Bristow & Sutor Now Quoting Marstons/CAG

Post Reply

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Bristow & Sutor Now Quoting Marstons/CAG

Post by Schedule 12 » 24 Nov 2013 17:30

It proves what has been happening all along. Collusion between tomtubby posting rant threads on the CAG forums and bailiff companies.

Tomtubby is posting "advice" under a pretence of being independent of the bailiff companies, now a bailiff company has quote it it in a letter to a debtor. It's wrong advice anyway.

Also the idea of a £10 fee is wrong advice as well. It's often pushed by the CAG forums. A SAR is for accessing "personal data" as described under the Data Protection Act. Explaining bailiffs fees is not personal data as it is described in the Act. On DWB we exploit the bailiffs policy of a SAR to be non-compliance when doing fee recovery. That all ends from April 2014 because bailiffs are required to follow statutory procedures when they attend a premises or send a letter which limits what they can charge for, and charges for non-statutory work can be disregarded because it is not compliant with the regulations. It makes the job of recovering illegal fees so much easier.

The £10 fee is actually a bailiff scam. http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/Ba ... f-fees.htm

Can you get a scan of the Bristows letter? it will help others who are being given wrong advice by the CAG forums and bailiff companies.

I don't know why tomtubby is so critical of CIVEA, this is a company that advocates bailiff companies to break the law. It's not just their newsletters via email (which are very highly critical of me personally as well as DWB) but also on their own website. http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/civea.htm .

A link between CIVEA and tomtubby has already been proven when DWB first went live, a red herring was deployed , TT fell for it and CIVEA carried it in an email to its members.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

soupdragon
Moderator
Posts: 35
Joined: 15 Jun 2013 17:30

Re: Bristow & Sutor Now Quoting Marstons/CAG

Post by soupdragon » 25 Nov 2013 17:48

The SAR £10 fee as you say is interesting as i`ve never seen any bailiff firm ever reply to a SAR period. None of them do, they just blank the application as they know that it carries no real come back for them to not comply with the law.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13502
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Bristow & Sutor Now Quoting Marstons/CAG

Post by Schedule 12 » 25 Nov 2013 18:02

Some debtors make a SAR and hope they don't get a reply and make a claim in the county court for non-compliance with a SAR.

An explanation of fees is not a SAR because it's nothing to do with a persons personal details.

I exploit the bailiffs request for a £10 for a breakdown of fees to be unable to explain his costs and this relieves the debtor of liability to pay them. Culligan v Simkin & Marston Group Ltd [2008], "the defendants (Marston Group) have produced no evidence as to how the charge has been arrived at and therefore are unable to show that it is reasonable"

It's the "reasonable costs" clause in the fee regulations doing the magic.
I am a paralegal working for solicitors bringing proceedings against bailiffs for non-compliant enforcement action.

Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Phone consultation with me

Enforcement compliance Checklist

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4118
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

Re: Bristow & Sutor Now Quoting Marstons/CAG

Post by Amy » 26 Nov 2013 14:25

I love Butterfingers' opening line. Very good.

bubbs
Posts: 1
Joined: 15 Oct 2013 19:11

Re: Bristow & Sutor Now Quoting Marstons/CAG

Post by bubbs » 26 Nov 2013 21:09

Asking a bailiff for a breakdown of fees definitely does NOT incur a fee and is NOT a SAR. Bailiff companies do reply to SAR's though, or the one I had on my back did. They were unable to prove a lot of what was in the SAR (I SAR'd the council and the bailiff company as they were jointly liable) and between them they reached an out of court settlement with me. Bailiff companies aren't above the law and they can't rewrite it to suit them.

Post Reply