Bristol Council are in the doghouse for sending bailiffs and increasing a £1 debt for a mistake to £311 when Marstons called. Technically marstons did no wrong, they applied the correct fees.

https://thebristolcable.org/2018/04/i-owed-1-bailiffs-and-the-council-forced-me-to-pay-311/

What happened to or about the NoE? Regardless the Council should have queried this before it ever got this far.

Bristol Council are in the doghouse for sending bailiffs and increasing a £1 debt for a mistake to £311 when Marstons called. Technically Marstons did no wrong, they applied the correct fees.

 

https://thebristolcable.org/2018/04/i-owed-1-bailiffs-and-the-council-forced-me-to-pay-311/

I received a google alert on this press article last night and I was suspicious then......and even more so now. The media articles slogan is a clue:

I think that I am right in saying that we are not allowed to reproduce a press article in full so hopefully the following will be ok:

Jade is a 27-year-old mum of two from Knowle and a full-time carer for her wheelchair-bound nan.

 

Last winter, like thousands of us, Jade got landed with a parking ticket. She duly paid the fine to Bristol City Council and got on with her life. However, a simple and innocent mistake landed Jade in a shocking and expensive situation.

 

“Months and months later, I had a knock at the door in the morning,” Jade tells me sitting in her nan and grandpa’s living room in Kingswood. “I came downstairs to find a letter on the floor. A bailiff’s letter. I opened the door to find a bailiff putting a clamp on my car and blocking it in the drive with his.”

 

Jade was shocked. “I said ‘What’s this about? I paid it’. He just said ‘no, it’s a pound short’.”

 

“I must of paid a pound short without realising when doing the bank transfer,” Jade tells me, “but the bailiff was so arrogant. As soon as I approached him he was so rude. I said ‘can I just give you the pound?’ He said ‘No, you have to pay me £311’.”

 

The extra £310 is the fees bailiffs add to the original debt within seven days of receiving orders from Bristol City Council to enforce a debt. In short, the bailiff was demanding fees worth 311 times more than the original debt.

The impression that this media article is trying to portray to the public is that a single mother of two children (and a full time Carer to her Nan) received a parking ticket from Bristol City Council and then duly paid the council but by a simple and innocent mistake, paid £1 too little.

We are then given to believe that the naughty council then pursued this measly £1 debt by registering it at the Traffic Enforcement Centre (part of Northampton Court) and worse still, requesting that a warrant be issued.

And lastly, we have the awful bailiff company 'demanding fees worth 311 times more than the original debt'. And all because; Jade had made 'a simple, innocent mistake'.

If only it was true...but it can't possibly be...and the clue, is in the amount owed to the council......of £1.

Explanation in the next post....

If it was the case that Jade had settled this parking ticket with the Bristol City Council when she should have done and had paid a £1 too little, she would have then received a Charge Certificate. The debt would have increases slightly.

Next, would be the Order for Recovery to advise Jade that Bristol City Council would be 'registering the debt' at the Traffic Enforcement Centre. A debt registration fee of £8 would be added to the debt increasing the amount owed to around £10 (not £1).

Once the warrant is issued, it would have been passed to Marston's to enforce. They would have sent a Notice of Enforcement to Jade. A compliance fee of £75 would have been added at that stage.

It is clear as day, Jade had received a Notice of Enforcement, and PAID THE COUNCIL DIRECT. In doing so, she tried to avoid paying the compliance fee. Her intention was to only pay the amount of the parking ticket (minus the compliance fee). By a simple error, she paid £1 too little.

As warrant could never be issued for £1. I would be surprised if the court system allowed registration of a debt for such a low amount. Nonetheless, a court registration fee of £8 would be added to the warrant.

Sensational journalism at its best.

The media article is also misleading on the matter of 'vulnerability'. This is what it says:

At this point, knowing that Jade was a carer and a mother with a child present, the bailiff should have put a stop to the enforcement and identified Jade as a vulnerable individual.

Just because Jade is a mother and her children are in the house does not mean that she is vulnerable. She may well be a full time Carer for her Nan who is wheelchair bound but the Nan lives elsewhere !!!

PS: If Jade had visited this forum to seek advice as to whether she could pay the council direct, she would have been informed on the case of Bola v Newlyn. To clarify the position once again, once a warrant has been passed to an enforcement company, a Compliance fee of £75 is added to the debt. From any payment made......whether to the council or the enforcement company, the compliance fee must be deducted first.

Unless full payment to include the enforcement agent fees is paid in full, the warrant will not be satisfied and enforcement can continue.

 

https://thebristolcable.org/2018/04/i-owed-1-bailiffs-and-the-council-forced-me-to-pay-311/

If you use the above link, and scroll to the bottom of the page, you will find that members of the public may leave comments.

It seems that two negative comments criticising my posts on here have been allowed.

Oddly, despite my attempt to leave a comment with a link to this thread, it has still not be allowed to be posted.

I have tried three times now.

I can only assume that Bristolcastle.org do not want their 'Fake News' exposed.

That is fine.

I will send a copy of the thread to Bristol City Council.

If this is a true account of any action, it is more likely to be a problem with computers and the issue of them being right or wrong(not nearly one or the other) and A bit of human pig headedness )IMO. It happens in all sorts of transactions.

they do like to be seen dying on the barricades in the name of the revolution though. With friends like these no wonder the poor girl ended up paying out a fortune for the underpayment.

they do like to be seen dying on the barricades in the name of the revolution though. With friends like these no wonder the poor girl ended up paying out a fortune for the underpayment.

Shame she went to them and not CAG.