Following death of my husband and then my developing cancer was unable to work and so could not pay mortgage on previous property. Managed to sell property but outstanding council tax liabilities to Hfds Council. Made payment arrangments but missed due to trying to move house. 5 council tax liabilies, had made various payments to council but outstanding amounts on all. Property had been revalued by VOA and am pursuing them as it looks as though valuation incorrect, will ask for help on this on another thread. So, Hfds go to Court, get orders for all 5 liabilities and pass to Bristows and Sutor. Meanwhile I move to another property in another Council district but am (stupidly) honest enough to get in touch with Hfds to say, here I am how much do I do you and may I make another arrangement. B&S then knock on the door, didn't know who they were, given the impression the council had sent them to make an arrangemnent and let woman in. She made a levy detailed below which having read lots of posts on this looks wrong. Made arrangement of £5 per week as she saw I had nothing, live in the middle of nowhere with a 10yr old small car and only have occasional temporary work. Stuck to agreement and then all of a sudden they say we don't want an agreement any more, we want money. Bit of batting to and fro so I continue to make a payment to them of £5.00 plus 50p for using my debit card. Then see your posts so make payments to Hfds Council every Monday since beginning Jan. Today get home to find 'Notification of Bailiff Visit' charging me 98.00 for visit and saying must pay £1964.03 immediately, as if! Note says they will be back at sometime which will then make the costs 2114.52? Don't know where these figures come from and so rang the Council. Have read your forums and it says they just must take the debt back. Am advised that it is too much trouble to take debts back and keep track of them once they have gone to the bailiffs so (finally) she agrees to ring the Bailiff and tell him to back off and that they must reinstate the previous agreement. She continues to refuse to take the debt back and says I will be responsible for the Bailiffs fees. I have advised her that any spare money I have will go directly to the Council as I have the amounts due now. My questions are:

1) what should I do!

2) is there anything specific I should ask the council to get the debt transferred to them

3) the Bailiffs fees don't seem right to me but I am upset and muddles

4) the original Bailiff advised me I would be a vulnerable person (long term illness, on a pension and

on unrelianle temporary work)

5) can they really take my car when I live 8 miles from the nearest town in the countryside with only

1 bus a day?

6) they say I owe council tax from 2010, sure I don't but since my move my stuff is scattered far and

wide, can I ask them for a statement going back to then? I can check my bank account for any

D/Ds paid but do they have to provide any of this.

Please accept my apologies for this pickle, events have rather piled up on me and I have yet to see the wood for the trees but the bailiff fees don;t seem right to me.

Bristows and Sutor, Visit 2/11/11 I have signed a form saying total £2,330.71 is owed, it say7s it's a walking possession agreement but some of the things on there don't exist and can they take my little car.Hv abbreviated the references for ease.

Fees associates #1 Ref 3087 amount owing 320.00

Levy Fee £34.00

Walking Possession 12.00

Fees Associated #2 3088 amounting owing 100.00

Levy Fee 24.50

Walking Poss fee 12.00

Fees Associated #3 26670 amount owing 134.74

Levy Fee 27.00

Walking Poss fee 12.00

Fees Associated #4 26771 amount owing 617.79

Levy fee 44.00

Walking Poss Fee 12.00

Fees Associated #5 266721 amount owing 893.00

Levy fee 51.00

walking poss fee 12.00

Redemption of Goods Fee (Head H) 24.50

balance transferred to Notice of seizeure 2330.71

Woman from Hfd Council said it was perfectly reasonable for them to charge a separate fee for each account on a single visit, quoted your Rossendales -v- where the Ombudsman said it wasn't and she said basically she didn't know anything about that. Asked her for a copy of their SLA with B&S and she changed the subject.

Todays really really red and aggressive notice is an additional charge of 98.00 for his visit. Apparently this is 4 x 24.50 for a 1st visit fee. Can this be right when the first visit was in November and he is supposed to be here for enforcement. I don't understand this at all and the woman at the Council skated all over it.

Sorry about this but is there any chance you could tell me where to fire my first salvo. the council will not take the debt back so I am stuck with sending money to B&S. I told her about the 50p fee every time I use my debit card and she agreed I could send them cheques which I will. Is this reasonable. She has put a review date of 6months on this, is that reasonable too? aaaaahhh HELP!

What is this country coming to?

Anyway, I can't offer much advice but there are plenty on here that can - you're in the right place.

Soon enough someone will be along to guide you.

You'll probably need to provide a little more information - especially dates. Were the fees all charged on the same day?

This must be the most agressive abuse of process I've seen.

1970

Sorry to hear of your troubles, you mention your developing cancer. Not trying to pry but is this still ongoing, the reason for asking may make a big difference to the route you may need to go. Are you also claiming any Benefits and is there anyone else in the household besides yourself?

PT

You need to speak to someone at the Council and ask the following questions:

1 - how many Liability Orders they have against you

2 - the dates they were obtained

3 - the addresses they were for

4 - the period of time each covers

5 - how much each one was for

6 - how much is still outstanding

7 - the dates they were passed on for enforcement

PT

Can you list the goods seized exactly as described on the Notice of Seizure?

PT

Thank you so much for the requests for additional information. The cancer is in remission however I am under the management of 4 consultants for other problems, have a back problem which is so severe now I have been having 3/4 caudal epidurals per annum, approx 8/10 hosp appts for this. Have been attending a painmanagement clinic for 12yrs or so and am now on very strong opoids for 'complex and chronic pain', too boring. Have ongoing chronic sinus problems following kick in the face by a horse and additionally see Oncology unit. Total hospital appointments can be up to 30pa. This makes perm work fairly tricky so have secured work in a callcentre but only on an ongoing temporary contract, this ranges from 6 - 40hrs per month.

The items listed in the first visit are shown below, I did not know she was doing this as she just sat down in a chair by the fishtank and didn't ask me any questions, all she said was do you have a PC and I said yes, a very elderly Sony but it is reliable. Have starred items that aren't mine. She must have taken the car details from on the drive because she said it had been very hard to find the property as it was in the middle of nowhere and I said that although the car had done 130,000 miles I couldn't afford anything newer or better, it is a 1.0 3-door basic Yaris, registered Feb 2002.

Inventory

3 piece green suite (there is a green sofa but never been any chair)

pine wall unit (* don't have one, never had one)

2 beech draw units (have one elderly unit bought from ebay)

1 laptop computer Sony

19" TV Sony

DVD player Sony

Appx 10 packets ???? (writing so bad no idea what this is)

Kitchen - nil

Bedroom - Nil

Drive

1 Yaris Toyota taxed 2/12 all keys + documents (don't know what that means)

I will write to Herefordshire Council tomorrow in the format you have suggested, they were absolutely insistant that they did not want to take the debt back because it was too much trouble and this doesn't seem right at all, but then, what do I know?

Thank you very much

I am the only person in the household, not claiming any benefits, have two small pensions from late husbands employment which takes me above the threshhold for benefits and as have been ill for past three years on and off have no NICs to be able to get things like sick pay, jobseekers allowance etc. MacMillan cancer were very helpful trying to get me benefits but more or less failed through no fault of their own, it's a case of have a little bit but not enough to live on really. Have TEENY amount of savings but am so scared to use them to pay this bill off in case something else come along, specifically transport problems.

Thank you for your answers.

First of all you are definitely classed as a vulnerable person according to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/courts/enforcement-officers/national-standards-enforcement-agents.pdf although not Law every Council & Enforcement Co has agreed to abide by these guidelines. You need to send some form of proof to both Council & Bailiffs advising them of your condition(s). The Bailiff should have referred this back to the Council as a priority. I assume you have checked to see if they are suitably Certificated, if not then http://certificatedbailiffs.justice.gov.uk/CertificatedBailiffs/

May I suggest you also contact the Council or CAB to see if they have a Welfare Rights Adviser who can check you get all you are entitled to. I assume you get Single Person Discount since your husband passed away?

PT

As you are on low income and have chronic health issuesI would inform the council and bailiffs that you come under the vulnerable category which renders bailiff action in appropriate, How would they like to be pillioried in the press for their Agent the bailiffs action, for which they are wholly liable, Are the council aware of your health issues? if not inform them and B&S quoting the guidelines they purport to adhere to. I feel your ongoing health problems constitute a disability, and serious illness under the guidelines

Hope kelcou looks in on this one as she is conversant with the vulnerability side of things

I'm sure others will be along to help soon also, but ploddertom is one of the best on here

now those guidelines

Vulnerable situations

• Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about how such situations should be dealt with. The appropriate use of discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance could cover every situation, therefore the agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is potential cause for concern. If necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor iffurther action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to accusations of inappropriate behaviour.
  
• Enforcement agents must withdraw from domestic premises if the only person present is, or appears to be, under the age of 18; they can ask when the debtor will be home - if appropriate.
  
• Enforcement agents must withdraw without making enquiries if the only persons present are children who appear to be under the age of 12.
  
• Wherever possible, enforcement agents should have arrangements in place for rapidly accessing translation services when these are needed, and provide on request information in large print or in Braille for debtors with impaired sight.
  
• Those who might be potentially vulnerable include:
  
  • the elderly;
    
  • people with a disability;
    
  • the seriously ill;
    
  • the recently bereaved;
    
  • single parent families;
    
  • pregnant women;
    
  • unemployed people; and,
    
  • those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.
    

   

Thank you so much, I've been to see the CAB and they were very helpful, do get the single persons discount but waiting to hear about whether entitled to any sort of council tax discount. The difficult here is that I now pay council tax to a different authority and Hfds have made it clear that problems are not theirs, the money is owed to them and they want it back, it's a bit troubling really. The guy who came round this afternoon is definately on the Register of Bailiffs, he's recent, only been on there since 12/11 so guessing he's mad keen, hence the aggressive approach to recovery. It doesn't seem right that he should be charging 98.00, the woman from the council said that its 4 x 24.50 for a 1st visit, but surely as someone has already been round then it cant be a 1st visit?

Also slightly concerned that the initial charges for the visit of 2/11/11 don't seem to follow any of the guidelines that I've seen mentioned in some of the other posts about Bailiffs charges, do you think this is worth pursuing? The fees seem completely random, she certainly didn't have a calculator with her if they're based on percentages of money owed!

She advised me that I would be classed as a vulernable person and not to worry at the 1st visit, just keep paying the weekly payments but that doesn't appear to have worked!

The Levy - my take on what has bee seized is as follows:

3 piece suite - how old is it +

Furniture and furnishings

Where you distrain on furniture and furnishings not considered exempt you should note the following.

Furniture or furnishings containing upholstery cannot be sold unless they comply with the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988. These specify the type of filling to be used and that the fabric should pass the 'cigarette and match' test. The fire safety regulations apply to new and second hand goods.

If a manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer owns furniture and furnishings intended for sale for private use, you may assume that they meet the relevant safety regulations.

Furniture and furnishings in this context include

suites, chairs

beds, headboards, mattresses (remember that beds and bedding are exempt from seizure unless taken from a retailer or manufacturer)

sofabeds, futons, other convertibles

nursery furniture

garden furniture which is suitable for use in the home

pillows, scatter cushions and seat pads

loose and stretch covers for furniture.

You may seize items of upholstered furniture or furnishings if at least one of the following conditions is satisfied

the item bears a label stating that it complies with the relevant safety regulations

you know the item was purchased new on or after 1 March 1993 (in which case it is deemed to have met the safety requirements without the need for a label) or

the furniture was manufactured before 1950, even if re-upholstered since then (in which case it is exempt from the safety regulations).

Pine Wall Unit - if you don't have one then that is easy, I assume the Bailiff did state who the manufacturer is

Beech Drawer Units - no value

19" Sony TV - assume this is an old CRT model +

All electrical goods sold at auction must comply with the Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989, which specify the requirements for electrical equipment for domestic use (that is toasters, kettles and the like, but not office equipment such as fax machines and computers).

The safety regulations apply to new or second hand goods. You should make sure that all mechanical or electrical appliances that you seize are in working order and that your auctioneer is able to have any electrical equipment checked by a qualified electrical engineer before sale.

Televisions, DVDs, Hi-fis, VCRs and so on

If the equipment has a remote control you must ensure you list it separately on the inventory, otherwise you have not seized it and cannot subsequently remove it. Always list the manufacturer’s name, model, colour and serial number.

DVD Player - unless top of the range and reasonably new then this has no value + see above.

Other items - unsure unless you know what they are - DVD's perhaps

Your car - how old? Do you have a Blue Badge? Is your tax paid for through DLA perhaps?

PT

The levy is totally unlawful. Certainly cannot charge multiple fees on the same visit.

3 piece green suite (there is a green sofa but never been any chair) Cannot take, what would you have to sit on

pine wall unit (* don't have one, never had one) **

2 beech draw units (have one elderly unit bought from ebay)

1 laptop computer would have to take hard drive out due to data protection

19" TV Sony

DVD player Sony

Appx 10 packets ???? (writing so bad no idea what this is)**

**

I would ask what these were and where she found these in your home.

Terrible levy and certainly not enough to cover fees, charges and auction costs.

YOU ARE VULNERABLE!! the council should be making arrangements to take this debt back. STOP paying the bailiff company NOW!!! start paying the council using their online payment facility. Email council that this is what you are going to do from now on, pay what you can afford.

The use of bailiffs is the first step for councils to collect money if the bailiffs are unable to do so they hand the case back to the council.(they done this with me) stay off phone to council as they will say you have to deal with the bailiffs and put it in writing mistakes have been made and council are responsible for the bailiffs.if you make any payments do it direct with council no law says you have to deal with the bailiffs.i would suggest you fall into vulnerable and bailiff action should stop.write to council formal complaint

Thank you, the DVD is probably 10+ yrs old and isn't mine but the person who kindly loaned it doesn't really want it back either. I will take your advice and ask what the final item is as the writing is awful, not even possible to make a fair guess. I do not know who this Bailiff is as there is no printed name on any of the documents,there is a signature which is also unreadable. I am scared not to pay the Bailiffs as the woman from the Council was absolutely insistent that they would not take the debt back and she has now made this arrangement for me to send them a cheque every week. I don't mind doing this but it does seem to me that the council are copping out, I am happy to make an arrangement and keep to it as I've been doing since I first contacted them, I've not had a very pleasant experience with the Bailiffs so far.

I am interested about the multiple fees on one visit, the woman from the council assured me that it was in their SLA with the Bailiffs that they could charge multiple fees (one for each individual overdue account) on a single visit, I did ask for a copy of the SLA but she assured me that she was correct. Not sure how to get round her insistence.

It is normal for bailiffs to charge fees for each l/o if the bailiffs can't collect any money they will hand it back to the council national debt line will confirm this I know how you feel I have been there. If bailiffs come knocking ignor them just like you would when phone rings and you don't know the number all they will do is push another bit of paper through the door

 

I am interested about the multiple fees on one visit, the woman from the council assured me that it was in their SLA with the Bailiffs that they could charge multiple fees (one for each individual overdue account) on a single visit, I did ask for a copy of the SLA but she assured me that she was correct. Not sure how to get round her insistence.

The bailiff companies cannot decide what they can and cannot charge, then dictate to the council, these have been set out in legislation, read below.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/45/made

Distress

45.—(1) Where a liability order has been made, the authority which applied for the order may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the goods of the debtor against whom the order was made.

(2) The appropriate amount for the purposes of paragraph (1) is the aggregate of—

(a)an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made, and

(b)a sum determined in accordance with Schedule 5 in respect of charges connected with the distress.

Thank you very much, from what everyone has said it is important to get the council to take the debt back, and your suggestion of staying off the phone (30mins this afternoon alone) is a good one. It seems totally unreasonable that they think that it is too much trouble to manage their own debts, she said this afternoon that it was all very well me asking them to take back the debt but what would happen if everybody did that, they wouldn't be able to cope. Didn't really know what to say to this! I don't know where I stand legally with dealing with the council and not the Bailiffs but you also suggest that they cannot force me to deal with the Bailiffs so I will write to the Council direct. Thanks again

Sorry to be a bit thick but does this mean that they can levy the charges they have instead of First visit fees, these levy fees are so very much higher than the 24.50 for each overdue case. Is this why the man who called today charged 4 x 24.50 for a first visit fee or can each bailiff charge a first visit the first time they visit? The charges on the first visit seem very high and not to follow any particular pattern. The charges today for a First Visit seem wrong too, so from what you say Herefordshire cannot change what is already laid down in statute, even in their SLA with B&S. Thank you very much

Of course you could just pay the Council direct using online banking, Council website or automated phone although you may have to budget for lawful fees as well. There is no law that says you have to deal with or speak to a Bailiff. Even though they may have gained peaceful entry previously this does not give them the right to come in again and you may refuse them. They may utter all sorts of threats and abuse but can do none of it.

In your original post you allude to the fact the Bailiff thought it a poor levy, so in reality they have only made a levy to garner fees for themselves. You need to up a level with the Council and ask to speak to the Head of Revenues for example. Normally I would also say to contact your Councillor(s) but appreciate you have now moved, however that doesn't mean to say you cannot take this up with the Leader of the Council and his elected opposite number. The Council so far are behaving disgracefully as they clearly are aware of your condition.

PT

If they have 5 LO's then they must be treated as one. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?315154-CAG-Newsletter.-Bailiff-tactics-!!!

Also:

Local Government Ombudsmanicon’s Report:

Local Authority: Rossendale Borough Council

Bailiff Company: Equita Ltd

Date: 15th December 2010

Approximately 25% of complaints to the Local Government Ombudsmanicon are resolved though a “local settlement”. This is where an “agreement” is reached between the LGO and the relevant Local Authority and nearly always, is on the basis that the local authority agrees to the recommendation of the Ombudsmanicon by agreeing to change the practice that had been the subject of the complaint to the LGO.

Although Local Settlements made by the LGO are not legally binding, it is important to be aware that according to the LGO, 99% of all “local settlements” are complied with in full.

For the above reason, “Local settlements” do not result in a public report or a formal finding of maladministration. Accordingly, a copy will not be made available on the LGO website.

On 15th December 2010 the LGO provided their final written report regarding a complaint made to them concerning Rossendale Borough Council and their agent; Equita Ltd. This particular complaint resulted in a “local settlement” and as mentioned above, a public report is not published.

I have a copy of the full report and permission from the complainant (Mr H) to provide the following details. Please note that the underlining is not from the LGO report.

The Complaint by Mr H concerns the following:

· Charging “multiple” fees to Mr H’s account for enforcing two Liability Orders

· Charging for visits that Mr H disputes ever took place

· Levying upon a vehicle that did not belong to Mr H and failing to provide a Notice of Seizure.

Paragraph 21 of the Ombudsman’s report states:

· “I am also concerned that there are fees charged to both of Mr H’s accounts in relation to one visit on 2nd July 2009. Although there were two Liability Orders in place, I do not consider it reasonable to charge twice for one physical visit”

Paragraph 23 states:

Thirdly, I am concerned that the bailiffs levied on a vehicle parked in the street which did not belong to Mr H. The bailiffs are required to leave an inventory of the goods seized with the customer at the time of the levy and the Council confirmed that the bailiffs will check the ownership of a vehicle with the DVLA before seizing it.

Legally, bailiffs can distrain on goods in a public place (in this case a vehicle parked in the street) if they have reasonable cause to believe that the goods belong to the debtor and are not needed for the debtor's work.

I do not consider the fact that a vehicle is parked in the street outside someone's home to be sufficient evidence of the bailiff to have reasonable cause to believe the vehicle is owed by the occupier of the house. It is recognised that there is some onus on the customer to advise the bailiffs if the vehicle listed on the inventory does not belong to them. However there is also some onus on the bailiffs to take reasonable steps to check the vehicle's ownership.

Paragraph 24:

I have consulted the Ombudsman and it is her view that although contacting the DVLA would be the most effective way to check ownership of the vehicle, she would accept other documented or supporting evidence such as the bailiff having witnessed the customer using the vehicle regularly

Paragraph 25:

There is no evidence to show that letters were left with Mr H on 4th and 12th June 2008 and so I consider that Mr H should not have been charged for these visits.

Paragraph 26:

To remedy this injustice it is recommended that the bailiff’s charges of these dates are removed from Mr H's account.

Paragraph 27:

I have additional concerns about the way this case was handled by the bailiffs. There is no evidence that an inventory was left with Mr H when the levy was made on a vehicle. In addition, the vehicle levied against was not his and the notes recorded by the bailiff are insufficient to show when visits were actually made what information was left with the customer.

Paragraph 29:

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2 July 2008.

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.

Paragraph 30:

The vehicle levied on does not belong to Mr H and he was not required to pay the costs associated with the levy visit.

Paragraph 34:

I remain of the view that bailiffs should make reasonable enquiries to establish the ownership of a vehicle before levying against it.

The person receiving the levy must accept some responsibility for advising the council or bailiff if the vehicle levied upon does not belong to them.

Paragraph 42:

The council has stated that a levy form was supplied. The Council has never produced a copy of the levy inventory.

The Council's complaint response to Mr H advised that the bailiff has not retained a copy of the levy form. Surely this document is essential if the bailiff were ever to proceed to seizing a vehicle? Mr H was not aware of what had been levied against until he received the Council's response to his complaint which commented on a levy having taken place, in relation to the silver Audi. At this point he was able to advise the Council we did not own such a car. I therefore remain of the view that there is no evidence of the levy inventory was left at the property.

Paragraph 53:

In addition, although the bailiff may have two liability orders, I consider it unreasonable that two charges were made in relation to one visit, as happened on 2nd July 2008.

It is recommended that the council ensures that such double charging does not happen in future.

Paragraph 54:

The council has accepted the recommendations and has agreed to apologise to Mr H for any procedural errors the bailiffs have made. I consider this a satisfactory way to resolve this complaint and so I have discontinued the investigation and closed the complaint.

XXXX

Investigator, on behalf of the Ombudsman

They may and try to argue this does not apply to them as it is a different Council & Bailiff firm, it does, it's just both Bailiffs & Councils are deluded and haven't a clue. I can probably guarantee the Council hasn't a clue and will refer everything back to the Bailiffs for comment. The more they tie themselves up in knots the better it is for you.

PT

Normally the most they can charge 42.50 for each l/o the levy they have would not clear the debt now they do have a levy they may try to charge a van fee but as before if you pay council direct they won't get any money

I had the van turn up 5 times must of cost them with fuel rol

Case was handed back and no fees added on

Interestingly I quoted this particular case to the woman at the Council this afternoon after she had told me that their SLA allowed the Bailiffs to charge fees for each case even though they were all dealt with in one visit, in the case of this afternoon, one visit where I wasn;t even here! She said that she knew nothing about that and that they had a SLA with the CAB and the CAB would not have told me that the Bailiffs could not make these charges. I pointed out that the information had come from the CAG (as in G for Golf not B for Bravo) she said it didn't matter, they could still charge for all of them individually at one visit. I had begun to lose the will to live again at that point.

Normally the most they can charge 42.50 for each l/o the levy they have would not clear the debt now they do have a levy they may try to charge a van fee but as before if you pay council direct they won't get any money

I had the van turn up 5 times must of cost them with fuel rol

Case was handed back and no fees added on

They can charge

£24.50 - 1st visit where no levy was made

£18.00 - 2nd visit where no levy was made

A levy fee is made up of the % of the debt owed.

A van fee cannot be charged until a levy has been made.

No such thing as a waiting fee.

H head fee cannot be charged unless items have been removed for sale. This is £24.50.

Thank you very much, think it is important to keep making my payments to HfdsCC weekly as I have been doing and not revert back to the cheque payments to the Bailiff. I'm guessing with my meagre list of possessions they didn't send him out with a van, you could probably just pick up the Yaris under your arm if you were a big Bailiff and everything else would fit on the front seat of a car! Thank you,

Thank you, so the first visits'fees are made up of percentages of the debt, those are shown in my initial post, they don't look quite right to me but would need to sit down with a calculator to be sure, the female Bailiff did not sit down with a calculator so she must have either worked them all out beforehand or else is guessing as all the figures are rounded. Also she has indeed charged £24.50 for a Head H fee on that first visit when nothing was removed. The visit must have just been designed to produce fees for her (she did say at the time that she had an awful job which surprised me) rather than actually try to resolve the situation. So the 4 x 24.50 for today is correct as this was his first visit where no levy was made. However, it should have been obvious from the list of goods that there was no way they would go anywhere near paying the debt off which much mean something? Like should they have come out at all, I was still making regular payments to the Council and so had not breached my repayment agreement. Is this right? God this is a minefield.