Bristow and suitor problems

[ploddertom]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

If that is what you have got and it is a vehicle that you do not own or have ever seen then if you go back to B&S they will put you through hoops to prove you don't own it.

By all means get on to your local Councillor and forward him the following link http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2012/jul/...iliff-charges/ pointing out the criticism about DVLA checks

[Rubyroo]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

The levy is invalid. It is not signed or dated nor is there a name on it so you can identify the bailiff.

Also, obviously, if you do not know this vehicle,one has to question whether he was at the right house. The vehicle is showing as currently uninsured. Some poor soul has probably had their vehicle levied for nothing.

Also, the 'levy' states they can remove goods immediately - they can't! They can only remove goods on the day of sale, so even their levy details are unlawful.

I would leave B&S for the moment while you contact your Councillor. The council will contact B&S once they realise what a monumental cock up they've made.

How do they get away with this, it is shocking..
I have emailed my local Councillor explaining my situation hoping he will contact me back, and help me with this.
This is all far to much stress and im hoping they dont send another bailiff next week when i havent paid it.

Thank you so much for your help couldn't have sorted bits out without your help.

[Rubyroo]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

If that is what you have got and it is a vehicle that you do not own or have ever seen then if you go back to B&S they will put you through hoops to prove you don't own it.

By all means get on to your local Councillor and forward him the following link http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2012/jul/...iliff-charges/ pointing out the criticism about DVLA checks

I have emailed him so will await a response i have also sent him the link across.
I have told them earlier that i dont own this vehicle surely its down to them to prove i own it..
Thank you also for your help with this very much appreciated.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

I have emailed him so will await a response i have also sent him the link across.
I have told them earlier that i dont own this vehicle surely its down to them to prove i own it..
Thank you also for your help with this very much appreciated.

It might be worth reminding the councillor, and the CEO & elected leader, that contrary to what they may think,that once it is with bailiffs they have no responsibilty for the account, they are wholly liable for the unlawful levy of their agents, Brisket & Stupid, and unless they remove it the council could end up as a defendant in the magistrates court in a Regulation 46 Complaint, you being aggrieved by the levy of their agents, which must be removed along with all the associated charges.

[ploddertom]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

You should ring your Councillor, if only to ask he checks his Inbox.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

It might be worth reminding the councillor, and the CEO & elected leader, that contrary to what they may think,that once it is with bailiffs they have no responsibilty for the account, they are wholly liable for the unlawful levy of their agents, Brisket & Stupid, and unless they remove it the council could end up as a defendant in the magistrates court in a Regulation 46 Complaint, you being aggrieved by the levy of their agents, which must be removed along with all the associated charges.

Or the registered keeper of the Vauxhall "motor car" might take action when those gargoyles try to seize it?

[bizzybob]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

Or the registered keeper of the Vauxhall "motor car" might take action when those gargoyles try to seize it?

Busted & stupid will probably try to blag the legal owner and tell them tough they have the right to the car, they may well be that silly

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

The legitimate owner of the car needs to contact the police and forewarn them of Brain-Dead and Stupid's proposal to illegally seize a third-party vehicle. If the owner of the car gets any nonsense from the police, the police need to be reminded that bailiffs can only seize property belonging to the debtor and cannot seize any property belonging to third parties. Doing so is Theft.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

The legitimate owner of the car needs to contact the police and forewarn them of Brain-Dead and Stupid's proposal to illegally seize a third-party vehicle. If the owner of the car gets any nonsense from the police, the police need to be reminded that bailiffs can only seize property belonging to the debtor and cannot seize any property belonging to third parties. Doing so is Theft.

It is abhorrent and repugnant to the law that collection of debt and the whole bailiff/distress situation has degenerated so far that a totally innocent person runs the risk of losing their car because it is parked near or adjacent to a debtor's premises. Often the owner will be unaware the vehicle has been levied, until if they park, as a matter of course near that property, maybe a neighbour to the debtor, or even park there whilst at work and return to find it clamped or gone.

What is certain is that the owner will know nothing about it until they find a motor clamped, or worse taken by the bailiff. They could even fall victim to JBW and their dubious ANPR, if they are a recent owner. Usually in that case JBW will extort the fees illegally from the owner. What does the owner do when the police stonewall saying bailiff has right, is civil, completely ignoring prima facie theft of a motor vehicle by the bailiff, who has no right to touch it in law?

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

It is abhorrent and repugnant to the law that collection of debt and the whole bailiff/distress situation has degenerated so far that a totally innocent person runs the risk of losing their car because it is parked near or adjacent to a debtor's premises. Often the owner will be unaware the vehicle has been levied, until if they park, as a matter of course near that property, maybe a neighbour to the debtor, or even park there whilst at work and return to find it clamped or gone.

What is certain is that the owner will know nothing about it until they find a motor clamped, or worse taken by the bailiff. They could even fall victim to JBW and their dubious ANPR, if they are a recent owner. Usually in that case JBW will extort the fees illegally from the owner. What does the owner do when the police stonewall saying bailiff has right, is civil, completely ignoring prima facie theft of a motor vehicle by the bailiff, who has no right to touch it in law?

JBW illegally removed an innocent motorist's vehicle. Within 24 hours of the motorist instructing a solicitor, the vehicle was returned and the local authority got landed with a liability for legal costs, compensation and damages for trespass on land and against property. What makes me laugh is when Jamie Waller goes on television claiming JBW is an ethical bailiff company. Don't make me laugh! There's evidence of Waller, on Dailymotion, trying to illegally force entry to someone's home with one of his goons. What is funny, however, is a video on Youtube showing Waller throwing his weight about in business premises and then returning to his van to find a parking attendant has slapped a PCN on it.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

Will phone Busted and Stupid to ask how a third party owner gets the bailiff to leave his motor alone, perhaps an exparte injunction would be good where bailiffs start demanding stupid levels of proof beyond V5 and what they should have found out from DVLA

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

The trouble is that Brainless and Stupid might decide to add charges for a tow truck and a "redemption fee", claiming that they were about to remove the levied motor car but then decided not to.

That such fees would be improper or invalid would probably not bother them.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

The trouble is that Brainless and Stupid might decide to add charges for a tow truck and a "redemption fee", claiming that they were about to remove the levied motor car but then decided not to.

That such fees would be improper or invalid would probably not bother them.

If it was third party and nothing to do with the debtor, well Brainless & Stupid, would be in for a large claim against them if they removed a car, or allegations of fraud if they tried to charge the owner a van fee, and a redemption fee.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

Will phone Busted and Stupid to ask how a third party owner gets the bailiff to leave his motor alone, perhaps an exparte injunction would be good where bailiffs start demanding stupid levels of proof beyond V5 and what they should have found out from DVLA

An ex parte injunction under Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, under the circumstances described would be difficult to obtain. The owner of the car cannot use a Regulation 46 complaint as they are not the CT/NNDR debtor. My gut-feeling is that a Cease and Desist letter, followed by an ex parte injunction preventing trespass on land/against property, would be more appropriate.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow and suitor problems

If it was third party and nothing to do with the debtor, well Brainless & Stupid, would be in for a large claim against them if they removed a car, or allegations of fraud if they tried to charge the owner a van fee, and a redemption fee.

It would also apply if they tried to charge the OP, bb.