bristow and sutor what do i do?

[sineadgriffiths]

I naivley let a bristow and sutor bailiff into my home and signed a walk in possesion order they wanted £130 a month from us but i explained that we were unable to pay this as we already have an attachment of earning from which they are receiving £100 per month, which from my partners wages leaves £750 and then as soon as this goes into our back account ththe bank are taking 250 for our averdraft repayments. the bailiff that came round did defer the case for 5 days so that i could arrange a more suitable payment schedule, i phoned and offered to pay £50 per month but was told that this is not enough and was told that the least that they would accept would be £80 per month needless to say we have been unable to pay this amount as we have 3 small children to feed clothe and keep warm. we have today received a letter to say that if this is not paid in full which in total is just under £1000 then they will remove goods to be sold at auction. I have contacted my local council who says that they are powerless to do anything until or if it is passed back to them, i am at my wits end is there anything that i can do or is it too late?

[cas93]

Hi

 

if your children are very young this can be reason to have it transferred back to the council

 

can you post the listed items on the walking posession order, and the fees they are charging. I am sure someone more knowledgeable will be along to help

 

regards

 

cas

[sineadgriffiths]

on the agreement is our two sofas our tv, a cupboard, dvd's, dvd player, nest of tables, mirror, a computer , a monitor, microwave, table and four chairs, chest of draws and a 14" tv nothing really of any value they would not get anywhere near enough for it to cover what we owe, all of my children are under 7.

[cas93]

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/184393-help-rossendales.html

[sineadgriffiths]

thankyou cas that was very helpful, i will be letter writing now

 

Sinead

[cas93]

you are welcome. I am no expert but have recently been dealing with these bullies

 

this is my thread

 

cas93s son and bristow and sutor

 

good luck

 

cas

Edited February 19, 2009 by cas93

[chris600uk]

on the agreement is our two sofas

 

Depending on how many are in your household these are exempt items.

 

our tv, a cupboard, dvd's, dvd player, nest of tables, mirror, a computer , a monitor, ...............and a 14" tv

 

They can take these.

 

 

table and four chairs,

 

Depending on how many people, these are exempt items.

[Guest BiG SiD]

Depending on how many people, these are exempt items.

 

In reference the above statement with regard to your table and chairs included upon the bailiffs inventory - This not quite true - the bailiff company is required to leave enough seating for the number of occupants within the household - the suggestion that your fine table and chairs are somehow "safe" from their removal is misleading. The bailiff is quite within his/her rights to remove them for sale at public auction, if for example alternative seating was available. Sorry.

[chris600uk]

Fair point, I know it's a bit of a grey area, but I did think that somewhere to eat was distinct from somewhere to sit and relax in an empty room

 

I still think that.

[chris600uk]

On reflection I now think you are quite right, the bailiff has the latitude to act as you have said and only a judge can decide if he/she acted correctly or not.

 

I think this is a case for tomtubby

[sineadgriffiths]

well thankyou all for your help and advice i have had some luck at last after i contacted my local councillor and they have told bristow and sutor to arrange a payment schedule that we are actually able to afford and not that is easier for them.

[tomtubby]

I am pleased to hear that the council have said that B & S must accept repayments.

 

For anyone watching this post, in particular Chris, the following concerns the legal ruling of Ambrose v Nottingham City . The bailiff company in this legal case were Rossendales Ltd.

 

 

LEGAL CASE:

MRS AMBROSE v NOTTINHGAM CITY COUNCIL

This is another well known legal cases that has been relied upon many times when either issuing proceedings, or one that can be referred to when writing a letter of complaint. This case concerns a lady by the name of Mrs Ambrose who claimed that a levy (distress) was irregular as bailiffs had removed goods from the home that were necessary for “providing the basic domestic needs of the family”

Background:

Mrs Ambrose and her husband had an unpaid Council Tax bill for £851.00 owing to Nottingham City Council. In September 2003, Rossendale’s Bailiffs attended at their home to levy distress on goods. Rossendale’s had entered the property, where they identified items that were listed on a Walking Possession. Next to those items listed, the bailiff wrote the words: “and all other goods on the premises unless exempt or specially exempt by statute.” The bailiff had not looked around the house; he had merely entered one room and was therefore unable to see which items were “exempt”

Regulation 45 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 lists the following items as being exempt from seizure:

• "Such tools, books, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary for use personally in employment, business or vocation"
  
• "Such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying basic domestic needs of the person and family".
  

As the Council Tax remained unpaid, the bailiff returned with a van to seize furniture that included a sofa, footstool and two dining chairs.

District Judge Cooper agreed that the seizure was irregular as the bailiff had removed furniture that was necessary for “satisfying the basic domestic needs of Mrs Ambrose and her family”

This was because, amongst other items removed, the bailiffs had removed 2 dining chairs. They left behind the table and the remaining two chairs. As the family consisted of Mrs & Mrs Ambrose and one child, the bailiffs should have left seating for 3 people, not two.

Nottingham City Council had argued that there could not be any irregularity as Mrs Ambrose had signed the Walking Possession. This was rejected by Judge Cooper who agreed that Mrs Ambrose was faced with the prospect of having her goods removed unless she signed the Walking Possession.

As important as the above is, the Judge also agreed that the wording on the Walking Possession was deficient in that the reference to “all other goods on the premises unless exempt” did not specify what those other goods were, and which ones were exempt. The Judge agreed that the levy was also irregular for this reason.