Bristow & Sutor Fees

[wonkeydonkey]

One liability order. one visit = one charge

one hundred liability orders, one visit =one charge

 

WD

[agb657]

One liability order. one visit = one charge

one hundred liability orders, one visit =one charge

 

WD

 

 

Many Thanks

[The Bailiff whistle blowe]

Hello you have said that the bailiff never came into your home, can you tell me what did he levy on then. In order to charge you the levy fee he must have conducted a levy.The Bailiff is only allowed to levy on one case, howevr if you have settled one of the case's he can then re-lvey for the second case. If this is not the case then I suggest you submit a form four complaint to the court that issed the bailiffs certificate, you can find this out by asking the company for the information or you can ask the bailiff, either way they must give you that information. The aborted removal fee, did they attempt to remove as they can only remove the goods that the original bailiff levied on (thats if the bailiff did a levy) do you have any copies. If your not happy with the actions of the bailiff you could always make a complaint to ACEA Google the association of civil enforcement agencies, they will conduct an investigation, if they rule in your favor you will get the costs back, try it you have nothing to loose, you may get some of the fees back. Let me know if the bailiff did a removal and if the goods destrained against was the same goods that he attempted to remove. On a finishing note the law states that the fees must be resoniable and not excessive, if you have two account the bailiff can only levy once on the goods, if he then re-levies on the same goods for the second liability that is unlawfull, most councils will only allow the bailiff to do one levy, so ring the council and ask if they are happy that the bailiff is doing this and complain. Good luck

I had two outstanding council tax arrears, never paid a bailiff and never let them into the house. I paid the council direct until the accounts were cleared. The Bailiffs continued to call so i sent them a letter asking for a breakdown of their fees i have no problem with paying what is due but only if they are charging what is rightfully due.

 

Here is the breakdown of fees:

 

remember these are for two accounts they hold liability orders for and they are attending one address.

 

15/01/2010

 

24.50 ---ATL Feee first visit

36.00 levy fee

24.50 redemption fee(head H)

 

24.50 --ATL first visit

39.00 levy fee

 

 

30/03/2011

 

180.00 Van abortive removal fees.

 

does anyone have any advice on whether these fees are appropriate or not ? can they charge twice for the first visit and levy twice at the same address, on the same day , because they hold two liability orders?

 

 

many thanks in advance

[agb657]

Hello you have said that the bailiff never came into your home, can you tell me what did he levy on then. In order to charge you the levy fee he must have conducted a levy.The Bailiff is only allowed to levy on one case, howevr if you have settled one of the case's he can then re-lvey for the second case. If this is not the case then I suggest you submit a form four complaint to the court that issed the bailiffs certificate, you can find this out by asking the company for the information or you can ask the bailiff, either way they must give you that information. The aborted removal fee, did they attempt to remove as they can only remove the goods that the original bailiff levied on (thats if the bailiff did a levy) do you have any copies. If your not happy with the actions of the bailiff you could always make a complaint to ACEA Google the association of civil enforcement agencies, they will conduct an investigation, if they rule in your favor you will get the costs back, try it you have nothing to loose, you may get some of the fees back. Let me know if the bailiff did a removal and if the goods destrained against was the same goods that he attempted to remove. On a finishing note the law states that the fees must be resoniable and not excessive, if you have two account the bailiff can only levy once on the goods, if he then re-levies on the same goods for the second liability that is unlawfull, most councils will only allow the bailiff to do one levy, so ring the council and ask if they are happy that the bailiff is doing this and complain. Good luck

 

 

Hi Most of the answers to your questions i have already posted:

 

I have no idea what he levied.

 

I asked B&S for a breakdown and all they sent was a list of charges and dates.

 

I have sent a SAR

 

I rang the council and they said they are happy with the fees chearged but they couldnt tell me what the charges were for. so I have complained to the council enforcement department.

 

 

I had a look at the ACEA website ,but it seems that Bristow & sutor are not members of the ACEA

[The Bailiff whistle blowe]

Try complaining to ESA Enforcement Services Association, you can download from the web site a complaints form, did the Bailiff start the removal process, if so what did he attempt to remove, Lots of Bailiffs write up a Phanton levy just so they can apply the fees. Your first visit fee would be £24,50 if they then re visit and dont levy they should charge you a furhter £18.00. However if they re-visit and do a levy, lets say on a car or some garden cahirs/ table /lawn-mower, then the £18.00 would not be charged, instead the charge would be a % of the original debt (the levy fee)

If as you say they charged you a removal fee of £180 then this is there charge which would have been submitted to the council when they tendered for the contract, the council would have approved the charge at the time.

The Bailiff would have had to return to your property to conduct a removal and the abandon it to charge you, but this must done to make the charge, if you find that this was not done then form 4 complaint would be the best, he should have his cerificate removed by a Judge. The Judge will also return any fees that should not have been charged and in some cases give you compo !!

You should push Bristow & Sutor for your information and ask what the bailiff attempted to remove, you could also try and discuss this with your local councillor AND GET HIM ON SIDE, he is there to serve you as a local Charge Payer. Good Luck.

[ploddertom]

Absolutely pointless making any complaints to ACEA or ESA. These are trade bodies paid for by subscription from the companies in the enforcement industry. They will not find against their own.

 

PT

[agb657]

I have a response to the SAR to B&S there is a copy of a Notice of Seizure of goods on the car dated 15/01/210 first time i have seen this. The car was and still is on finance.

[wonkeydonkey]

You now send them a copy of the finance agreement with a short letter in which you insist that the levy fee is removed and all associated charges. Tell them they have 7 days to reply and that if they fail to do so you will submit Regulation 46 complaint to the Magistrates Court. Also send a copy of the bailiff letter and finance agreement to the Council for their records. Both to be sent email backed up with hard copy sent signed for snail mail.

 

WD

[agb657]

You now send them a copy of the finance agreement with a short letter in which you insist that the levy fee is removed and all associated charges. Tell them they have 7 days to reply and that if they fail to do so you will submit Regulation 46 complaint to the Magistrates Court. Also send a copy of the bailiff letter and finance agreement to the Council for their records. Both to be sent email backed up with hard copy sent signed for snail mail.

 

WD

 

 

Many Thanks will get on it straight away.

[agb657]

Update;

 

all levy fees and all associated charges are now dropped, but for your information the council still states that:

 

 

As per legislation, B&S are able to their charge fees per liability order and as a levy was made on 15th January 2010 in respect of two liability orders, a levy fee was added per order. This action was correct.

 

 

I am now totally satisfied with my result which is only due to the help i received on this forum. so thanks again you guys.

[agb657]

P.S. with regards the Redemption fee Head H ( which by the way has also been dropped) the council state:

 

 

With regards to the Redemption Fee, this fee is charged in accordance with Head H in Schedule 5 of the Council Tax Regulations and is payable for the release of the listed goods back into the debtor's control. Although it is added to the case at the time goods are seized (this does not mean physically removed but seized from the debtor's ownership), the payment of this fee is not taken until all other fees and liability have been paid. If the debt is not paid, or B&S remove and sell goods, the Redemption fee is removed. However, in light of the levy being abandoned on the vehicle that the Redemption Fee was charged against, this fee has also been waived.

[ploddertom]

Seems like a good result for you.

 

If the Fees are as per all the Regs then why did they decide to drop them? Apparently it seems it is OK to levy on the same goods for more than one debt? Maybe their legal department should look closer at what is being spouted. Sounds like B&S writing letters for the Council again.

 

Now you can enjoy the weekend in peace but still be wary as sometimes these people have a habit of pleading ignorance.

 

PT

[agb657]

Seems like a good result for you.

 

If the Fees are as per all the Regs then why did they decide to drop them? Apparently it seems it is OK to levy on the same goods for more than one debt? Maybe their legal department should look closer at what is being spouted. Sounds like B&S writing letters for the Council again.

 

Now you can enjoy the weekend in peace but still be wary as sometimes these people have a habit of pleading ignorance.

 

PT

 

 

They dropped them because the car they levied on 18 months ago was on Hire Purchase. I had no idea what the levy was on because i was never given a notice of sizure otherwise i would have told them 18 months ago it was on finance.

 

Niether did the council, the council never had a clue what was levied, all they would say is the fees are legal and in line with legislation.

 

They still are inisting it was legal up until the time i contested it. I sent a SAR and the notice of seizure has on it "confirmed by neighbour at number -- " the council guy says thats fine their allowed to do that. the nieghbour hasnt a clue and swears she hasnt spoken to anyone about the car as no one has ever asked.

 

The guy from the council literally just endorses anything the Bailiffs tell him. It was only by getting a SAR that i got rid of the fees. The council was quite willing to tell me i must pay fees that they couldnt tell me anything about.

 

 

And that about levying twice is weird they levy a car for one account charge you then levy the car again and charge you again and then section head H charge you in case you do pay off the debt later. heres what the council say:

 

"With regards to your comments concerning a second levy, no second levy actually took place. As per legislation, B&S are able to their charge fees per liability order and as a levy was made on 15th January 2010 in respect of two liability orders, a levy fee was added per order. This action was correct."

so no second levy took place but a fee is in order? Its crazy!!!!!!!

 

 

 

And paying the council direct doesnt work unless the council plays ball and stops the LO the bailiff fees are tacked on to the debt so even if you have no council tax liability they can still pursue you for their fees on the original liability order.

Edited September 9, 2011 by agb657

[tomtubby]

I have been watching this particular query with GREAT INTEREST.

 

Personally, I would not let this matter drop. This because, for a long time you have been asking the question as to WHAT was levied upon and it has taken all of this time to FINALLY let you know. I am suspicious that a levy may therefore NOT have been made at the time. I would be asking for a copy of the SCREEN SHOT of the account.

 

I have to rush so cant post any more but the response from the council........

 

IS WRONG

 

A bailiff CANNOT charge Multiple fees for enforcing MORE that one Liability Order and THANKFULLY this has been CONFIRMED by a recent LGO REPORT !!!!! I am hoping to start a NEW STICKY with full details !!!!

 

The HEAD H fee is also WRONG.......and once again, I will be posting details.....

 

 

WATCH THIS SPACE>>>>>>>>>

[brassnecked]

It would appear that the Council have fallen for Bristow & Sutors dodgy actions hook line and sinker, time they were made yo realise THEY are liable jointly and severally for any wrongdoing

[agb657]

I have been watching this particular query with GREAT INTEREST.

 

Personally, I would not let this matter drop. This because, for a long time you have been asking the question as to WHAT was levied upon and it has taken all of this time to FINALLY let you know. I am suspicious that a levy may therefore NOT have been made at the time. I would be asking for a copy of the SCREEN SHOT of the account.

 

I have to rush so cant post any more but the response from the council........

 

IS WRONG

 

A bailiff CANNOT charge Multiple fees for enforcing MORE that one Liability Order and THANKFULLY this has been CONFIRMED by a recent LGO REPORT !!!!! I am hoping to start a NEW STICKY with full details !!!!

 

The HEAD H fee is also WRONG.......and once again, I will be posting details.....

 

 

WATCH THIS SPACE>>>>>>>>>

 

IS WRONG

 

A bailiff CANNOT charge Multiple fees for enforcing MORE that one Liability Order and THANKFULLY this has been CONFIRMED by a recent LGO REPORT !!!!! I am hoping to start a NEW STICKY with full details !!!!

 

The HEAD H fee is also WRONG.......and once again, I will be posting details.....

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cant wait for some evidence of this. The council keeps refering to legislation, and endorsing the actions.

[agb657]

It would appear that the Council have fallen for Bristow & Sutors dodgy actions hook line and sinker, time they were made yo realise THEY are liable jointly and severally for any wrongdoing

 

 

My opinion is the council automatically treat you as some kind of criminal and will take whatever B&S says as gospel, Now i dont beleive a word Bailiffs say.

 

But i beleive that many, many people would accept the word of the Head of Revenues at their local council at their word. I didnt, and it saved me quite a few quid. but how many others would think a person in such a responsible position would be so wrong or negligent in what the bailifs are actually charging you for.

 

 

 

I have now got all fees down to first and second visits only and thats it. But really i would so love for the Council head Of Revenues to be wrong in his spouting of whats correct under legislation.

Edited September 10, 2011 by agb657

[ploddertom]

Most Council employees whether the lowest of the low or those at the top have very little knowledge of the CT or NNDR Regs and in particular their meaning.To save time and money they rely on the Bailiff company employed, as we know the Bailiffs are only out for one thing - MONEY - and because the Council knows no better they believe everything the Company tells them because they are the "experts". How many of them on here have we all beaten at their own game, I for one believe it is time for an example to be made of the Bailiff, the Company that employs him & the Council that employs them. Only then may they realise that this archaic system they have is corrupt.

 

PT

[agb657]

can anyone decipher this? its from the printout i got from my SAR; This is the date they levied on the car according to the notice of seizure i got with the SAR.

 

03/02/10 cwebauto information recieved by client web

correspondece still to be looked intp

15/01/10cwebauto bailiff advises

call completed at 13:19 on 15/01/10. - ------ attd ( my address) levied outside -met debtor (male) ( no wp) levy value e200. atr fee: e0.00

(mid terrace with white door and cylinder lock) no bvai

15/01/10 cwebauto bailiff advises

call completed at 12:59 on 15/01/10 - ------ attd ( my address) refused access-met debtor (male). (mid terrace with white door and cylinder lock) best time to meet : not known. form left: none. bvai completed.

 

 

 

The notice of seizure states ;

 

i have this day seized,disrained and impounded the goods and chattels listed on the attached inventory.

the amount which must be paid is as follows;

 

council tax/domestic rates and court costs------Blank

 

Attendence to levy fees ----------------------------Blank

 

Levy fee-----------------------------------------------Blank

 

walking possesion fee--------------------------------Blank

 

redemption of goods fee (head H)-----------------Blank

 

total ( see attached memorandum) ---------------£963.98

 

 

TOTAL the attached memorandum describes our car and a scribled not saying ----conf by nbr @ 66

Edited September 10, 2011 by agb657

[ploddertom]

They are supposed to give you a key to decipher their shorthand if you are not likely to understand it. The chances are they may use this as a delaying tactic and hope you will just give up. Therefore you should write back to them and ask them for an explanation, if they then refuse they are in breach of the DPA guidelines and could be reported to the ICO or you could file an action through the County Court for compliance.

 

PT

[agb657]

They are supposed to give you a key to decipher their shorthand if you are not likely to understand it. The chances are they may use this as a delaying tactic and hope you will just give up. Therefore you should write back to them and ask them for an explanation, if they then refuse they are in breach of the DPA guidelines and could be reported to the ICO or you could file an action through the County Court for compliance.

 

PT

 

 

Thank you

 

Thats my next move then.

[agb657]

The council dont seem to like me sending copies of my complaints to them:

 

 

If you wish to query Bristow & Sutor's actions or how theyhave obtained

their information, this is something you must take up with themdirect. As a lot

of the comments made in your latest email relate to theconduct of individual

bailiffs, you must address any complaint regarding thisto Bristow &

Sutor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have explained the Council's position regarding the actionstaken by

Bristow & Sutor, and I do not feel we are able to help youfurther. As

mentioned above, any further queries regarding this matter should nowbe

addressed to Bristow & Sutor direct.

[ploddertom]

What they have forgotten is that the Council are 100% responsible for their contractors, they cannot wriggle out of it.

 

PT

[agb657]

Update:

 

letter from B&S extract;

 

"There was no second levy, our records show that we levied once on 15/01/2001 however the legislation states that we can charge fees per liability order."

 

 

"With regards the redemption fee this is charged in aacordance with Head H in Section 5 of the council tax regulations and is payable for the release of the goods back into your control. Although it is added to the case at the time we seize the goods , the payment of this fee is not taken till the very end. if the debt is not paid or we instead remove and sell goods then the redemption fee is credited"

[brassnecked]

Update:

 

letter from B&S extract;

 

"There was no second levy, our records show that we levied once on 15/01/2001 however the legislation states that we can charge fees per liability order."

 

 

"With regards the redemption fee this is charged in aacordance with Head H in Section 5 of the council tax regulations and is payable for the release of the goods back into your control. Although it is added to the case at the time we seize the goods , the payment of this fee is not taken till the very end. if the debt is not paid or we instead remove and sell goods then the redemption fee is credited"

 

 

Not if they levy for them at the same time imho, others will know more