No doubt about it. Clearly vulnerable and must be returned to the council.

The nutritional content of school dinners is now laid down in legislation. The same applies to packed lunches provided by the school. However, I am not aware of any law which dictates what you can and cannot put in your own childs packed lunch. I had crisps and chocolate in my packed lunch as a teenager and it didn't cause me any problems. Damn nanny state again .

As both NIPs have exactly the same time, surely only one offence can have taken place?

You probably should blank out some of the details on your picture, such as the VRM and the ticket number...

Ah, ok I have seen such devices. Exactly what do the bailiffs use them for and why are they not supposed to? Just curious

Did I miss something?

Would seem a rather cosy arrangement exists between HMCS and 3 bailiff companies (including Marstons). Whereas most bailiff fees, such as council tax debts are laid down in statute, these fees are not. What a sad state of affairs .

Difficult to say without seeing the agreement, but I doubt they would be able to change the terms to suit themselves. They would be legally bound to the original terms and conditions as long as you keep to your side.

I don't understand your problem here. The offer only applies if you spend £35. If you subsequently return something, you have therefore spent less than £35 and the offer does not apply. Would you have expected to keep the £5 voucher if you had returned all £35 worth of items? Many large stores have similar offers and I have yet to see one where you get to keep the voucher or other incentive.

For once, we agree

A bailiff acting immorally. Who'd have thought that!

Quite possibly. But then the bailiff leaves himself wide open to accusations of lying to the magistrates and if proved, the mags will take a rather dim view of that.

Exactly. In my flat alone, I can see 6 other wireless networks, which given time, I'm sure I could hack (not that I would, of course!) I also have friends whose wireless is totally unsecured

Ah, yes. I may well have mis-read the original post. Even if I'm wrong, though, £1200 in fees seems rather steep

..

As I understand it, in order to get a warrant, the bailiff must first convince a magistrate that there are sufficient goods at the debtors home to satisfy the debt. Now, we all know bailiffs are not exactly honest people, but the questions on my mind are: How does the bailiff know what is in your house if he has never been in? Therefore, how can a bailiff stand before a magistrate and declare that certain goods exist? What happens when it is proved that a bailiff has lied to the magistrate in order to obtain said warrant?

Sorry, but you are wrong. The wife, i.e the original debtor had moved. It is reasonable to assume that she took her belongings with her. Therefore it is also reasonable to assume that the goods remaining in the property do not belong to the debtor and the bailiff had no right to levy. When my ex-wife left the marital home, she took her goods and left mine. Had a bailiff subsequently called at my address for one of her debts, the bailiff would have been told in no uncertain terms to [insert expletive] off.

Typical bailiff point of view - must be a feckless debtor then. The OP came here for advice on her CURRENT situation. I don't care how the situation came about. The immediate situation is that a bailiff is chasing someone who is classed as vulnerable (nothing new there then) and cannot afford to pay. Demanding money within a few days when 90 days is allowed! If you really did live in the real world and not the bailiff one, you would realise that very very few people on income support are likely to have £400 just laying around. And you are talking nonsense about the deductions route. If the court orders deductions from income support, then the DWP will comply and the benefit recipient cannot refuse: it is taken automatically. Mumof3boys, out of interest, how much was the original fine and how much have the bailiffs added in costs?

From the CAB:

Who the hell do you think you are? Income Support is a means tested benefit. You can't get it unless you have a low income! I would like to see you try living on Income Support. Mumof3boys, tomtubby is correct. As you are on income support, the court can make deductions from your benefit instead of having to pay the bailiff. Contact the court and explain your situation. Hopefully tomtubby will return with further advice. Fines (Deductions from Income Support) Regulations 1992

I think the point may have been missed here! From what the OP said in his first post, as far as I can see, the levy was illegal as the wife no longer lived at the address on the warrant. Further, the goods taken by the bailiff did not belong to the debtor - also illegal. Hopefully someone will be along shortly with advice on how to claim redress from the bailiff!

You will definitely have to let the Jobcentre know. If they treat you as partners, your joint claim will work out a bit less than two single claims. If your boyfriend or his family are in receipt of any other benefits such as council tax benefit, housing benefit or tax credits, then you must let them know too.

Ting, Soph123 is a new member and may not have known the etiquette of forums.

Check your tenancy agreement and whether they have the right to change any part of it. I used to be a HA tenant and had several windows broken by vandals over the years. As long as it was reported to the police and I gave them a crime number, they would do the repairs. I can't see how your HA can unilaterally make these changes. You may find the following site useful: Charter for residents and applicants : Residents' rights and responsibilities : Home : Housing Corporation

You need to realise that ISPs advertise as "up to" for a good reason. The maximum speed is totally dependant on line length and quality. The further you are away from the exchange, the lower your speed will be. In some cases, the line quality will further reduce the speed. Both these factors are out of the control of the ISP and they cannot, therefore guarantee a speed. So, its not necessarily a con. (read the "however" below for the possible con) You can get an estimate of your maximum speed on BTs website. You can find your connected speed by checking your router. This will tell you the maximum you can expect. Remember that the exchange automatically checks and adjust the speed to give the best stability, so your connected speed may vary over time. However, the ISPs DO have control over the speed of their own networks. Frequently, this is where you will experience slowdowns. Of course, the more people using the internet at a given time, the slower it will be and this applies to ALL ISPs. The difference between "fast" and "slow" ISPs comes down to two main factors 1) How much bandwidth the ISP has invested in. Too little and your speed will be slow. "Too much" and you will pay much more for the service, so they have to get the balance right. Many don't!! 2) The ISPs throttling policy. ISPs can deliberately slow down your connection. Typically, they will do this if they see that you are "abusing" the service by downloading lots of data in peak times. This includes so-called unlimited services and is written into the terms and conditions as a fair use policy. Unfortunately, some ISPs do not publish what they consider to be fair use and many heavy users fall foul of the policy which is unfair. ISPs can also control your speed dependant on the type of internet traffic. This happened to me with BT. Ordinary internet usage was fast all of the time. However, BT now throttles P2P (file sharing) traffic between 5pm and 11pm. There is good reason for this: P2P is one of the most bandwidth hungry uses of the internet. BT say that they restrict P2P to 15% of normal speed at peak times. In my case, P2P dropped to about 0.1%, making it unuseable. I complained and BT agreed that they could no longer provide the service I was paying for (due to their excessive P2P throttling) and allowed me to end the contract without penalty!