Yes, someone else pointed that out, apologies for the distracting error. I heard that lots of people had not renewed tax because they'd not received them, and there's no disc to remind of the date. May I ask what she could be prosecuted for? If she is homeless, then she can't register a different address.

My mistake. It's the disc you don't get any more isn't it?

They don't send tax renewal reminders any more, from what I hear.

Is it possible that your daughter's car is still registered at your address? Has the letter got an address that you can write to stating that your daughter does not live there, possibly including a copy of your tenancy agreement or council tax bill to evidence that? (Cross posting with other people as nobody seemed to have replied)

What does reasonable force mean? A bailiff has to use normal means of entry, so generally this means they must enter through a door, a gate, garage etc but not windows. They cannot climb over fences or walls, but they can force a door and break the lock, or cut through padlocks etc. They can’t however, touch you or force their way past you or anyone else."

I just wondered why it would be to the advantage of the OP to curtail the number of pages on their thread.

Receipts were available and even presented! No mention of F.ing and blinding was made.

Did the EA ask if they could enter to do their 'search' peacefully? There was that option. We will never know exactly what happened will we?

Some good advice here: Given the circumstances, not quite congruent with:

I am so shocked at the advice given here. The OP didn't even owe anything (according to their story). They have been complaint and even offered themselves up for arrest. They are suffering from PTSD and should not have to go through this. Marstons obviously overstepped the mark, and this is the best advice on offer, you're an idiot and sniggering at how old the Rolex is? Grandfather could have left it quite recently.

There's quite a lot of information here on the way that different councils allocate payments. They can't possibly all be right, if case law is driving the decisions. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/northgate_council_tax_processing#outgoing-493642

I included the wrong link in the post above. It's a related request by the same person, correct link is https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/council_tax_an_unjust_law_is_a_c_4

I'm still interested in this, having suffered a similar situation myself. There's a comment on one of those FOI requests that seems very helpful (in case law) https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/council_tax_an_unjust_law_is_a_c_9?unfold=1 Paragraph 113 of the case between Eon Energy Ltd v The Brackley Anitique Cellar Ltd 2013: http://www.39essex.com/docs/general/eon_... Appropriation 113. The law is as set out in Chitty on Contracts 31st Edn at Paras 21-060 to 21-061 which states: “where several debts are due from the debtor to the creditor, the debtor may, when making a payment, appropriate the money paid to a particular debt or debts, and if the creditor accepts the payment so appropriated, he must apply it in the manner directed by the debtor. If however the debtor makes no appropriation when making the payment, the creditor may do so. It is essential that an appropriation by the debtor should take the form of a communication, express or implied, to the creditor of the debtor’s intention to appropriate the payment to a specified debt or debts so that the creditor may know that his rights of appropriation as creditor cannot arise. It is not essential that the debtor should expressly specify at the time of the payment which debt or account he intended the payment to be applied to. His intention may be collected from other circumstances showing that he intended at the time of the payment to appropriate it to a specific debt or account. Thus, where at the date of payment some of his debts are statute barred and others are not, it will be inferred (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) that the debtor appropriated the payment to the debts that were not so barred”. That would seem to be clear that the debtor can elect where the payment should be allocated at a later date. How the system is organised is not the debtor's business unless they were expressly so advised in advance. That the creditor may have already allocated it in accordance with their particular habit does not mean that it cannot be altered, or that one must grovel to achieve it.

This may well be how the council would like people to 'behave', but it is evident that he does have a history of struggling with payments, and both parties have the potential to be nice, do they not? It's plain where your expertise comes from.