Thanks for the response Sangie.

Hi folks, Looking for a bit of advice regarding my wife's work contract which I think is a little fishy to say the least. She's contracted to work 52 hours per month and gets paid £6000 per year basic salary. Working on a time tracker, she gets an additional 'living wage' adjustment once a year if she exceeds her contracted hours. Her contract also states that she can get a yearly commission bonus if she surpasses her target sufficiently. She receives monthly commission statements but no monthly commission during the year. To work out whether she qualifies for a bonus payment, the company subtract her annual salary from her yearly commission total with any balance representing her yearly bonus. Fair enough one might say. However, the contract also states that the company is entitled to subtract any additional 'living wage' adjustment figure from the commission as well !! The living wage adjustment is money she's legally entitled to and I simply cannot get my head around how the company can justify deducting this from her commission total which she's worked hard all year to achieve. As a side note, if she doesn't hit target, she still gets paid the yearly salary and living wage adjustment. What say the people of CAG? Does this even sound legal?

With regard to your Stobart example, the insurance would not be in Mr B's name but in the Stobart company name and cover all employees allowed to drive their vehicles. The only time the insurance would be in Mr B's name is if he was a self-employed contractor using his own rig to tow a Stobart trailer. With regards ownership, we all declare vehicle ownership when making an application to take out insurance. This is often stated in the Policy Schedule documentation which is why I always ask for the full insurance documentation when someone claims not to be the owner of a vehicle (yet listed as the registered keeper) .

While it's true that PCN collection has helped to provide me with an income over the years, I've always felt that bailiff action for such matters to be some what draconian. When you consider that I can overstay my welcome in a private car park and avoid paying the PCN wih a carefully worded appeal that stands up to scrutiny from POPLA, it seems outrageous that people can have their car sold to pay a lousy £25 council parking ticket. That said, the guy in this article was clearly deranged !

Locksmiths are only used on people who refuse to cooperate or ignore the bailiffs. As you've made several calls to the Swift office offering a suitable payment plan, the bailiff won't get authorisation to use this power. As you've seen already, it's an empty threat on this occassion. I don't think I've ever seen a single instance of Swift removing anything, never mind forcing entry to a property. There's nothing to stop you paying them online if the bailiff continues to be awkward.

If you think £50 is a reasonable amount for sending you a standard letter in relation to an "official process", what do you think is a reasonable charge for sending someone out to your house to inform you of impending court action who posts that letter personally? Maybe £100? What about if that person has to come back 3 times to catch you in? Maybe £200-£300? What if that person (upon their 3rd call) makes contact with you and spends another 2 hours with you trying to arrange payment or executes the court order and takes control of your goods? Maybe £300-£400? What if they spend 4 hours with you? £500? Maybe you would've felt better paying the £235 if the EA had visited 3 times and "earned" his money (probably equating to 35-50% of the 235.00 Enforcement fee collected) ? The £235.00 is suddenly looking good value......unless you paid on his first visit and the visit involved nothing more than posting a letter.

Sorry if I'm missed this part but which company did the bailiffs come from?

So for clarification, Marstons were "not" trying to "trick" the OP and obtain further fees by slipping in an unnecessary visit?

If you're going to quote me, at least include the entire quote to keep it in context. My comment was based on the guidance notes Bailiff Advice had linked to that explain the reasoning for the compliance fee deduction. As such, it's wholly relevant to the topic IMO. If the reasoning behind the deduction of the compliance fee is an attempt to stop aggressive bailiffs trying to collect in full, then it's flawed while bailiffs remain self employed. That is all.

Section 8.3 of the Explanatory Guidance to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 are flawed from the outset while Enforcement companies still contract self employed bailiffs to execute their warrants of control. Are you aware of any Enforcement companies who pay out a proportion of the compliance fee to the bailiff BEFORE the debt is collected in full? The company itself may pocket the £75 fee but the bailiffs invariably get nothing until the debt is fully collected..... While the sentiment in the guidance notes is good natured, it doesnt work in reality.

Text book CAG activist then huh?! I personally would welcome a camera following me so that the gen pop could see what bailiffs have to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I've seen the crap that the general poster on here has to deal with but they are only a small minority of cases amongst the masses of visits each day from the 700+ certificated bailiffs in the UK. Luckily for me, only a minor percentage of people I try and collect from are adamant they want to play the game. Those that refuse to show their hand now invariably incur the costs of the ultimate sanction. Locksmith.

The reality of the situation away from the internet is that the Magistrates ARE going to grant an awful lot of these permissions in the coming months until it becomes common knowledge that this can and will happen.

Still not on it Never bothered to ask the question why not, it's never really been an issue. I get asked once in a blue moon and simply supply the court's phone number.

I've been a certificated bailiff for nearly 10 years and never appeared on the register since it first appeared. Why don't you ask the bailiff where he is certificated and contact the relevant court if you want it confirmed?

I asked the OP in person to post back about this last week but I guess he must be too busy. The theft of goods Taken into Control and the suspected theft of a wheel clamp were reported to the local Constabulary several weeks ago. Despite the police officer's best attempts, he was unable to contact the OP ( registered keeper of the vehicle and whom I'd had brief contact with on the phone before the vehicle and clamp disappeared). Several weeks later, the OP phoned me out of the blue asking how he could get his car back from the police pound. Turns out the OP had been stopped in the next county some 100 miles away and had the car re-seized from him by the police. He was given a lift to the train station so he could make his way home. I arranged for the debtor to settle the warrant and asked the police to release the vehicle to him as his fines were settled. He was then free to travel back up to the next county and retrieve his vehicle at considerable further cost to himself as he incuured a recovery fee from the police pound and additional travel costs. Nice bloke though, he even got the clamp fixed and returned it to me with no hard feelings on either side. The police were happy to close the matter on this basis. Lesson learnt hopefully.