A Liability Order is not affected by the Limitations Act. However, a very significant ruling from the Valuation Office is proving very useful at this present time but given that you LO was only a year ago this ruling would not assist you at all. Bailiff companies return Liability Order to local authorities all the time in cases where there is no future likelihood of recovery. As i said earlier, you really do need to speak with the local authority (asap).

I am so sorry. I read your post incorrectly. I realise now that you were offering to pay the debt at £30 per WEEK. I thought that you had said £30 monthly. My mistake. I will read the posts again. PS: With disability it is so important to reapply. Also, if you call DWP today you will have quite a few weeks to complete the forms but if the award is in your favour....it will be backdated to the date on which you apply. I have loads of these forms and they are not easy to complete. the most important point that should be made about the completion is that you need to provide details of how the condition affects the person on his BAD DAYS.

A Liability Order has been obtained and the 'effect' of this is that you are now legally obliged to pay the amount stated on the Liability Order together with the bailiff fees (either £75 if payment made during the 'Compliance Stage' or an additional fee of £235 if a personal visit is made to the property. Under the new regulations that came into effect on 6th April the position now is that form ANY payment made (whether to the council OR the bailiff company) the Compliance Fee of £75 is deducted at source. The balance of payment is then calculated on a 'pro rata' basis with approx 70% of the payment going towards the debt to the council and 30% towards the remaining bailiff fees of £235. There is a possibility of 'setting aside' a Liability Order. This is a rare procedure and the chances of success even rarer. I would strongly suggest that you call the council TODAY and if an error has been made, an amendment can be made. This is for the local authority to address. The position of the bailiff is simply that they are 'commanded' to enforce the warrant/liability order.

Are you in receipt of any disability payments?

Collectica need to be made aware of the 'vulnerability' and hopefully they will agree to refund the 'enforcement fee' of £235. Have you managed to make enquiries as to why correspondence had not been received?

There appears to be some confusion here. There is no procedure in place at the Magistrates Court that provides for them to write a letter to advise that the debt has been passed to an enforcement company (in this case Collectica Ltd). The only letter that the court can send is called a Further Steps Notice which is effectively a notice of default and advising the debtor (in this case your wife) that if payment is not made within a specified period (10 working days) that the court can take ONE OR MORE of the 'further steps' listed. One of this 'steps' is to authorise a 'Warrant of Control' to be sent to a firm of bailiffs and additional fees of up to £310 will become payable. I am therefore concerned as to why such a letter would have been sent. Also, the court need to be asked WHY they failed to send a Further Steps Notice. Of further concern is that when the new regulations were imposed on 6th April there is a legal requirement to send a Notice of Enforcement to he debtor giving a further period to pay BEFORE a personal visit is made. Before going any further can you check whether your address is correctly recorded as this could explain why mail items had not been received. Secondly...and most importantly, if evidence can be provided of 'vulnerability' all enforcement companies are encouraged to 'rewind' the account back to the Compliance Stage. This will mean that the enforcement fee of £235 should be removed. The Compliance fee of £75 will however remain. The important word here is 'evidence'. Given what you have written above I am more than satisfied that 'vulnerability' can be established. I also assume that yur son has been awarded DLA. Can you past back asap as it would seem that Collectica Ltd need to be advised of the 'vulnerability' as soon as possible. Advice can be given as to how this can be done. PS: I notice the mention of IVA. Are you under an IVA yourself? Is the IVA a joint one.

Lolly, I am sorry if the following appears harsh but given the popularity of this forum it is only right to provide accurate advice. The starting point here is that the arrears to the council are £883 and this represents this years council tax bill (2014-15). Once a Liability Order is issued you lose the right to pay the debt by direct debit and worse still...the entire amount for the whole year (to April 2015) becomes due. The bailiff companies are under NO obligation whatsoever to accept a payment proposal but they are certainly encouraged to do so. However, they will need to abide by the relevant contracts that they have with the local authority. Many contracts that I have seen state that payment arrangements should be accepted over a period of three month and in exceptional cases only ...6 months. Having calculated the proposal that Swift Credit Services have offered to accept, it is sadly the fact that the repayment proposal appears to be very generous and allows for you to repay the debt over 9 monthly payments. In fact, by accepting payment at the rate of £130 per month they are allowing you the remainder of the council tax year to clear the debt!! Such a payment arrangment is rarely available to debtors. With an £800 debt to the council the monthly payments that you would have needed to pay to the council would have been approx £80 per month. Offering a sum of £30 per month would mean that the debt would not be repaid for over three and a half years. HOWEVER, if you are able to provide evidence of 'vulnerability' all bailiff companies are encouraged to remove the enforcement fee of £235 and to "rewind" the account back to the 'Compliance Stage' . This will mean that they will remove the enforcement fee (of £235). It is therefore important to see whether 'vulnerability' can be established. As an example: Are you single, married or divorced Are you or your partner working? Are you in receipt of any benefits? Do you own a property or is the property privately rented? Is the property rented through the local authority? Do you have a car? Most items in the property are now exempt so the car is the main asset.

There is an expert on the admin team with specialist knowledge of the regulations in Scotland (which as you will know are very much different from those in the UK). I have sent a message to her so hopefully she will assist you very soon.

What is extremely worrying is that if this document had it's origins at a solicitors practice then questions should be raised with the relevant regulatory body as a Formal Complaint about the firm of solicitors given that only a court can decide whether or not the debtor is guilty of an offence!!! Furthermore, on what legally authority can the writer of this notice judge that the debtor can be 'excused' or that the debtor had 'legal authority' (to cut off a wheel clamp).

The case is one that is unreported in 'court records' and was one of many similar cases before the Protection of Freedoms Act prohibited private clamping companies from apply an immobilisation device to a vehicle when parked on private ground (such as supermarket car park, petrol service stations etc). The only reference to the case of R v Ali (Bromley Magistrates Court) is from a newspaper article (a copy of which I have copied below) http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/89..._court_battle/ A PROPERTY developer who fought back against a wheel clamper by cutting a clamp off a workmate’s van has been found not guilty of criminal damage and common assault. Jengiz Ali admitted using an angle grinder to cut the clamp off the vehicle at the back of the old Woolworths shop in Chatsworth Parade, Queensway, Petts Wood, during a dispute between clampers and builders. He also admitted pushing the clamper who had put the device on the white Renault van during the incident on November 4 last year. But on Monday (April 18) Bromley Magistrates’ Court heard the signage about clamping in the area was unclear and Mr Ali had cut off the clamp after asking for it to be removed because he believed it had been unlawfully put on. The 45-year-old told the court he thought the clamping was unlawful because he thought when he bought the old Woolworths plot, he had also bought the service road behind. And he told the court he had pushed the clamper away because he did not want him to be harmed when he was using the grinder. Mr Ali’s solicitor Mike Arnsby also said they did not believe there was a contract between the clampers London Parking Services and Smartypants, the dry cleaner which actually owns the stretch of service road where the van was parked Finding Mr Ali not guilty of both charges, the chairwoman of the bench Lynne Ramsay said: “We do not find the criminal damage proved as Mr Ali believed he was removing an unlawful clamp on a private road. “Mr Ali thought he was acting reasonably as he did not want Mr Dawson [the clamper] to be harmed by his actions. “We find Mr Ali not guilty of criminal damage or common assault.” Speaking after the verdict Mr Ali, of Towncourt Lane, Petts Wood, said: “I’m just delighted. “I do not think they had any right to clamp the vehicle and I think they were trying it on. “If they had a contract with the drycleaners they would have produced it.” END PS: It should be made VERY CLEAR that this case has nothing at all to do with bailiffs and was at the time only applicable to private clampers (which thankfully were banned under PoFA). This case has no relevance whatsoever today.

This morning I received an enquiry from the Metropolitan Police about the legal case of R v Ali (Bromley Magistrates Court) 2011. It would seem that a gentlemen had attended a police station in London last Friday and personally delivered a car clamp that he had removed from his vehicle following a bailiff visit earlier that morning. He also hand delivered a notice to the police to outline the reason why he had removed the clamp. The notice left was one that I had featured a copy of on another thread a while ago (details later). Given that the new regulations that were imposed on 6th April specifically state that removal of a wheel clamp without lawful authority is a criminal offence the debtor was arrested and bailed. During questioning the debtor provided another notice to the police (which I will post up later). The document (which appeared to have been obtained from the internet) is extremely worrying as it states the following: DO NOT SHOW THIS DOCUMENT TO A PROSECUTOR, IT CAN BE SHOWN TO YOUR DEFENCE SOLICITOR TO ASSIST IN PRESENTING YOUR DEFENCE TO A COURT. You have been charged with criminal damage under section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 for cutting off a padlock to release a wheel clamp which had been fixed to your own vehicle by a bailiff for an unpaid debt e.g. A Penalty Charge Notice. YOU ARE NOT GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE Section 1 of the CDA1971 says a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another. In your case, you are excused. You had lawful authority to cut off the padlock[/u][/color] to remove the wheel clamp from your vehicle. This was the finding in the case of R. v Ali Bromley Magistrates Court [2011] on April 18 2011. The accused vehicle had been wheel clamped and was charged with Criminal Damage after he cut it off. The court decided a person removing an illegal clamp is not guilty of criminal damage because this method of distraining goods is not compliant with traffic debt enforcement regulations and procedures. This means you are a victim of unlawful enforcement action. PS: The Met Police officer said that the only reference that they could find to the case of R v Ali was that of a Court of Appeal case from 1995 regarding an appellant who had become involved in drug dealing and owed a large sum of money to his supplier. The supplier threatened that he would be killed unless he robbed a bank. Clearly this case was not the one referred to in the notice.

Resend the forms straight away !!! I assume the copies of the TE7 & TE9 will be on your computer. You may want to check the TE7 again before sending to ensure that you have provided a GOOD reason for sending the forms late. You need to explain the changes of address and detail the reason for updating DVLA date. Any questions, please post back. PS: A lot of OTT's are rejected as the REASON has not been outlined. There is no purpose in sending the forms if they are going to be rejected in a few weeks. Make sure that they are completed correct first time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728458/The-bailiffs-using-spy-cameras-snatch-cars-street-minor-traffic-fines.html I have made reference a number of times on the main forum that I responded personally to the joint Consultation paper regarding ANPR and CCTV issued earlier this year. We do know that following the Consultation major changes are to be imposed regarding CCTV and the present position is that with regards to the use of ANPR for enforcement of an unpaid road traffic debt we are waiting for more news. I am passionately against the use of ANPR and have been a major critic for a very long time. There is a error in the story in the second sentence. The lady confirmed in the article that she had paid Equita over the telephone and then attended to auctioneers premises (General Auctions) to collect her car. In the 2nd sentence she incorrectly stated that she attended the auction premises to" "buy back my car from an auctioneer who had, in turn, purchased it from bailiffs".

Call TEC in the morning and please do post back. The enforcement should be on hold for approx a further 4 weeks. It is important to make use of this time to request evidence of the personal visit etc.

I would suggest that you call TEC first thing in the morning. They open at 8.30 am. I suspect that the visit on the 15th August had crossed with TEC advising the local authority to cease enforcement.

Thank you H/W. I updated the information regarding Out of Time applications in the past year. The correct position is that if a TE7 & TE9 is submitted to TEC by 4pm the application will be processed by TEC by the end of day. TEC will then send an email to the local authority which should be received by the following day (normally mid morning). The local authority are under a legal obligation to advise the relevant bailiff company to cease all enforcement until the decision has been made by the local authority as to whether or not the vehicle owner has provided a good enough reason why they are submitting the witness statement late. In this particular case, the OTT had been filed shortly before 4pm on Thursday 14th August. The local authority would have received confirmation of the OTT by mid morning on Friday 15th August. Equita should have received notification some time after midday on the Friday 15th August.

Little Hen, You say that you found details on the web for stopping the bailiffs and details about TEC and that your understanding was that if the forms were submitted before 4pm that they would be processed on the same day so that enforcement would cease immediately pending investigation. You submitted your TE7 & TE9 at 15.40 on 14th August (Thursday). Can you post back to let us know whether this information was provided to you by the Traffic Enforcement Centre website?

. . As many regulars are here are aware I was outraged to read that the regulations provided the 'Interpleader' provision and I wrote a detailed article for CCR Public Sector to outline my serious concerns. I was delighted to find shortly after my article (and the equally lengthly thread on here) that the government had made substantial changes to this provision. I still not happy with large parts of the new regulations (CPR 85) but I am aware that the Ministry of Justice are monitoring such applications to ascertain how courts will deal with such applications and time will tell whether the procedure works as intended. The matter of 'protection' has been in the High Court regulations for many years and has been modified into the new regs. I DONT like the provision. However, there is a reason for the clause being in the regulations: When either application is made (third party claims, claims that 'exempt' goods have been taken or claims that the excessive goods have been taken etc) the EA must send a copy of the claim (which is merely a letter) to the creditor seeking their view on whether to accept or reject the claim. The decision is made by the creditor. Therefore, if the court decide that the CREDITOR was wrong, then the court may 'make any order that it wishes'. This could include ordering the LA to repay costs etc, etc. It must be stressed that the court will only consider ordering the claimant to pay an amount into court in cases of 'Third Party' claims. This provision is NOT applicable for any other claims.

A short while ago Kari responded on the other website. She has confirmed that she did initially contact 'Fair Parking' and it was suggested that as her query related to a court fine (and not a parking ticket) that she may wish to speak with me. Looking back at my email correspondence with Kari on 10th July 2013 It would seem that when Kari advised the website owner that she had spoken with me he (the website owner) "let rip with negativity about you"..."saying that you were "in league with Marston's as a debt counsellor and took 'kick backs from them for getting debtors to cough up". As many on here will know, the website owner has made the very same serious accusations against me on a frequent basis for a very long time indeed. Such comments are aimed at damaging my good name. They are without any foundation at all and there is not a single shred of evidence to substantiate such allegations. On the same day (10th July 2013) Kari stated to me the following: "As we know, HC has illusions of grandeur and writes many things in cyberland...most of which are untrue" and: "It is clear to me that HC would love my case to orbit so that he can jump on the proverbial bandwagon in search of Kudos and notoriety" Kari also stated that her 'Form 4' case was "controlled" by her, "brought" by her and "orchestrated" by her. I believe this was the case. I hope that the posts will now discontinue as everyone involved has now managed to outline the true position. I certainly have nothing further to add.

. Thank you so much for your kind words. Quite a few people on the forum had been taken into my confidence with details of my illness a few months ago and I should hopefully be able to return to full time working soon. Presently, I am only working for short periods. Thank you also to everyone who has emailed and sent PM's. I am humbled by the messages.

. You are absolutely right about stress. Christie's hospital has an excellent record as a leading cancer treatment centre. Anyone with such a condition should avoid any stressful situations. I should know. Having only just completed an incredibly gruelling seven week daily treatment myself I am well aware of the effect that stress can have on you both during the treatment and during the very long recovery period afterwards.

. It is a shame that twice now you have failed to read my post number 7. This is now the 2nd time that I am having to reply to you. For the avoidance of doubt, this is what I said in my post number 7. Please do not try to provoke controversy where none exists on this point: Before making such a statement I would have thought that you had properly read all posts by me. If so, you must surely have seen my post number 7 where I stated the following: As I have said above....and am happy to repeat once again, if she has secured a judgment against an enforcement company then well done to her...and her alone.

I hope this to be my last post on the thread. It is extremely sad to read the comments from 'Kari'. They are not only completely at odds with her conversations with me last July but far more seriously; there are a lot of discrepancies when reading the contents of her emails to me and her post on the other website. My personal opinion. The website in question deliberately titled their thread to inflame the situation and to once again focus attention on their three 'obsessions': One...Consumer Action Group Two...Marston Group Three...'Tomtubby' The final comment that I would like to make is this: I spoke with 'Kari' for 90 minutes last July. In that conversation I repeatedly asked her whether she had taken advice from either of the two websites, whether she had ever spoken with or corresponded with the site owner and whether the site owner had assisted her in ANY way with her 'Form 4 Complaint' or her disagreement with Marston Group. She categorically denied any links or associations whatsoever. A day or so later she apologised for not being truthful. Further in her email she stated that it was not until the website owner had 'rocked up at court' that she had ever had any association with him !!! She later apologised to me for this untrue statement. It is a shame that she had not visited this forum when her car had been clamped. If she had of done so she would have been asked whether she could provide evidence that she had previously paid the fine to the court. A simple check of her bank statement would have provided an instant answer. If the cheque had not been cashed (which she now confirms as being the position) the advice that she would have received here would be to offer to make payment to Marston Group straight away in order to avoid her vehicle being sold. She would have been advised that she would face extreme difficulty arguing that her vehicle was a 'tool of the trade' and for 'her use personally' given that she does not have a driving licence (as now confirmed by her and known to me since my conversation with her last July). She would have been advised that as the car was not for 'her use personally' it would be difficult (if not impossible) to argue that the car being 'sign written' would make it exempt. It would not. Most importantly, if she had stated on this forum that she was suffering from ill health and was able to provide evidence, then almost certainly this would have been picked up by one of the posters on here. If I had read her posts I would have offered immediately to pass her details to one of the helpful Client Services team representatives at Marston Group. As in almost all similar cases, I would have asked one of the site team to contact her. Very rarely do I use PM facilities. I am certain that her car would not have been sold and she would have been given the option to make payment to Marston's . Any complaint that she had regarding the actions of the bailiff would have been dealt with without the need for court action. As I have stated above, I hope this to be my last post on this thread. I am grateful for being allowed to point out the truth. Thank you.

. Thank you CB for providing this information.

The reality is that under the new regulations the enforcement agent has far more responsibility than ever before to ensure that goods taken 'into control' are owned by the debtor. The regulations are very specific on this. Goods must be goods of the debtor. The position with motor vehicles has changed significantly in the past 4-5 years with more vehicles than ever being purchased through some sort of 'finance' deal. This has sent sales surging and has reignited Britain's car industry. The types of deals are like nothing before. Borrowing is at close to zero interest rate with five year warranties as standard. The figures are simply staggering. Three-quarters of all new cars are bought with credit and most of them under 'PCP' plans. This has replaced hire purchase. These vehicles of course cannot be taken. Where a problem will arise is that there is little protection for small business owners given the low 'exemption' figure of £1,350. Last week alone I had enquiries from three new owners of vehicles who had been subject to bailiff visits. In each case they were able to provide EVIDENCE that they had properly acquired the vehicles and the matter was concluded.