Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

[enquirer]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

Follow the advice given by Bluebottle. This will also give you much more clout when tackling the council.

When attending the police station, they may attempt to put you off. Insist and make it clear that you will make a complaint against them, if they refuse to listen.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

Follow the advice given by Bluebottle. This will also give you much more clout when tackling the council.

When attending the police station, they may attempt to put you off. Insist and make it clear that you will make a complaint against them, if they refuse to listen.

The fact the tit said he was a police officer will have the police's backs up. The OP should ask to speak to a police officer, not let the civilian support worker on the front desk spout forth BS. Enquirer is correct in that reporting the matter to the police first will give the complaint to the local authority considerably more clout and the submission to Northampton TEC should be accompanied by a separate Witness Statement concerning the bailiff's actions. Whether this will influence the TEC is another matter. However, it is about time TEC was made aware of what bailiffs get up to.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

The submission to Northampton TEC will have the effect of stopping the enforcement, so Bristow & Sutor will have (or may claim that they have) no obligation to explain their outrageously inflated fees.

Can the submission be delayed until those turds have accounted for when they added in the date?

[bizzybob]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

The submission to Northampton TEC will have the effect of stopping the enforcement, so Bristow & Sutor will have (or may claim that they have) no obligation to explain their outrageously inflated fees.

Can the submission be delayed until those turds have accounted for when they added in the date?

There is a time limit for submission of OOT, after you become aware of the ticket from the old address. There is nothing to stop OP doing both at asap. The TEC can roll back the enforcement and remove all the fees, but it doesn't remove the crime, so Busted and Stupid can still be made to pay for their crime.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

There is a time limit for submission of OOT, after you become aware of the ticket from the old address. There is nothing to stop OP doing both at asap. The TEC can roll back the enforcement and remove all the fees, but it doesn't remove the crime, so Busted and Stupid can still be made to pay for their crime.

The matter of Impersonation of A Police Officer, although linked to the PCN matter, is a separate issue. Once reported to the police, the OP needs to obtain the name of the bailiff, the name of the court that issued his certificate, then ring the Enforcement Section at the court and obtain the name of the Circuit or District Judge so that representations can be made directly to them about the bailiff's actions. If the OP needs help drafting the representation, I am happy to help in this respect.

As far as the crime is concerned, that is down to the bailiff himself, not Bristow & Sutor, although B & S are likely to come in for heavy criticism and, in particular, their apparent failure to exercise adequate and proper supervision over their employees.

It would be helpful if the OP could obtain the name of the bailiff from B & S. The fact it is unreadable on the Form 7 is grounds for requesting such details. Get this done before going to the police.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

Exactly BB, OP can challenge with OOT at TEC, and proceed to get the scumbag bailiffs collar felt as a separate issue. Bonkers & Scrotes MUST provide the bailiffs detals to OP as a matter of law, Op should also write a letter to the judge at the bailiffs certifying court detailing the behaviour, as a matter of course also.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

Exactly BB, OP can challenge with OOT at TEC, and proceed to get the scumbag bailiffs collar felt as a separate issue. Bonkers & Scrotes MUST provide the bailiffs detals to OP as a matter of law, Op should also write a letter to the judge at the bailiffs certifying court detailing the behaviour, as a matter of course also.

I am wondering, bb, if the OP's local press and broadcast media might be interested in this. Wouldn't do B & S's reputation much good and it would make the council who employed them look pretty stupid, too, not to mention cause councillors' backsides to twitch and emit tuneful sounds.

[bizzybob]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

I am wondering, bb, if the OP's local press and broadcast media might be interested in this. Wouldn't do B & S's reputation much good and it would make the council who employed them look pretty stupid, too, not to mention cause councillors' backsides to twitch and emit tuneful sounds.

Nothing like the tuneful sound of a Bowel Bugle Band played by elected councillors when their appointed agents mess up!

[ODC]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

I dont want to pee on the parade but I think its going to be a case of he said she said. There is no proof that the scumbag actually claimed to be a police officer. I don't doubt the op or his mother but bailiffs are notorious liars and will deny the whole event

[bizzybob]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

I dont want to pee on the parade but I think its going to be a case of he said she said. There is no proof that the scumbag actually claimed to be a police officer. I don't doubt the op or his mother but bailiffs are notorious liars and will deny the whole event

There is still plenty of ammunition to fire, and the OOT should take Bonkers & Stupor out of the picture leaving the original PCN to pay or challenge. Op can always log a Formal complaint with the council.

[ODC]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

Just a shot in the dark. The OPs mother is from Ireland where Baliffs do not exist. I was wondering if this can be used against them too. Would she have had any legal right to sign a levy even if they had entered the house legally.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

I dont want to pee on the parade but I think its going to be a case of he said she said. There is no proof that the scumbag actually claimed to be a police officer. I don't doubt the op or his mother but bailiffs are notorious liars and will deny the whole event

See post # 10.

What is not a matter of "he said, she said" is the way that the Penalty Charge has been bumped up from £60 to £648, which Bristow & Sutor must be required to justify.

It is difficult to understand how they could have calculated that sum, even if they had added in the date.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

Just a shot in the dark. The OPs mother is from Ireland where Baliffs do not exist. I was wondering if this can be used against them too. Would she have had any legal right to sign a levy even if they had entered the house legally.

Without evidence of the forced entry, it would be difficult to prove that the levy was improper or illegal.

The fees demanded, though, are grossly and egregiously excessive.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

IMHO the impersonation of a police officer may be sufficient to invalidate any levy. The use of deceit in order to gain entry is Burglary Artifice. Rai and Rai -v- Birmingham City Council [1993] and R -v- Tucker [2012] make it quite clear that the foot-in-the-door tactic used by the bailiff in this case is a definite no-no.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Bristow & sutor pretended to be police to gain access

IMHO the impersonation of a police officer may be sufficient to invalidate any levy. The use of deceit in order to gain entry is Burglary Artifice. Rai and Rai -v- Birmingham City Council [1993] and R -v- Tucker [2012] make it quite clear that the foot-in-the-door tactic used by the bailiff in this case is a definite no-no.

But the problem here is proving that either/both of those occurred.