Yeah, right, of course they do...

Sorry for having to answer and now it looks like a thread hijacking, but if personal info is redacted then what's the problem? Sometimes the only way to get to the bottom of things is by closely studying the documents and that's what needs doing IMO. I would not trust a solicitor any more than I would me to do this properly, so the offer still stands - it would not be the first time I have looked at stuff for a cagger. Whether or not I am unknown or unqualified has no bearing on my ability to find discrepancies in the paperwork.

Yes, absolutely correct - solicitors care a great deal about people and always do their best to help their fellow man - yes, best stick to those who really care.

I just want to mention that summonses, fixed penalty tickets etc are often cocked up by the issuing party. A similar case was won by a friend after it was spotted that the offence alleged on the summons was travelling without a ticket from station A to station B, whereas he actually got on at station B and off at station A - he simply did not commit the offence alleged on the summons. And another friend got a fixed penalty notice for littering which failed to identify the offence - the actions of the person accused were described but the warden failed to identify the actual offence it constituted - he simply forgot to tick the box. Consequently the fixed penalty could not be paid, as no offence had been alleged, and that was the end of the matter because you have to be given the chance to pay the fixed penalty before it can be taken any further. You lot on here are all very clever and know plenty but it's amazing what can sometimes be achieved by a little studying of the paperwork - standards have dropped a lot over the last few decades and you don't always get the professionalism you might expect. I would suggest that the OP looks (or I can do it if asked) at the paperwork to see if there are any discrepancies - you never know. I woudn't expect the solicitor to bother doing it.

You mention looking into their Trust Fund - best thing you can do IMO as you may get help with some or all of your debt. If I was going to pay them anything, (which I actually don't do because they got me annoyed) I'd be paying a pound or two per week - or even less - towards the debt, as they want to see regular payments before they will help out. If you have not done so already you should write to your water company and ask that they forward you the forms needed to apply to their water charity for help with your arrears. Make sure when completing the forms that your expenditure matches your income and that all of what you spend is spent on essentials.

That sounds correct - as far as I know a Tomlin order is a pre-hearing settlement between the claimant and defendant, so if there is no hearing there will be no judgement against, so nothing should appear on your credit rating.

Quick question/advice: You don't pay your water charges in advance, do you? I know many will pay the asked for six months at a time to save a few pennies when paying via DD, but just wanted to mention that you don't have to pay for any water charges you haven't yet accrued. The water companies make it appear that you have to pay in advance, but you don't.

Had a think and now disagree with myself - I don't think that there will ever be an occasion when it would be necessary for a TVL inspector to break down your door - desirable, perhaps, in order to achieve his aims, but not necessary. I think the above clause is there for when you trap his foot in the door when you close it and he needs to use force to counter that - nothing more. The fact that they don't seem to go around forcing entry, as I'm sure they would like to, suggests that they can't.

Thanks for the link, very enlightening. TVL inspectors 'may (if necessary) use such force as may be reasonable in the exercise of that power'. So I guess they could break your door down, but they don't appear to be doing it much. Probably because they don't need to, what with most of us being all compliant and that.

Hmmm...I don't think I have to do anything unless physically forced to...so come and have a go if you think you're hard enough, is my thought. So if you just don't open the door - is that obstruction? You say, Conniff, and I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it - I really want to know, that 'obstructing someone with a warrant is an offence'. I always though that bailiffs, for example, came with a warrant, but you don't have to let them in, do you? Can you please give us the authority for this statement? Would be much appreciated. And finally, who has ever heard of a TVL inspector breaking down a door to gain entry - doesn't happen, does it?

So the safe solution is not to open the door, I would imagine, though if you did shut it on them I don't see how the cops could get involved (because they are only there to prevent a breach of the peace, and if you're not coming out of the house it should stay pretty peaceful, shouldn't it?). It wouldn't be right to leave people with the impression that you have to deal with TVL, hence my insistence on trying to get to the bottom of it. Have nothing whatsoever to do with them and you'll be fine, is my advice to anyone who cares.

Yes, but have you learned that you could have chosen not to sign anything, or to have spoken to anyone?

Cheers - I've had a look. So, they have the authority to enter your premises - but do they have the authority to forcibly enter your premises? My guess is not. Could there be a penalty if you refuse entry when they have a warrant, I wonder?

Very interesting and slightly alarming. My question is: What do you think would have happened if you simply never let any of them in? If the cops were there only as peace keepers, then would the TVL inspectors have had to break down the door? I did not think that was allowed.

Acute observation, BF.