It\u2019s a November morning in Southmead. Sharon Hudd, a single mum who cares for disabled kids, is leaving for work. But then she sees her car is clamped.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI went into blind panic \u2013 I needed to get to work,\u201d Sharon tells me. She calls Marstons, the bailiff firm that has clamped her car, and is told she must pay \u00a3565 within the hour. She tearfully explains she can only afford \u00a3100 right now, and is told: \u201cI\u2019m not your support worker. Pay, or we\u2019ll take the car away.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sharon puts the phone down, in tears, and calls her dad, who lends her the money. She pays the debt online, her car is unclamped, and she gets to work.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Next day, she\u2019s feeling so paranoid she parks her car around the corner before going away for a few days. When she returns, there\u2019s a sticker on its window. \u201cI thought: \u2018I can\u2019t cope, I\u2019m going to have a breakdown if this has happened again.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
It has. There are more fines in her name and this time they\u2019re demanding \u00a31,700. Panicked and upset, Sharon calls ACORN\u2019s Bristol organiser Sam Kidel, who offers to come down with a few people.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kidel calls the council, who say Sharon has five unpaid penalty charge notices (PCNs), often issued for things like parking or not paying CAZ charges. When informed she\u2019s willing to set up a payment plan, the council says it will put the debt enforcement on hold and order Marstons to unclamp Sharon\u2019s car. But despite numerous calls and texts to the bailiffs, they don\u2019t show and Sharon\u2019s car isn\u2019t released until the next morning.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI was unbelievably stressed,\u201d Sharon remembers. \u201cI didn\u2019t have any money.\u201d The stress makes her ill and she goes to hospital with pneumonia and is signed off sick for a month, falling behind on rent because she\u2019s living off statutory sick pay. \u201cI was getting letters about rent arrears from the council \u2013 who caused the problem in the first place.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
As Sharon hadn\u2019t heard about the PCNs until the bailiff visit, she can appeal the fines. Sharon has ended up in hospital, but for now at least, she\u2019s kept the bailiffs at bay.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A so-called ethical approach<\/p>\n
None of this should have happened. In 2018, Bristol City Council committed to piloting a new ethical debt collection policy<\/a> after our campaign<\/a> uncovered thousands of Bristolians being hounded by council-sent bailiffs.<\/p>\n The policy promised bailiffs would be a last resort, for people who could pay and hadn\u2019t. But as the Cable reported last year, thousands of council tax debts<\/a> are still being sent to bailiffs after debt collection was restarted post-pandemic.<\/p>\n Council tax debts referred to enforcement agents by Bristol City Council<\/p>\n The council previously told us this number should fall as the pandemic arrears backlog gradually cleared. But new data obtained under freedom of information laws shows 5,237 council tax debts were sent by the council to enforcement agents between July and September 2024. This is lower than the 8,293 in the same period in 2023, but is still the second highest of any quarter since post-pandemic collection restarted: an average of 57 daily.\u00a0<\/p>\n Chantelle, another Bristolian visited by bailiffs, had her debt taken back in-house after contacting ACORN. Chris had to pay nearly \u00a3300 for a CAZ fine he never received, including bailiff fees. And, as previously reported<\/a>, Jack had to deal with intimidating calls from bailiffs years after he\u2019d moved from Bristol because his housemate had been pocketing the cash instead of paying the council tax. The council sent 37,541 CAZ PCNs to bailiffs in 2023, but didn\u2019t provide figures for 2024.<\/p>\n According to the council\u2019s debt-collection policy, if someone repeatedly misses payments and warning notices without proving financial hardship or other vulnerabilities, they can be taken to court for a liability order. This could lead to enforcement action. Crucially, though, the policy says the council will assess what they can afford and any vulnerabilities they might have, and set up an affordable repayment plan.<\/p>\n But clearly this isn\u2019t always happening.<\/p>\n Is vulnerability being taken into account?<\/p>\n It\u2019s now March 2025, and Sharon is waiting to hear from the council about her appeals. She has provided a vulnerability letter and requested a repayment plan, after being offered a refund of the original bailiff fees in December, and said she would get clear details of all original PCN debts.<\/p>\n Despite this, a Marstons bailiff comes and clamps her car again, telling her she\u2019s missed a deadline and must pay \u00a31,400. \u201cI told him I would pay everything to the council but not a penny to Marstons.\u201d He threatens to take her car if she doesn\u2019t pay and adds another \u00a3100 to her debt.\u00a0<\/p>\n My daughter won\u2019t stay downstairs now if I\u2019m not there\u2026 Every time there\u2019s a knock at the door she thinks it\u2019s a bailiff.<\/p>\n Sharon Hudd<\/p><\/blockquote>\n After the tense standoff, Sharon calls the council and finds out the enforcement activity had been restarted because it hadn\u2019t received her PCN appeals. But the advisor acknowledges she\u2019d sent evidence of being ill, and says they\u2019ll call the bailiffs off again.\u00a0<\/p>\n Sharon sends yet more evidence to the council. A month later, she gets a brief reply dismissing her complaints. \u201cIt was really obvious from their reply that they hadn\u2019t even read it properly.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n ACORN helps her send another letter to the council demanding an update on her PCN appeals, a detailed breakdown of all the fines she owes, the refund of the \u00a3575 she\u2019d paid in November and confirmation that her complaint would be properly reviewed. At the time of writing the council is yet to respond.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cMy daughter won\u2019t stay downstairs now if I\u2019m not there,\u201d Sharon says. \u201cEvery time there\u2019s a knock at the door she thinks it\u2019s a bailiff\u201d.<\/p>\n Sharon also talks about how the ordeal transports her back to a past abusive relationship. \u201cWhen [the bailiff] was shouting down the phone at me, I was taken straight back to it (\u2026) it was really horrible.\u201d<\/p>\n In response to our FOI request, the council said it doesn\u2019t have strict criteria for assessing vulnerability and doesn\u2019t track how many council tax debts are taken back in-house from bailiffs due to vulnerability.<\/p>\n Kidel says Sharon\u2019s experience is \u201cappalling but not unusual\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe council has sent bailiffs to tens of thousands of Bristolian households in the last year and our members have regularly reported that they\u2019ve charged illegitimate fees, refused to accept their responsibilities to recognise people\u2019s vulnerabilities, and acted like aggressive bullies.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAll the cases we\u2019ve taken on have involved vulnerable people and the individual bailiff has completely ignored them when they\u2019ve said they\u2019re vulnerable.\u201d<\/p>\n He adds that bailiffs have regularly refused to allow people to set up payment plans, which goes against the council\u2019s policy. ACORN launched a campaign<\/a>, demanding the council stop using bailiffs to collect debts from people on benefits or low incomes and stop using them entirely for council tax debt.\u00a0<\/p>\n Time for action<\/p>\n Sharon joins ACORN organisers at a meeting with senior councillors at City Hall in late March, not long after this latest bailiff visit.<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve never done anything like that before,\u201d Sharon says. \u201cI was ready for it, I felt strong going into it. I did end up crying which I didn\u2019t want to do, but you can\u2019t control your emotions \u2013 unless you\u2019re a bailiff, obviously! But they needed to know how wrong this is.\u201d<\/p>\n Deputy council leader Heather Mack and Green group leader Emma Edwards were there. \u201cI was looking straight at them, I could see the same emotion in their eyes,\u201d Sharon remembers. \u201cThey said they didn\u2019t think this sort of thing was happening now and that they\u2019d look into it.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n ACORN shared evidence of Bristow & Sutor and Marstons ignoring vulnerability and requests for repayment plans, which goes against the council\u2019s policy that bailiffs \u2018should accept payment plans wherever possible\u2019.<\/p>\n Following evidence shared by ACORN, the council has already stopped working with another bailiff company, Able Enforcement, which typically does evictions. Then, a month later, the council agreed to a meeting with ACORN, but did not respond directly to their other demands.\u00a0<\/p>\n Concrete commitment still needed<\/p>\n The Cable sent detailed questions about the findings of this article to the council. In response, councillor Heather Mack, said: \u201cI have met with ACORN to learn about their campaign and am now working to establish how the council\u2019s debt recovery processes operate and the effectiveness of communication between the council and those who owe monies.<\/p>\n \u201cThe outcomes of this fact-finding will inform further discussions with ACORN and other interested groups on the topic of how the council recovers debt,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n \u201cI thank ACORN for their work on this subject, and can see that this issue impacts many across the council and although we have an ethical debt recovery policy, there\u2019s still work to be done to protect those most vulnerable in our city.\u201d<\/p>\n ACORN Bristol branch secretary Wesley Bear said: \u201cIt is unacceptable that after five months, council leaders have still not made a concrete commitment to reducing the use of bailiffs.\u00a0<\/p>\n I\u2019m not your support worker. You need to pay or we\u2019ll take the car away.<\/p>\n A Marstons bailiff<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cWhile we recognise that some limited steps have been taken in response to our demands, the council has failed to address the central issue: council-contracted bailiffs continue to intimidate low-income and vulnerable residents,\u201d he added.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cEvery day, Bristol City Council sends dozens of bailiffs into Bristolian households, and the resulting stress has already caused serious harm to some of our members. The council cannot continue to delay. Vulnerable people in our city deserve better.\u201d<\/p>\n Amid concerns about the effectiveness of Bristol\u2019s policy, the authority that inspired it has recently returned to using bailiffs. In late 2024, Hammersmith and Fulham Council, which provided inspiration for Bristol\u2019s \u2018ethical\u2019 approach, announced<\/a> it would start using bailiffs again in a targeted way, where people who could pay have built up high levels of arrears.\u00a0<\/p>\n There have been calls for change at national level, too. Recently, MPs urged<\/a> the government to introduce an independent regulator for the enforcement sector after research by CItizens Advice in 2023<\/a> found that more than one in three people visited by bailiffs had been subjected to behaviour that broke Ministry of Justice rules. This includes bailiffs forcing their way into a home when not allowed, not taking vulnerabilities into account, or taking goods needed for work.\u00a0<\/p>\n While she waits for her own case to be resolved, Sharon is determined to speak out. \u201cI think this needs to be spread far and wide. It\u2019s not right. It\u2019s abuse\u2026 How do they get away with it?\u201d<\/p>\n Independent. Investigative. Indispensable.<\/p>\n Investigative journalism strengthens democracy \u2013 it\u2019s a necessity, not a luxury.<\/p>\n The Cable is Bristol\u2019s independent, investigative newsroom. Owned and steered by more than 2,500 members<\/b>, we produce award-winning journalism that digs deep into what\u2019s happening in Bristol.<\/p>\n We are on a mission to become sustainable, and to do that we need more members. <\/b>Will you help us get there?<\/b><\/p>\n\n Quarter<\/strong><\/td>\n Year<\/strong><\/td>\n Number of cases<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Q4<\/td>\n 2022<\/td>\n 93<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Q1<\/td>\n 2023<\/td>\n 62<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Q2<\/td>\n 2023<\/td>\n 2,333<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Q3<\/td>\n 2023<\/td>\n 8,293<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Q4<\/td>\n 2023<\/td>\n 1,915<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Q1<\/td>\n 2024<\/td>\n 4,794<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Q2<\/td>\n 2024<\/td>\n 2,365<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Q3<\/td>\n 2024<\/td>\n 2,365<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n
\n