Bristow & suitor

Quash the Liability Order. Suspend Enforcement. Disputing Liabilities. Claim Damages for Misuse of Enforcement Power.
Post Reply
Bmichelle
Posts: 1
Joined: 12 Dec 2017 16:50

#1 Bristow & suitor

Post by Bmichelle » 12 Dec 2017 17:00

So I've been in Ireland for a family's funeral and just come back to loads of letters which one of them state I will have a visit from enforcement agents on Friday, can they get in my house if I am not there and at work?? It's for council tax arrears I've tried to call and make a payment plan and there not accepting what I'm offering and saying that I need to pay £67 out of my £110 I earn a week!🤦🏼‍♀️ I'm only 22 & really worried can anybody help?!

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#2 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 12 Dec 2017 17:58

They cannot get into the house provided that all doors are locked. However, they can take anything of value that belongs to you from outside, ie garden furniture vehicles etc.

How much do you owe and how much did you offer?

Do you have any other income besides the £110?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#3 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Pote Snitkin » 12 Dec 2017 17:59

No they cannot force entry at all. Anything you own of value outside the property (eg car, bike, etc) would be at risk.

Who is saying you need to pay £67 a week? The council?

How much is the debt?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#4 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Pote Snitkin » 12 Dec 2017 17:59

Aww, John TB got there 1 min before me. :evil:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#5 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Schedule 12 » 12 Dec 2017 18:41

Bmichelle wrote:
12 Dec 2017 17:00
So I've been in Ireland for a family's funeral
You are recently bereaved, and that classes you a vulnerable person. The bailiff may not take control of goods in your presence while you are alone and he may not recover fees.

Here is the legal position in bailiffs and vulnerable people.

http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/Ba ... eholds.htm


and just come back to loads of letters which one of them state I will have a visit from enforcement agents on Friday,
Bailiffs relay on ambush, attending by surprise and will never turn up when they say they will. They are classroom taught as rookies to tell debtors when they will come back to instill fear and hope the debtor gets the money or encourage the debtor to engage the bailiff.






can they get in my house if I am not there and at work??

If the door stays shut, hey cannot enter. Open the door and you will get trouble with a capital T.




It's for council tax arrears I've tried to call and make a payment plan and there not accepting

The bailiff will mess you about. He is from a commercial company and only wants everything as quickly as possible. but...


what I'm offering and saying that I need to pay £67 out of my £110 I earn a week!🤦🏼‍♀️ I'm only 22 & really worried can anybody help?!
That is wholly unreasonable (sorry Peter F-G, - 'wholly') to expect you to pay £67 your £110 income when people on benefits are given £70 a week on a plate and don't have the expense of going to work.

Contact the council.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published an official document called the Guidance on Enforcement of Council Tax arrears. See This Document. On page 8 it provides for a local authority to return the account from bailiff administration and allow you to propose a repayment schedule you can afford.



Clause 4.4, if a bailiff is trying to force you to make payments you cannot afford then you can write to the council asking them to comply with the above guidelines and follow clause 4.5 by exercising its discretionary right to return the account to town hall control as a gesture of goodwill to protect you from further punitive action by the bailiff.


Bailiffs must not pressure a debtor to make unrealistic offers, paragraph 24 of the Taking Control of Goods, National Standards 2014.

This template letter will help you get started, it gives all the above regulations and gives the council an opportunity to avail itself to them and proposes a repayment of the arrears at a rate you can afford. Alternatively, you can use this letter courtesy of Mark1960 or this letter
I'm not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases involving non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#6 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 12 Dec 2017 20:19

Jason - Simply attending a funeral does not make someone bereaved, nor does it make them vulnerable.

Let's get some answers first before we contact the council - We have until Friday (or beyond) in any case.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#7 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Schedule 12 » 12 Dec 2017 20:26

John The Baptist wrote:
12 Dec 2017 20:19
Jason - Simply attending a funeral does not make someone bereaved,

The OP said:
So I've been in Ireland for a family's funeral


I went by Paragraph 77 of the NSEA which says:
  • 77. Some groups who might be vulnerable are listed below. However, this list is not exhaustive. Care should be taken to assess each situation on a case by case basis.


    i) the elderly;

    ii) people with a disability;

    iii) the seriously ill;

    iv) the recently bereaved;


nor does it make them vulnerable.

Let's get some answers first before we contact the council - We have until Friday (or beyond) in any case.
I'm not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases involving non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#8 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 12 Dec 2017 20:45

Recently bereaved for the purposes of vulnerability would mean immediate family, ie Mother, Father or sibling.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#9 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Schedule 12 » 12 Dec 2017 23:08

Let's go with this definition?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bereaved

I'm not sure where the guidelines say bereavement means mother father or sibling.
I'm not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases involving non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#10 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 13 Dec 2017 21:57

But then you return to "might" be vulnerable.

You can't just go around telling every Tom Dick & Harry that the bailiff cannot take control of goods if they've been to a funeral - It won't be much use to the debtor if the bailiff does take control of goods.

Nothing is set in stone regarding vulnerability and it is wrong to try to do so.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#11 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Pote Snitkin » 13 Dec 2017 22:10

It only applies if a debtor has been identified as vulnerable - if the EA takes goods before such a debtor has been allowed to seek advice or assistance then the fees become void.

There's nothing to say fees can never be applied to vulnerable debtors.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#12 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 13 Dec 2017 22:21

Pote Snitkin wrote:
13 Dec 2017 22:10
It only applies if a debtor has been identified as vulnerable - if the EA takes goods before such a debtor has been allowed to seek advice or assistance then the fees become void.

There's nothing to say fees can never be applied to vulnerable debtors.
The only legislation is Reg 12 of the Fees Regs. This does not help in identifying what constitutes a vulnerable person.

Jason doesn't seem to understand that this is not a "get out of jail free" card for everyone who is vulnerable. Even the vulnerable are responsible for their debts. Vulnerability for enforcement purposes is aimed at those who are not able to manage their own affairs. In the case of someone who is bereaved through the loss of an Auntie or a cousin or even a friend, it is unlikely that enforcement will be recalled. It may well mean that a period of grace is granted but it won't mean the enforcement fee is automatically removed.

Getting enforcement removed because of vulnerability is very rare and it is wrong to lull debtors into a false sense of security by telling them that they are exempt from enforcement. There is no harm in contacting the creditor but ultimately, it is their decision and not an automatic right of the debtor.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#13 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Pote Snitkin » 13 Dec 2017 22:26

Got to admit that I'm not happy with the assertion in the link > http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/Ba ... eholds.htm

where is says "Bailiffs may not recover fees from vulnerable people."

Unless there has been some ruling that we're not privvy to, I can't see how that statement is justified.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#14 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 13 Dec 2017 22:40

Going on internet posts alone, how many people have claimed vulnerability/been told they are vulnerable, compared to cases that have actually been returned?

It is a very small proportion. Yes, bailiffs and creditors should be notified of vulnerability and this should impact the way that the debt is enforced but it doesn't mean that the debtor will become exempt from enforcement fees.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#15 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Schedule 12 » 14 Dec 2017 00:25

Pote Snitkin wrote:
13 Dec 2017 22:26
Got to admit that I'm not happy with the assertion in the link > http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/Ba ... eholds.htm

where is says "Bailiffs may not recover fees from vulnerable people."

Unless there has been some ruling that we're not privvy to, I can't see how that statement is justified.
I don't think a ruling is needed, it's a statutory regulation. The only benefit I see is the council agreeing to cease council tax enforcement, but rarely done for PCN debts because the bailiff has no car to take and the debt dies.
I'm not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases involving non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#16 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 14 Dec 2017 08:11

Schedule 12 wrote:
14 Dec 2017 00:25
Pote Snitkin wrote:
13 Dec 2017 22:26
Got to admit that I'm not happy with the assertion in the link > http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/Ba ... eholds.htm

where is says "Bailiffs may not recover fees from vulnerable people."

Unless there has been some ruling that we're not privvy to, I can't see how that statement is justified.
I don't think a ruling is needed, it's a statutory regulation. The only benefit I see is the council agreeing to cease council tax enforcement, but rarely done for PCN debts because the bailiff has no car to take and the debt dies.
So anyone on JSA is exempt from enforcement then?

Bereavement is only temporary in any case and all that would happen is that enforcement would likely be suspended, not cancelled.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#17 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Pote Snitkin » 14 Dec 2017 08:34

Schedule 12 wrote:
14 Dec 2017 00:25
I don't think a ruling is needed, it's a statutory regulation.
Jason, it's not statutory legislation that vulnerable people are exempt from all fees no matter what. If an EA removes goods before a vulnerable person has had an opportunity to seek advice and assistance only then do enforcement stage fees become void.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#18 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Schedule 12 » 14 Dec 2017 11:36

John The Baptist wrote:
14 Dec 2017 08:11


So anyone on JSA is exempt from enforcement then?

The guidelines only say, unemployed people. They don't have to be in receipt of JSA.


Bereavement is only temporary in any case and all that would happen is that enforcement would likely be suspended, not cancelled.
Yes.
I'm not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases involving non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#19 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 14 Dec 2017 17:12

So you would tell someone on JSA that they are exempt from enforcement?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#20 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Pote Snitkin » 14 Dec 2017 17:54

Why is this still being debated? Legislation says that vulnerable debtors must be allowed to seek advice before goods are removed. It says enforcement cannot take place if a vulnerable person is the only person present. That is all.

There is no legislation that says vulnerable debtors are completely exempt from enforcement or fees.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#21 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 14 Dec 2017 18:01

The legislation makes no sense at all.

First of all, it is in the Fees Regs which suggests that it is connected to fees. Then it states that the enforcement fee cannot be charged if goods are removed before proof of vulnerability is asked for. The enforcement fee becomes payable from the first visit, not when goods are removed.

In practice, in the (extremely) rare cases where a debtor is vulnerable for enforcement purposes, it would be reasonable to expect the creditor to recall the debt, thus removing bailiff fees.

What needs to stop is this constant telling people that they are vulnerable so the bailiff can't enforce.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#22 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Pote Snitkin » 14 Dec 2017 18:16

Yep - once again, poorly worded legislation muddies the water. Perhaps the author envisaged that taking control and removing always take place at the same time.

Sometimes it feels like Parliament were badgered into reform but then didn't really care what was actually written.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#23 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Schedule 12 » 14 Dec 2017 23:46

I think legislation ought to exempt JSA and out of work claimants from fees. They are exempt from court fees. The problem hangs in the bailiffs being a private company and no debt recovered equals no fees earned.

A client just stayed a writ and got the judgment set aside. The writ was for £110K and the fees were £11K. The creditor is spitting feathers because they are now liable for the enforcement agents fees and their judgment is a complete write-off. This only happened because the bailiff company got greedy and transferred up the judgment to High Court enforcement just to make a few extra quid for himself. The creditor can now sue the enforcement company because it did not explain the risks of transferring a judgment to High Court.

This could be a real game changer.

With a public authority as a creditor, there is no such risk because there is no money transfer from them to a bailiff company. The authority simply offloads the risk to a private company, and this results in aggressive bailiff action against the most vulnerable.
I'm not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases involving non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#24 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Dec 2017 08:53

If the unemployed are exempt from fees:

1. Who pays the bailiffs?
2. What incentive is there for an unemployed person to pay their debts?

Do you expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill because someone who is unemployed has ignored all requests to repay what they owe, safe in the knowledge that they are exempt?

If I owed £5k, I could simply go unemployed for a few weeks, get the bailiff fees quashed and then sign off the dole again.

As for the case you mention, it is not a game changer. Nobody is going to be sued.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#25 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Dec 2017 13:25

John The Baptist wrote:
15 Dec 2017 08:53
If the unemployed are exempt from fees:

1. Who pays the bailiffs?

Parliament is silent. The enforcement contracts are to move the risk and liabilities away from the taxpayer and onto a private company.


2. What incentive is there for an unemployed person to pay their debts?
They are still liable for the eir debts.


Do you expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill because someone who is unemployed has ignored all requests to repay what they owe, safe in the knowledge that they are exempt?
The taxpayer is never liable for bailiffs fees for enforcement work carried out on unemployed people. The contract moves the risk to private companies and in the reform consultation, the fees are adjusted to take into consideration that two-thirds of enforcement actions fail.


If I owed £5k, I could simply go unemployed for a few weeks, get the bailiff fees quashed and then sign off the dole again.
The guidelines don't require unemployed people to be signing on.



As for the case you mention, it is not a game changer. Nobody is going to be sued.
It's not about anyone being sued.
I'm not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases involving non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#26 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Dec 2017 17:00

The enforcement contracts are to move the risk and liabilities away from the taxpayer and onto a private company
No - The contracts are to recover outstanding debts. Nobody should be treated more or less favourably than anyone else.
They are still liable for the eir debts.
So no incentive then.
The guidelines don't require unemployed people to be signing on.
Correct - But it would be difficult to convince a creditor that you are genuinely unemployed if you are not seeking help to support yourself. In your theory of unemployed people being exempt from bailiff fees, as per the exemption from court fees, evidence is required to show you are unemployed (ie proof of receipt of benefits). It is not just a case of claiming you are unemployed and that is the end of it.
It's not about anyone being sued.
Good, because nobody is going to be sued. Not sure what the relevance of this case was in a discussion about exemption from bailiff fees anyway.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#27 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Dec 2017 19:59

evidence is required to show you are unemployed (ie proof of receipt of benefits). It is not just a case of claiming you are unemployed and that is the end of it.
You don't need to be signing on to get EX160 remission. When I am preparing a case for a solicitor, I draw an EX160 for clients from Lawbase as a matter of course.
I'm not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases involving non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#28 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Dec 2017 20:05

Oh really?

Here is the criteria:
Benefits

You need to be on a low income, or on one of the following benefits:
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
Income Support
Universal Credit (and you earn less than £6,000 a year)
Pension Credit (Guarantee Credit)
Scottish Civil Legal Aid (not Advice and Assistance, or Advice by Way of Representation)

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13499
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: SW1
Contact:

#29 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Schedule 12 » 15 Dec 2017 21:35

Where does the regulation provide that?
I'm not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases involving non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#30 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Dec 2017 21:44

If you don't know, you shouldn't be claiming to help people to draw an EX160 for clients.

We both know that you don't do this so why lie about it?

Jumping between you & Sheila Harding for advice is akin to escaping a holiday with the McCanns and going on a trip to the moors with Myra Hyndly & Ian Brady.

You both give poor advice and you both need to be stopped.

As you have previously stated, you have talent in other areas. Why don't you stick to the areas that you are good at?

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6781
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#31 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Pote Snitkin » 15 Dec 2017 21:50

You can be earning a low income and still claim remission. If you have a partner and/or children the income threshold is raised.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/h ... 50540e5a3d - False alarm, it wasn't him. Maybe next time.

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#32 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 15 Dec 2017 22:07

Pote Snitkin wrote:
15 Dec 2017 21:50
You can be earning a low income and still claim remission. If you have a partner and/or children the income threshold is raised.
Correct.

But Jason is referring specifically to unemployed people and that they shouldn't have to pay bailiff fees. He used help with court fees as an example.

Edd
Posts: 79
Joined: 01 Mar 2017 11:21

#33 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Edd » 15 Dec 2017 23:17

If only it were a perfect world eh John?

You know, where for example EAs don't overstep their authority, use tactics of a dubious nature and then to add insult any genuine concerns or complaints are often sidelined?

Shall we post some of the social media clips of such rather unpleasant behaviour? Could frankly have a field day...however this then begs the next question. All too well dissecting anyone's personal issues or status - do two wrongs make a right?

Here's another potential big clue - how about they get their own houses in order first. Many believe that (generally speaking here) that self righteousness is not perhaps not the best character trait known to man kind. Then there's others eg jealousy, hypocrisy, arrogance and downright open aggression.

I guess no, nobody is indeed perfect - yet those all too often prepared to get on their high horse, frequently forget that. Or perhaps conveniently overlook the mess on their own doorstep. Bit like all the cruddy (putting it mildly) EA behaviour one can unfortunately find or if you look hard enough.....

John The Baptist
Posts: 372
Joined: 06 Jun 2017 17:22

#34 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by John The Baptist » 16 Dec 2017 00:43

Edd Case

Most of the YT clips you post show little to nothing wrong in bailiff behaviour. The only one that did was removed within a couple of hours of it being posted on here.

I like to challenge bailiffs on wrongdoing. I do not like to waste my time on ridiculous no hope missions like you and Jason do.

Still, that doesn't clash with you and your silly posts does it?

Edd
Posts: 79
Joined: 01 Mar 2017 11:21

#35 Re: Bristow & suitor

Post by Edd » 16 Dec 2017 00:58

Edd Case? Silly posts? Time waste?

No point in debating further really - I'll let others judge or perhaps decide why and going by your reply alone. Very childish if you ask me. But then I pretty much refrained from making more personalised remarks by stating generally speaking?

Unlike yourself.

Post Reply