If you pay the council directly, you should only pay the amount shown on the liability order. The bailiffs will want their fees, but as Fairplay said they are unlikely to chase you to court for them.

The advice you have already read remains. Don't pay anything and ignore all correspondence. Private land is private land whether it is a car park or a private estate.

It seems your council is wrong and the bailiff is doing what they do best: lying. I have yet to see stated anywhere that a bailiff can take some tools of the trade and leave others. Of course, being open-minded, I am still awaiting Kermit's reply with proof that we are all wrong..............

As you are a single parent on benefit, you are classed as vulnerable. Write to the council explaining that you are in a vulnerable group and request that they call off the bailiffs and that you pay the council instead.

My advice would be to write to the council, enclosing a copy of your letter and the bailiff's reply. Tell the council that as the bailiff has added illegal fees and will not accept your reasonable and realistic offer of payment, you will now be paying the council direct. Enclose your first payment with the letter. Send by registered post or take it to the council office. The council must legally accept your payments (even if they say otherwise). Ask the council to withdraw the bailiff. If they don't, you will most likely still get visits and letters from the bailiff, but stand firm, don't let them in. Continue to pay the council. Eventually the bailiff will have no choice but to return the account. Once you have paid in full, the liability order is satisfied and the bailiff can no longer enforce it. They are entitled to their fees £24.50 and £18.00, but they cannot use the liability order to enforce them.

Ah, Kermit. I'm pleased to see that you agree with me that the bailiffs, in this case, are indeed parasites!

I think Tonycee has asked a valid question. Most of us on here do know what powers you have when collecting council tax and have advised the OP accordingly. When you come on here and imply you have other powers, naturally we are intrigued. So, please, do tell us...........

I don't think so. This forum is very effectively moderated in my opinion. If you have a problem with a particular person's post, you have the option to report it and the CAG staff will moderate it if they feel it is necessary!! Bear in mind that Fairplay was not calling YOU a name, but the bailiffs in this particular thread: personal insults are not allowed.... You have chosen a career which most people despise. Many posters on here with very good reason. A large number of bailiffs do deserve to be called **** (I can think of a lot worse). As for powerless, in this case Fairplay is correct. As long as the debtor refuses tha bailiff entry and keeps the doors and windows locked (and any car out of sight!) what else can they do except threat and bluster, then pass it back to the council?, i.e powerless.....

You may well speak from experience, but that does not necessarily mean you have acted within the law! Please provide details of the law which you consider allows you to remove ANY tools of the trade. I have looked very hard and cannot find it. As Tonycee says, I'm not holding my breath....

..

For you, Toobbloke lol :-D Sorry, couldn't resist.

Agreed, though one might suspect the policy was drafted for the case, at least the store would have to maintain it in future

I do see where you are going with this. But irrespective of who is more distressed, the thread centres on court action under the DDA. So in most respects, my contention about temporary disablement is irrelavent as it is not covered by the DDA. It does remain reasonable to most, however, for a store to allow a temporarily disabled person to park in a disabled bay, though not necessarily lawful.

No flames for you lol. I understand the store has not replied to the OP about its proactive policy. I don't know if the store must provide the information to an individual on request. I would not be surprised though, if such a policy materialises in court!!

I'm certain they do, but this is about physical access to facilities on a given day....

Maybe so, but if it does happen, I think it will become an eternal game of cat and mouse between drivers and PPCs. The PPCs are already worried: look at all the trolls in the parking forum. The exception might be if the government step in with legislation, but I think that is unlikely.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree over this point I already agreed: Which is why the OP is going to court. But I'm sure you know you can never second guess a judges decision

If that were the case, then the numerous PPCs would have already done so. However, that is for a different thread

Of course not. The point I am making is that for the duration of their injury, they would be just as inconvenienced as someone who is permanantly disabled and in my opinion, just as entitled to use a disabled bay. I do agree it is more likely than not that most (but not all) vehicles not displaying a blue badge are abusing the spaces. A little harsh: not everyone is as well organised as you and your friends.... I never said it was absurd. I have suggested that what you view as reasonable, a judge might not. Please remember I agree that someone who does not need to use a disabled bay is an "ignorant pleb" if they prevent someone who does need the bay from using it. Of course, my definition of need would include the temporarily disabled ;-)

I believe that is the issue the OP has with one particular store. Of course some stores are better at "enforcement" than others. One of the problems brought up in this (and the other) thread is that enforcement can be difficult due to the fact that we are talking about private car parks. When this goes to court, I think the judge will make a decision based on what he/she considers reasonable to expect the store to do. That could go either way....

Its not at all off topic because one of the reasons you may not be able to find a disabled bay is because an "ignorant pleb" with a broken leg has been allowed to park there by the supermarket. DDA or not, I find it quite disturbing that you place yourself above a temporarily disabled person. Some disabled people do not drive and are reliant on more than one person to drive them around. Its quite easy to accidently leave their badge in another car. So, you are suggesting that Tesco and the like not only check every vehicle in a disabled bay is displaying a badge, but also inspects each badge photograph. As I stated before, I'm all for the DDA and the rights it gives to disabled people. However, my understanding is that it requires service providers to do everything they reasonably can to comply, not everything that can possibly be done. I wish you luck in court, but I, like others caution you that the judge may very well not see things the same way you do.

Problem is, the blue badge is open to abuse, especially in private car parks. Many times I have seen them used to park by someone other than the holder (who was not in the car at the time). Supermarkets do not check the photograph on the badge, neither do council CEOs So, if someone forgets their badge they become an ignorant pleb, not to be trusted as they have no other valid proof. What does annoy me about certain parts of this thread is the seeming lack of concern for the temporarily disabled. Do you really expect the supermarket to say to the person with broken legs "sorry, you don't qualify for a blue badge under DDA, go and park somewhere else"?

Have you applied for council tax benefit? I know you are working, but unless you are particularly well paid, you may well be entitled to some CTB and HB.

Yes, but this thread is about council tax debts and you can't be evicted for that!