Bristow & Sutor - Council Tax

[zosaphine]

THANKS FOR ALL F YOUR ADVICE. HAVING READ MORE OF THE FORUM, WITH BABY HAPILY IN HER BOUNCY CHAIR I HAVE DRAFTED & HUBBY HAS EMAILED THE FOLLOWING TO BRISTOW & SUTOR

 

Dear Sirs

 

I am writing in reference to the above.

 

Initially, I will make it clear that I have sought legal advice, and I am fully aware of my legal rights. As such:

 

- You or your Agents, will not be authorised/granted access to my property.

- You or your Agents will not remove/seize/clamp my vehicle, as it is subject to a Hire Purchase agreement .

- I will not discuss this matter in person, or over the telephone. All communication will be made in writing.

- All fee's made, must be in accordance with the Statutory Regulations. It is immaterial how many accounts are involved. You are only entitled to claim 1x First Visit fee of £24.50 and 1 x Second Visit fee of £18. These total £42.50. Likewise, you are only entitled to claim 1 Levy fee irrespective of how many accounts are involved..

- You must provide me with a breakdown of the fee's you have applied within 14 days of receipt of my request.

 

 

1) I formally request a breakdown of the costs/fee's you have made in this matter.

 

2) As the Levy has been made on a vehicle which is still under a HP Finance agreement, this levy is illegal, invalid an unenforceable. As the Bailiff was unable to make contact with me, he had a duty to establish who the legal owner was, prior to taking any such action. This should have involved a HPI check. By not doing this, and proceeding in making a levy, the Bailiff has clearly acted out of his legal jurisdiction. Therefore the Levy fee's that have been made, and all subsequent charges applied to enforce the Illegal Levy are not lawful.

 

I am therefore aware the only charges you are legally entitled to apply are the First visit fee and the Second visit fee totaling £42.50. Please confirm this in writing.

 

Finally, I have also been instructed to request the names of each of the Bailiff's that have attended my property, together with the dates they have been certificated, and in which courts this was done. This is to enable me to make a Form 4 Complaint to the appropriate courts for the following:

 

1) The charges you have applied are not in keeping with the Statutory Regulations.

2) The Bailiff's have been acting in a threatening manner. I.e that they would force/break entry into my property, knowing that they cannot do so, as they have never gained peaceful entry.

3) The Bailiff has acted Illegally in levying goods which cannot be seized as they are not owned by myself. Failure of the Bailiff to establish proper ownership before making any levy.

4) The Bailiff has acted excessively, in that the goods they have attempted to seize are worth more than the amount of the debt.

 

Finally, i should point out that the Bailiff's have no rights to question my Neighbours who were out in their front garden as to my whereabouts. This was done on the 23rd October, the day i was bringing my wife & newborn baby home from the hospital. I consider this to be harassment.

 

My wife is now suffering severe anxiety and depression caused by the actions of your Agents. It is for this reason that i have sought Independent Legal Advice. All correspondence you send, will be reviewed by my Solicitor accordingly.

 

Yours sincerely

 

x x x x

[chris600uk]

And here are the fees they are allowed to charge, I was really mad when I wrote the letter so I added this on as well.

 

Note:

Your literature seems to be out of date, so when researching your charges I used:

 

 

THE COUNCIL TAX (ADMINISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT) REGULATIONS 1992

AS AMENDED BY THE COUNCIL TAX (ADMINISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT) (AMENDMENT) (NO.2) REGULATIONS 1993,

THE COUNCIL TAX (ADMINISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1998,

THE COUNCIL TAX (ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2003

AND THE COUNCIL TAX AND NON-DOMESTIC RATING (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2006

SCHEDULE 5 CHARGES CONNECTED WITH DISTRESS

1. The sum in respect of charges connected with the distress which may be aggregated under Regulation 45(2)

shall be as set out in the following Table-

(1) Matter connected with distress

(2) Charge

A For making a visit to premises with a view to

Levying distress (where no levy is made) -

 

(i) where the visit is the first or only

such visit): £24.50

 

(ii) where the visit is the second such

visit: £18.00

 

Don't be a victim, fight back. Use everything at your disposal, tell everyone.

 

Chris

[chris600uk]

2) .............................As the Bailiff was unable to make contact with me, he had a duty to establish who the legal owner was, prior to taking any such action.

 

That's not quite correct, AFAIUI the onus is upon the debtor to show that the vehicle or any property on the premises belongs to a third party.

The bailiff is entitled to assume (it's unfair I know), that he/she can seize stuff that's on your premises.

 

Chris.

[tomtubby]

Tha bailiff can assume that goods belong to the debtor...the onus of proof is on you not the bailiff to prove ownership.

 

There is clear case law that provides that a Walking Possession posted through the door in INVALID. I have details of this case on our website and will post it on here later tonight.

 

In the meantime the following are the explanatory notes for the collection of council tax from our website. If you have any questions please ask.

 

BAILIFF FEES FOR COUNCIL TAX

Source:

The Council Tax Administration & Enforcement (Amendment) 1993. Si 773 amended by Si 295 0f 1998, Si 768 of 2003 and Si 3395 of 2006

 

EXPLAINATION

First visit fee: £24.50

This is for a first attendance to levy but where a levydoes not takes place. (For example where you are not in)

The bailiff can charge a levy fee if theylevy but he cannot charge both amounts on the same occasion.

Second visit fee: £18.00

Despite any further visits, the bailiff can only charge for a maximum of 2 visits.

Levy Fee:

This is where the bailiff levies on goods and a Walking Possession is signed.

Under this heading the bailiff can charge £24.50 for the first £100, and 4% on the next £400 etc. For example: assuming your Council Tax bill is £600, the total amount that you should pay is as follows:

First £100 £24.50

Next £400 @ 4% £16.00

Remaining £100 @ 2.5% £ 2.50

Walking Possession Fee £12.00

Total £55.00

Attendance fee:

For one attendance with a vehicle with a view to recover goodsafter the levy has been made under this heading.

[zosaphine]

All

 

I have just this moment received an email response from Bristow and Sutor. Thought you may like to see what the outcome of this was - I have copied key parts of their letter FYI

 

Just wanted to say a massive thanks to you all for your help

 

1, 2 & 4) see attached statements and the above for breakdown and explanation of fees incurred. At the time of the seizure we were unaware the vehicle was subject to a Hire Purchase Agreement and would refer you to Regulations 45 1 (a) which directs us to seize goods OF the debtor and not just goods OWNED by the debtor. The judge in the case of Ann Ambrose v Nottingham City Council (2004) clearly states that he considered that the phrase was wide enough to include goods that were not actually owned by the debtor but were in their possession and control which is the case with a car that is on hire purchase. Notwithstanding this now that you have made us aware the vehicle is on finance and we have confirmed this to be the case we have lifted our distraint and have credited the Levy Fee, Redemption fee and the Van/Abortive Removal fee from your case. See the statements.

 

3) I believe you are referring to the case of Susan Evans v South Ribble Council (1991). This particular case questioned the levy which took place on goods within the property when access hadn’t been gained to the goods. In this instance we had access to a vehicle outside the property which we have seized and left paperwork for you via your letterbox, if the paperwork was left on the car it may have blown away. Furthermore, I would like to refer you to Regulation 45 (5) which states “ The person levying distress shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority, which he shall show to the debtor if so required and he shall hand to the debtor or leave at the premises where the distress is levied a copy of this regulation and Schedule 3 or 5 and a memorandum setting out the appropriate amount and shall hand to the debtor a copy of any close or walking possession agreement entered into”. As you have confirmed you received the Notice Of Seizure left at the property for you, we have clearly acted in accordance with this. We have of course now lifted the distraint but we felt it best to explain.

5) I will supply you with the bailiff details, however, I would like to go through the points you have listed first as your basis for a Form 4 complaint:-

 

i All the charges incurred on your account have been incurred in accordance with The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, as amended

ii I can confirm that the bailiff was incorrect to have left a notice of Forced Re-entry and I can only apologise for this error. The bailiff is aware that in this instance she was not able to carry out this procedure and incidentally didn’t return to Force Re-Entry. She has been abolished for her mistake.

iii I have explained to you that the bailiff is able to seize goods of the debtor and not just goods owned by the debtor. Now we have established that the vehicle seized is on Finance we have credited the costs incurred as a result of the seizure.

Iiii In this particular instance as there was only one item available to the bailiff the seizure could not be considered “excessive” and it makes no difference whether the item would be worth more than the debt

iiiii With regards to leaving paperwork, I can confirm that as a company we do require all bailiffs leave correspondence in an envelope and I am sorry if this has not been done, however, there is no requirement in law that we do this. Furthermore, you have referred to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act and that you believe your rights have been breached, however, as Article 8 is a Qualified right it can be infringed as per Article 8 (2) as long as three conditions are satisfied and in this instance they have been. Just because your rights may have been infringed this does not mean the Contravention has been breached.

 

The name of the bailiffs who have visited your property is XXXXX XXXXXX and her certificate was granted in Redditch County Court

Finally, with regards to our actions being deemed as harassment, section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970 which makes harassment an offence states that it will not apply to any person enforcing any debts by legal process. This is what we are trying to do.

 

I’m sorry if any upset has been caused towards you or your wife it was never our intention to have done so.

 

Finally we note that you are issuing a blanket refusal to allow access or negotiate payment with us so we will be returning the case to the council and closing our file.

[Goldlady]

Excellent news zosaphine