and attended to remove on the same date (8/5/2012) which from every source i can find stated that you are not allowed to do. This is also repeated on the 24/5/2012. Also a Van/Abortive removal fee of £228.00, Can you please enlighten me as to what you were there to remove as i am not aware of any walking possessions/accurate levies. None of the information you have provided me with specifies exactly how £632.21 ties to Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993-2003.
There are also some more issues i have, Can you please confirm that the full name of the bailiff that visited my address is actually MR CHAD BHARJE as you stated (12/11/2012) and as simply put CHAD on the notice of removal expenses (24/10/2012) and the court that issued his bailiff certificate complete with issue and expiry dates.
I would like you to please confirm one final thing, the statement; “We do not take instruction from Citizens Advice Bureau or National Debtline and as we are not trading with you the Office of Fair trading are not applicable to us.” I would like to make you aware that Bristow & Sutor are not as “untouchable” as that statement leads to believe, Equita, are currently being investigated by Northamptonshire Trading Standards and OFT Credit Fitness Team for fee irregularities.
Finally unless these issues are explained accurately we will be going back and forth until they are, and until they are any visits will been seen as harassment and details will be forwarded along with my growing complaints with Bristow & Sutor.
Faithfully


Alan Bedford

[ploddertom]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

Contact the TEC on Monday explain you now have a ticket you knew nothing about - until Mr Bailiff turned up. They should email you some forms to fill in and as long as they are returned before 4pm all enforcement action should cease. If your application is accepted it will rewind to the initial price and bye bye Mr Bailiff & his fees.

[ploddertom]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

When an alleged offence is committed the Council and no response or payment is forthcoming then the Council obtain your details from the DVLA via a 3rd party who are contracted to do this by the MOJ - that in itself is presently subject to scrutiny following complaints against the company concerned, but that's a long, long story. The details they are provided with is the Registered keepers name & address for the vehicle in question on the date the offence was committed. Various communications are sent to this address and if no payment or response is received they then apply to the Traffic Enforcement Centre for a Warrant of Execution which is then usually given to a Bailiff Co to execute. The assigned Bailiff visits the address given where he discovers the debtor has moved.

Sometimes the Bailiff catches up with you and tells you the debt is now reminiscent of a telephone number and must be paid in full otherwise your car will be removed & sold. How this obtained is subject to few different avenues, electoral roll, telephone records, ANPR etc. Bailiffs are driven by money & no doubt their Company tells them to maximise what they can. What they do fail to do is to return the Warrant back to the TEC to see if it can be reissued at the correct address. They hope you don't know what the procedure is and just cough up. It is this process of what they do that is called "data cleansing", you will note the letter you received goes round the houses on this.

The bits they have failed to adhere to.
Civil Procedure Rules Section 75 and in particular Part 7

(1) An authority seeking the issue of a warrant of execution must file a request –

(a) certifying the amount remaining due under the order;

(b) specifying the date of service of the order on the respondent; and

(c) certifying that the relevant period has elapsed.

(2) The court will seal the request and return it to the authority.

(3) Within 7 days of the sealing of the request the authority must prepare the warrant in the appropriate form.

(4) No payment under a warrant will be made to the court.

(5) For the purposes of execution a warrant will be valid for 12 months beginning with the date of its issue.

(6) An authority may not renew a warrant issued in accordance with this Part beyond the 12 month validity period but, subject to paragraph (7), an authority may request the reissue of a warrant during the 12 month validity period.

(7) Where the address of the respondent has changed since the issue of the warrant, the authority may request the reissue of the warrant by filing a request –

(a) specifying the new address of the respondent;

(b) providing evidence that the new address for the respondent does relate to the respondent named in the order and against whom enforcement is sought; and

(c) certifyihttp://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Library/Execution%20of%20Warrant%20Information%20Note%20f% 20doc.pdfng that the amount due under the order remains unpaid.

(8) Where the court is satisfied that the new address of the respondent given in the request for the reissue of the warrant relates to the respondent named in the order, it will seal the request and return it to the authority.

(9) The authority must prepare the reissued warrant in the appropriate form within 7 days of the sealing of the request to reissue.

(10) A reissued warrant will only be valid for the remainder of the 12 month period beginning with the date it was originally issued.

On top of this have a read of this link

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/writ...%20f%20doc.pdf

[alan1984b]

I got a reply from BS today. I assume this means they're accepting they were wrong? But at the same time trying to justify their actions. Thank you for your help with this. How do I go about properly complaining to OFT?

Again many thanks.

P.s. glad this was sorted before my wife goes in for a cesarean on Wednesday.

[ploddertom]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

Always seems strange when they claim to be doing everything by the book that they give up and return to where it came from. Don't forget you may still have to pay the Council for the original ticket.

[sanj]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

Hi Alan,sorry to hear the problems your experience with B/S.

I to have had dealing with these Bailiffs and they really do give people a hard time,i have a complain registered against them into there conduct and there charges.

Without this site i would have just got on with it and not challenged them,as this area of law is very complex,and isn't easy,but the people on this site have given me help advice and hope,so don't worry just follow there advice and you will be fine. Good Luck

[Marson84]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

I'm having trouble with B&S now

i sold a car in 2012 and they are trying to charge me for the parking tickets issued on it in Apr 2013

come to my property today and changed the find from 418 to 643

adding a a visit charge of 235 for today alone

[bizzybob]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

I'm having trouble with B&S now

i sold a car in 2012 and they are trying to charge me for the parking tickets issued on it in Apr 2013

come to my property today and changed the find from 418 to 643

adding a a visit charge of 235 for today alone

Did you notify DVLA at the time? if so phone the council who issued the PCN and Northampton TEC and ask them WTF is going on as you sold the motor in 2012

As it is not your ticket Ballcocks and Stupid have no business with you, however I would also contact DVLA and ask them what they are playing at also.

[Marson84]

Re: Bristow and Sutor; Parking offence.

Alan what did you send them to receive that letter