Bristow and sutor and PCNs

[Guest]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

Bliley. I am totally confused by all this above. Will try and answer points made.

Yes I have written to b&s twice with copies of all paperwork. First-time replied with demand for £350. I sent back once again. no reply in over 3 weeks since I paid £75
My car is on finance. But over £2200 left to pay as I am in arrears and not sure car is worth any more than that after 4 years anyway.
I have sent emails to both councils. Made points on both in was told too yesterday.
wychavon have this evening sent me an email to say they have taken back the pcn from b&s . They are happy in pay £40 a month to clear debt. So that's great. Warwick have not replied today. However I am going to forward wychavon email to them in the hope they do the same. This already has halved my debt with b & s. So fingers crossed.
Thanks for help So far everyone x

Excellent news, hopefully Warwick will follow suit.

I would still recommend that you continue to question both the validity of the levy fee and also the multiple charges as this could reduce the total amount outstanding by quite a considerable amount.

[Milo]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

As your car is on finance and, therefore, potentially third-party property, a bailiff who attempts to seize such a vehicle without conducting proper checks is asking for trouble.

If only the enforcement industry and the Courts thought the same !!

It is sadly the case that most EA's rely upon the very lengthly (18 page) Judgment in the case of Singh v Sandy. It is now the most common document that they quote from as the Judge made clear that he does not consider that a bailiff who does not undertake a DVLA or indeed an HPI should be subject to a complaint.

He even goes further to blame the debtor for the predicament facing him (with his car being clamped) as he states that the debtor "has reaped what he has sown" and should not be evading a legally due debt.

I have now read the full judgment and to be very honest I am struggling to agree with the Judge Main's explanation. He even considers that vehicles that are subject to HIRE PURCHASE could have some equity that can be discharged to pay the council tax that was due ?????

PS: As I have said many times, debtors should avoid at all costs taking legal proceedings against a bailiff company. The odds are stacked against them. Most courts see bailiffs as good guys undertaking a service for the government by recovering much needed revenue from debtors who refuse to pay. Sadly, this is the stark reality of the courts and local authorities.

[Milo]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

Debbie,

I am sorry to have gone 'off topic'. I hope that this has not confused you.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

If only the enforcement industry and the Courts thought the same !!

It is sadly the case that most EA's rely upon the very lengthly (18 page) Judgment in the case of Singh v Sandy. It is now the most common document that they quote from as the Judge made clear that he does not consider that a bailiff who does not undertake a DVLA or indeed an HPI should be subject to a complaint.

He even goes further to blame the debtor for the predicament facing him (with his car being clamped) as he states that the debtor "has reaped what he has sown" and should not be evading a legally due debt.

I have now read the full judgment and to be very honest I am struggling to agree with the Judge Main's explanation. He even considers that vehicles that are subject to HIRE PURCHASE could have some equity that can be discharged to pay the council tax that was due ?????

PS: As I have said many times, debtors should avoid at all costs taking legal proceedings against a bailiff company. The odds are stacked against them. Most courts see bailiffs as good guys undertaking a service for the government by recovering much needed revenue from debtors who refuse to pay. Sadly, this is the stark reality of the courts and local authorities.

This is why the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) exists. There are a number of judges who, quite frankly, are not fit to sit in judgement on a WI cake competition, let alone cases in a court of law. JACO cite examples of hostility towards any party to proceedings, not listening to submissions and pleadings and, even, falling asleep during a hearing on their website.

I know of at least one District Judge and one Circuit Judge who are currently under investigation by JACO for blatant intolerance towards LIPs. However, one of them now has a more serious complaint against them for failing to stand down from a hearing, knowing the applicant before them had two valid complaints outstanding against them and court staff had been previously warned not to list any hearings before said judge whilst the complaints are outstanding.

In the first instance and in all cases, JACO should be contacted by telephone so they can assess whether they can take on a complaint for investigation and action. Complaints to JACO need to be made fairly quickly after a judge's conduct has come into question as time-limits apply.

Hope this helps.

[Wombats]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

This is why the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (JACO) exists. There are a number of judges who, quite frankly, are not fit to sit in judgement on a WI cake competition, let alone cases in a court of law. JACO cite examples of hostility towards any party to proceedings, not listening to submissions and pleadings and, even, falling asleep during a hearing on their website.

I know of at least one District Judge and one Circuit Judge who are currently under investigation by JACO for blatant intolerance towards LIPs. However, one of them now has a more serious complaint against them for failing to stand down from a hearing, knowing the applicant before them had two valid complaints outstanding against them and court staff had been previously warned not to list any hearings before said judge whilst the complaints are outstanding.

In the first instance and in all cases, JACO should be contacted by telephone so they can assess whether they can take on a complaint for investigation and action. Complaints to JACO need to be made fairly quickly after a judge's conduct has come into question as time-limits apply.

Hope this helps.

I'm concerned for the OP this is going off topic once again and it is going to be hard for her to glean advice from discussion. However BB, I think you're missing the point Milo made. She said:

As I have said many times, debtors should avoid at all costs taking legal proceedings against a bailiff company.

The point you make can only follow legal proceedings. The sole intent here is to avoid them at all costs in the first place.

[bluebottle]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

Wombats,

The comment was directed at what Milo has said about the apparent complicity of the courts with the civil enforcement industry. It has nothing to do with the OP's case. It is pretty much common knowledge that civil enforcement companies and their lawyers pervert proceedings intended to examine the fitness of a bailiff to hold a certificate into litigation. This is due to judges being given inadequate training in dealing with such cases and a failure to clampdown on legal professionals whose own conduct needs to be put under scrutiny. Having said this, however, there are judges who have no qualms with wiping the floor with civil enforcement company directors, bailiffs and legal professionals, but such judges are few in number. Lord Tugendhat's dismissal of JBW's attempt to stop the Panorama programme on bailiffs from being broadcast, on 6 April 2014, because it featured one of their bailiffs behaving in the most appalling manner and because it had the potential to prejudice JBW's tender for a government contract worth some £260m, is a rarity, but it is, nevertheless, encouraging that a senior member of the judiciary has, figuratively, fired a warning shot across the civil enforcement industry's bows.

[Wombats]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

I know it has nothing to do with the OP's threads, that's why I expressed concern about going off topic. It must be confusing for her. I may be wrong, but I would have thought a new thread about this would be more appropriate.

[Guest]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

I also apologise to the OP for going off topic but I would also like to comment on "going legal" with complaints.

The Singh v Sandy case is a form 4 complaint and I would agree with Milo that a debtor should think VERY carefully before instigating proceedings. The Judge was correct in stating that a bailiff who did not undertake a DVLA check should not be subject of a form 4 complaint.

The main issue (in my humble opinion) between a complaint to the LGO and a claim in the County Court is that the debtor places blind faith in the judge being fully conversant with Bailiff law (EA law as it is now). The harsh truth is that many judges are far from conversant with this sector as some of the comments from Judge Main clearly show. I would add that some of his comments have a double edged sword for EA's because debtors can use the quotes.

I would disagree with Milo that bringing a claim should be avoided at all costs. Provided the claim is reasonable and the Claimant is pretty clued up on protocols & procedures, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with issuing proceedings. If the debtor can hardly string a sentence together or is clearly trying to "pull a fast one" (as in a recent case that Milo & myself are aware of) then the last thing they should do is go down the court route as this is when costs may be awarded against the Claimant.

I am a big fan of both the LGO route & the court route. I have the utmost faith in the LGO to deliver a fair and unbiased conclusion. I also like the court route as there was usually abuse of legislation (pre April 6th anyway) that the bailiff had carried out. To see them paying hefty legal costs to defend it, coupled with eventually having to repay illegal fees was a double whammy & especially satisfying.

[Wombats]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

I think what we are seeing here is each case should be judged on its own merits. Where the offence is serious enough to warrant a complaint, of course a complaint should be made and justice should, and must be seen to be done.

The initial line on forum as I see things is to help the OP out of their predicament as swiftly and economically as possible. Complaints and accountability can come a little later. Some of the issues which have been mentioned routinely in posts can take quite some time, and during this time enforcement action can be continuing making the OP's life a living nightmare. None of us would want this.

I know, as I suspect we all do, that Milo will use the courts and other means of accountability when the time is right to do so and the circumstances merit it. Many a bailiff has come unstuck at Milo's hands and rightly so. The comment made above needs placing in the wider context I think.

[Guest]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

I think the OP in this thread is now "sorted" & well on the way to resolving her issues. Should she require further advice, I'm sure she will ask for it.

You are pretty much agreeing with what I am saying in that a claim in the county court is always an option to be considered. Milo & myself agree on many points. We also beg to differ on some as well. One of her points that I disagree with is that courts should be avoided at all costs. The Singh v Sandy case is probably not a lot of use anyway, post April 6th, other than the comments from Judge Main regarding the LGO which MAY still have an impact if a claimant refers to LGO quotes in his/her claim.

One thing that Milo & myself certainly do agree on btw is that a Form 4 complaint can end up being very costly for the debtor and that debtors need to fully understand what a form 4 complaint is, before jumping in head first. The purpose of my previous post was to highlight the massive difference between a civil claim & a form 4 complaint.

[Wombats]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

It's good to see that purpose spelt out in black and white thank you. There are many people who read and believe that the 'Form 4' route as was is an easy, no risk way of complaining which is clearly not the case. It often proves exceedingly costly to people.

It's healthy to have a level of disagreement, it would be very boring if we all agreed all of the time. It's also encouraging to read that for the majority of the time we appear to be 'singing from the same hymn sheet'.

[debbieg14]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

Hi
thanks everyone, still no further forward with warwick council, but still trying. You have helped me so much already and given me the confidence to at least fight it.
I made mistakes, i admit them and I was very ill.
I will get out of this mess and I thank you all, i will keep you updated.

[debbieg14]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

Had an email from council asking me too forward email from wychavon?? This has got to be progress. They also wanted the ref for PCNs which i have sent the ones currently with Bristow and Sutor. I have others apparently, oh blimey I was in a state last year!!
So they say I can pay those monthly anyway. If i could just get Warwick to take those back from the bailiffs i would be able to clear those debt in about 4 months as I finished paying another bill off this month.
I could then see a way forward and maybe even a life again the other side.
Anyway I will update any further news on here and once again I really thank you al for the advice and the confidence to battle this awlful company.
Debbie

[Wombats]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

Hi Debbie,

Send a copy of everything you're sending to Wychavon to Warwick FAO Head of Revenues cc the CEO of the council explaining the situation and asking them to do the same. Make sure you state that within 4 months (make sure what you say is realistic - better to put 6 months and pay early than 4 and default again). Hopefully they may see sense.

Good news it's moving in the right direction. Just make sure you don't get any more now! :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[debbieg14]

Re: Bristow and sutor and PCNs

Hello everyone,
Wanted to update my situation.
i started with bailiff action demanding £350 a month for debts totally because of costs etc over £1700.
Wychavon have added the £200 onto this years council tax result 1, especially as because of an attatchment to earnings order ( i know thats not good, ) has left me in credit until July.
Wycahvon are letting me pay £40 a month for 5 months to settle debt
Warwick have emailed me today £80 a month for 5 months.
So I make that a saving of over £1000 from the disgusting amount the bailiffs wanted. I obviously have to make sure i make these payments but as explained I caught up with a big bill this month so I will ensure payments are made on time.
Thanks for all your help and advice, i really didnt know where to go with it before.
Worth a few emails thats for sure. All bills taken off Bristow and Sutor.