Again, I'd appreciate the assistance if you wouldn't mind!

Well, it seems some feathers have been ruffled, and the complaint to the council finally got some action. Got a reply immediately from the Council telling us they were looking in to it, and they'd be in touch. Just got 2 letters from Phoenix - one by normal mail, and one by 9AM guaranteed next day special delivery! The first one - phoenix-20111124-letter1.pdf - is an "if you want all personal data, send £10, but here's the statement we have to give you", with the information in the statement. The second - phoenix-20111124-letter2.pdf - is a retort from Phoenix. We have no communications on 1st, 9th, 21st and 30th April which he is pointing out on the first page. I will see if there's a such letter that was sent out when the arrangement was made re the £10 broken arrangement fee - is it possible that's a binding agreement? I've been unable to locate such a document. Not sure what to make of the comments about the 50p processing fees. Regarding the comment about the bailiff "inadvertently entered the figures £285.50 manually and this was incorrect the figure had he acted would have been £259.50" - £259.50 being £140 above the amount currently due according to them - which doesn't seem to quite add up. Judging by their £120 van fee (if it was a second visit after a walking possession if he'd had one), where has the extra £20 come from? This seems to nicely gloss over the "error" made by the bailiff, which I think is complete rubbish. They also comment about the querying or offering settlement on the debt - it was queried as mentioned earlier in this thread as soon as I became aware of it and consulted with the people on here. "Nobody was attempting to defraud you, or deceive or cheat you in any way" - sounded like the bailiff who turned up was attempting to do just that, just wish I'd recorded it now, but my phone was on the blink. I'm also curious as to why "You, or rather a person identifying themselves as your friend, have since contacted our office and they were advised to deal with the bailiff as they in their conversation stated quite categorically you would not be paying the debt" - where at any point in the documentation was this stated? I suspect they're watching this thread themselves. (For the record, while I've helped her get the documentation she needs together to sort this out, and get the assistance we need to make sure she pays the fair legal amount, as I've said all along, but she's sent all the documentation off herself.) I'd appreciate any feedback anyone has, I'm not sure exactly where to take this now.

Okay, here's the latest version - lettertocouncilceo-phoenix-v2.pdf - with the assistance provided by wonkeydonkey. Seems to look pretty reasonable, and I've incorporated a few things of my own, hopefully it'll be quite effective. If anyone has any feedback before this goes in the post to the council later, I'd appreciate it. Once we get some feedback from the council, I'll post up here with the response.

It was a different bailiff who visited on the October occasions, it was him who supplied me with the information that the first chap had visited and who he was.

I just checked - he was on the certified list on 15/06/2009 to 14/06/2011.

I'd really appreciate that if you could! I'm going to make the call re Robert Clegg being on the Register when I get chance at work too.

Done some refinements to the document - the latest version is here, which I think pretty much nails it on the dot - lettertocouncilceo-phoenix.pdf - and it'll get sent today. Any other feedback is appreciated. Thanks simonf1975 for the notes you sent through, I've used them to rework the wording on the document a bit

Sorry about that, fixed up some of the wording. Hopefully this one will be suitable to send up! Edit: Updated the document, see below.

Do to minor PC issues, I've only just got the letter composed for the council. Feedback requested before I send it! I think I've got everything in it that's required, hopefully I've got the wording right too. Edit: Wording isn't quite right, new version to follow.

For the record, I've attached the letter (phoenix5.pdf) that Phoenix sent out. Next stop: formal complaint to the local councillor, council and Phoenix, I think. Will upload it for review once it's written.

Well, Phoenix still haven't come back with a breakdown, just a letter saying that the arrangements have been broken and attempts to deal with it have been ignored or non-fruitful, and a demand for the balance (of £109.50, the same that the council claimed was remaining on the account/liability order) within 7 days. Is it worth paying this to get the thing cleared, or should we be pushing for the full breakdown and refunds of the card fees? I've just started to put together a formal complaint to send to the council executive and the local councillor, but could do with a bit of clarification as to whether it's worth getting this paid off and out of the way now. I'll get a scan of the letter later when I get hold of it, so there's a copy up to view. Edit: Apparently they're asking for £119.50, not £109.50 - at a guess their £10 "broken arrangement fee". After looking over the initial charges / payments made to the council, the initial £24.50 + £18 visit fees were immediately taken out before the council received anything, so no getting any of that back, so it looks like the only thing they've slapped on now is their £10 "broken arrangement fee", which upon further reading isn't allowed. The 4x 50p in card fees, plus another 50p for the final settlement - I can't tell if they're allowed or not, as there seems to be conflicting information reading up on here. But that £10 is definitely getting disputed.

Well, I just had an encounter and a discussion with the bailiff in question. the main fees are to do with a £10 broken arrangement fee (from when she missed the payment in September), an attendance fee of £120 (he turned up in a small van today and claimed that justified said charge, which I told him I was disputing), if we sorted it there and then they wouldn't charge a walking possession fee and another fee which i can't remember for certain, think it was a visit fee or something similar (£32, £12 respectively) if she wanted to reinstate a payment plan (to which I pointed out he can't actually do that unless he gains peaceful entry to the properly, which he agreed with). He also said there were 2 previous visits by a bailiff (non-existant, no paperwork through the door, no sign of a visit) on 23rd and 29th of March. He said he could give me a breakdown, but it'd just be the same as the above scribbled on a sheet, to which I said fair enough, we'll get it from the office. He then said he's going to drop this particular case and defer it back to the head office, and they should be somewhat more co-operative then than when it's out with a bailiff. To give him a little credit, he didn't seem aggressive or pushy, although he did seem to backtrack and seem a bit less sure of his footing when I pointed out the lack of legality behind his charges. So far, so good really, he won't be returning, and now the onus is on Phoenix to come back with the requested breakdown. I'm guessing most of the above charges aren't actually valid.

Just got this from Chrome when I logged in... Warning: Something's Not Right Here! www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk contains content from llopitaka.orge.pl, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site. Google has found that malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed. If you've visited this site in the past or you trust this site, it's possible that it has just recently been compromised by a hacker. You should not proceed. Why not try again tomorrow or go somewhere else? We have already notified llopitaka.orge.pl that we found malware on the site. For more about the problems found on llopitaka.orge.pl, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page. Dodgy include somewhere, maybe a bad iframe / advert?

Sending this back today - phoenix4-reply.pdf - seems to be succinct and to the point. Essentially the first letter with the following paragraph: "With regard to the letter received today (20th October 2011), I re-iterate the below, which you are legally obliged to provide, and is not a Subject Access Request. It is a request for a breakdown of your charges, not a request for personal information." Is it worth pointing out the original request was sent on the 13th, and they now have 3 days to provide the information in question? I suspect they'll try to continue to stall otherwise. Edit: Thinking of going with the following text at the top: Seem reasonable enough?

Well, we just had an entirely unproductive session with the council. They spoke to their recoveries department, who confirmed the 109.50 owed to them, but apparently had no access to retrieve the breakdown, although we did get the name of the recoveries manager. They kept trying to push us back to Phoenix to find out what their costs are, but to put a complaint in writing if we were still unhappy to said recoveries manager. She didn't seem to understand at all that the point I was trying to make was that it was now the council's responsibility to deal with them and get the breakdown. Her suggestion was to actually call said bailiff and get the breakdown (as mentioned on the above document), which seems inadvisable - the golden rule from what I remember is to keep everything in writing. She spoke to their recoveries department to ask if they could log in and find out exactly what the breakdown was, but I got the same reply. They also re-iterated that they wouldn't accept payment just of the 109.50 to discharge the liability order, they'd want the whole lot that the bailiff company was requesting, before they'd clear the account. I'm guessing the next stop is to write a much more strongly worded letter to Phoenix, and getting on the phone to the local councillors to deal with the lack of understanding at the council? This is getting extremely frustrating. Edit: They've just replied again to the mail sent to them - this just arrived in the mail which is Phoenix saying "We'll happily give you all the information we have on you in return for an SAR and £10" - they're still missing the point here that they have to provide said breakdown... either that, or they're trying to extort even more money out, or just plain can't read. Original letter sent to Phoenix - phoenix3-reply.pdf Reply from Phoenix suggesting SAR request - phoenix4.pdf