I'd rather you outline the precise nature of your point. That way will prevent any further general misconception

Thank you

Kermit. Be more specific. What exactly do you mean by 'misinterpretation? Who has misinterpreted what?

Kermit - you may have committed a faux pas, for if that was a veiled reference to me, it may benefit you to know that I was the Claimant at Redditch. In English, I was the one owed money.

Maybe my observational skills are not quite up to standard, but I was under the impression that this thread was now about being unable to put a case before a court before being constantly interrupted by the judge

You must live in a strange world if you imagine that justice is best served by not being able to present a case in court because a judge won't let you say anything.

Clearly this hasn't happened to you..............yet, so in the meantime listen to the voice of experience. You may need it yourself some day.

Thank you Bookworm.

I'm still unclear as to what exactly happened in court, though the outcome seems clear enough. Perhaps if I gave an insight into my experiences, it might help a little.

First, when I put points to B & S in my letter of November 2005, they failed to answer and thus by their inability to show any good reason why I was incorrect in my assertions, maybe and somewhat unwittingly, B & S confirmed that they already knew that they had no right of entry, let alone a forcible one.

With regard to Friday's hearing, I get the feeling that it was the judge and not B & S that argued that a bailiff has the right to push past a person if a door is opened. This is the point that B & S failed to put forward in answer to my letter of November 2005. The wearing of steel capped boots also suggests that the bailiff intended to force entry by premediated means come what may.

I must admit that I too suffered a similar fate of not being allowed to put my case by a recorder in Redditch County Court back in 2004. She either interupted or just diverted the hearing away from my points.

However I have also been in another court when a judge tried to do the same and to this day I don't know why I acted the way I did, but I found myself telling the judge that if he didn't listen to me and if he didn't allow me to put my case forarwd I would walk out and he could come to any decision he liked, because by then I would already putting an application in for another hearing based on his prejudice. Blow me, it did the trick.

So yes kel123, do appeal. Your grounds for appeal being that you were never permitted to put forward your case. However maybe you need some help in presenting your case second time round.

Just to put your mind at ease, no bailiff can take anything if you did not sign any 'walking possession' form and if you do not let him in. As you say this one sounds not only unpleasant, but one who will quite happily lie and intimidate you just to achieve his aim of earning commission from your problems.

As far as his threat of committal proceedings, it's not for him to decide. He's just a private citizen. You are highly unlikely to be arrested for struggling to pay council tax. For the proceedure to commit anybody to prison, see my answer under thread 9 - 'Help I am going to be arrested'.

Also you only have to pay what is written on the liability order. Nothing more. So you can cut this man out of your life and deprive him and his organisation of any fees. Just pay the council and never bother to talk to this man again.

Though there are many different interpretations of the law on the removal of clamps, one of our members did do that a month or two ago. Further he took the two parts around to his local police station at Wimbledon who quickly absolved themselves from becoming involved, stating that this was a 'civil matter'.

The clampers were Merton Council and I understand that the member still has the bitzaclamp. Merton Council did not pursue any action.

Sorry I can see that the original thread is still here though the heading has been truncated, hence the inability to spot it. However I do feel that as this is the same subject albeit with before and after sections, it would benefit us all if they were combined to give an overall picture in one collective thread.

Before I make my point on this, can I ask the moderators what happened to the original thread containing all the posts that led up to this hearing? At the moment there is only half the picture now available to read.

Can we have them back please and under this thread?

Thank you

You've had good advice from the forum. These bailiffs cannot have you arrested as they have no such authority. Indeed not even the council can have you arrested without a court warrant. For that to happen you will given notice of a court hearing by your council first. If that takes place (and you can talk to your council beforehand and maybe come to an arrangement) you will have every chance to state your case and then still come to some arrangement, this time with the court's approval.

However, it isn't the council that is currently threatening an arrest, it is a bailiff. The chances are that the council will not even know about this bailiff's threat. Don't be frightened to speak to the council and tell them about these threats as they may be as appalled as you are.

There are only two reasons that allow for any arrest over council tax 1) Refusal to pay council tax and 2)Willful negligence. You are clearly not refusing to pay and having no money is not willful negligence which in itself is devilishly hard to prove. Going to the Bahamas with the money might count. No proceedings for an arrest will even commence until the bailiffs have stopped visiting you and filed a report to the council.

So please don't worry, there is no imminent arrest. Nor do you need to worry about bankrupcty proceedings, it ain't gonna happen. The bailiff is lying to you.

My final piece of advice is for you to study any court liability order that you may have (which should have been issued before bailiffs were involved) and whatever the amount is printed on it is what you owe. No more.

You don't owe the bailiffs a penny in fees. So pay the council direct and when you reach the amount on the liability (less the £500 already paid), that's it. Job done.

Hope it went well today. I wish I had known it was Bristow & Sutor. I still have a letter on file dated February 1982 that you could have had a copy of relating to an incident in which not only did Bristow & Sutor illegally gain entry to a house via deceit (in those days they used to say that they 'were from the council and wished to discuss rates', rather using today's tactic of 'I'm a court bailiff').

Having gained a cheque by lying and intimidation they left saying to a lone and innocent woman with a 2 year old - 'I hope that has spoiled your day'. Needless to say the cheque was stopped and the letter I refer to was sent to Sutor himself. They never were paid and they never went back.

I also wrote B & S in November 2005 and told them exactly why their bailiffs has no rights of entry into property and why they should never use the 'court bailiff' and 'court documents' routine, so they know they are acting illegally and that they have done so continually for 26 years at least.

So no, regretfully I don't think they are going to change. It's just another flow of water off a duck's back to them.

Their problem is that they haven't moved with the times and that people are much more world wise now than back then, mainly due to forums and other communication methods including having instant access to the law via the internet.

No, these dinosaurs still delude themselves into thinking that we are as stupid as they are.

From what you have said, neither had any right of entry. Indeed from the evidence either they do not understand the law or they showed a callous disregard for it.

I'll put my money on the fact that if any 'warrant' is produced in court tomorrow, it won't be stamped by a court. And if not, the who did produce it? AND WHEN? - prior to their visits? Or prior to this hearing? Private bailiffs do have a habit of typing them up in their own office with the intention of setting out to defraud people via sections 2 & 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.

Appointed by the court? There can be only interpretation of that - he tried to make you think that he officially represented a court. Certificated only means that the court has registered him (or licenced if you like) as being a private bailiff. It doesn't mean for one minute that he carries out duties on the court's behalf. They have their own bailiffs for that. Private bailiffs work on commission and real court bailiffs are salaried by HMCS.

Was he talking about a warrant to collect debts, or a warrant to enter the house? These are entirely separate issues, though it's highly unlikely he had any warrant at all, in which case the answer as to why a private citizen which is what this bailiff was, thinks he is entitled to enter any other person's home for any purpose without the owner's consent is obvious.

The minimum a bailiff needs to enter your property without consent is a court order signed by a judge allowing forced entry.

Nor was he likely to have been a 'court appointed bailiff'. Being certificated and being 'appointed' are also two entirely separate matters. If he tried to extract money under this guise then he would be guilty of fraud under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (misreprentation)

If he tried to extract money by false documentation then he is guilty of fraud under section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.

What are you in court for?

Just to be clear. Pay the council. Job done.

If you haven't received a liability order, and assuming that the rates are for the year 2008 - 2009 then you only owe for April - June 2008. If you have a liability order then what you owe is what is printed on that. You owe no more.

Yes, bailiffs are entitled to fees but they have no legal authority to enforce them, so forget the bailiffs, you owe them nothing as you are neither in contract with them nor subject to a court order that grants them fees.

Must apologise too for some incorrect information given yesterday. Courts produce Warrants Of Execution and Liability Orders and councils may issue Distress Warrants.

A liability order is something the council can apply for if someone fails to pay rates. For this to happen you must have notice from the council and a date for a magistrates hearing which in the words of the letter you should have received is an opportunity for you 'to show good reason why you have not paid'.

If you haven't received that letter and if there has been no magistrates hearing and if your council has appointed bailiffs before this legal procedure has commenced then your council has been more than a little bit naughty. They've almost certainly acted illegally. Thus anything you have received from a bailiff is nothing more than intimidation based on a lie.

I have no idea what a 'Notice of warrant' or 'notice of distress' are and although there are similar terms such as 'Warrant Of Execution' and 'Distress Warrant' which are produced by a court, the ones you refer to may possibly be the product of imaginative but untruthful bailiffs pretending that they have court documents.

In short - attempted fraud by Rossendales as described by Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.

You have absolutely no legal obligation to pay the bailiffs anything. Nor is this anything to do with the council any more. They have their money so that concludes their involvement.

The fact that the council think the bailiffs should get something is irrelevant. If anybody argues differently, ask them for a copy of the stamped court order appertaining to the bailiffs 'rights' to these self inflicted 'expenses'.

Was there a magistrates liability order or did the council just employ them without any liability order?

The answer is already on thread. You pay the £807 and no more to Incasso. That's it end of matter. Don't phone them. Don't contact anybody else. The judgment is for £807. Nobody else has any judgment or court order to say you owe more or any amount at all to anybody other than Incasso.

Write the cheque (payable to Incasso), send it.

Job done.

The return of money illegally extracted is welcome, but let's not give too many accolades to Sheffield City Council, who were finally forced into this position after a long battle to avoid their responsibilities.

Now if we could only get the same Council to accept that their 'market's' licence fees for shows and exhibitions is also illegal.

68904? Wakefield or Ardesley? 84E was my territory

And don't forget, you only have to pay what is written on the magistrates liability order. Not a penny more. You can leave Rossendales high and dry on this one. Their fees will not be included on the liability order, so they are legally unenforceable.

Once the amount on the liability order is discharged that is the end of the matter.

Simple Bookworm.

The date of the hearing was 12 May and that would be the day the Order commences from.

The date the Order was typed by the court was 19 May.

The date the new particulars had to be served by was 14 days from the day the judge gave the Order, so they must be filed by 4pm 26 May.

Note also that Merton Bailiffs/Council have a character called J. Jarvis working for them. We have on record that he is quite happy to lie by saying that he is a 'court bailiff' though he must know that he works for the council and that his 'warrant of execution' allows him entry. It doesn't, even less so as it is a piece of paper typed up in Merton Council's own office and not a court document. A court document is stamped by the court.

Jarvis has also been known to illegally place in his foot in a door and then call the police on what was a decriminalised parking matter (ie civil) before thrusting this worthless piece of paper in front of constable who was hookwinked into believing that this council employee had a right of entry.

After an 'investigation', Merton Council sent a letter saying that nobody in their employ had acted inappropriately.

Don't let them in and don't listen to a thing they say.

In principle it would appear that the bailiffs had no right of possession of either vans or tools as they are required for your business.

However you will need to furnish the forum with much more information, ie who repossessed them? (court bailiffs, sherriff's officers, private bailiffs) under what circumstances? (for tax? or customs and excise? etc) and what paperwork were were you served?

They'll cut it in two.

Intrigue - First and foremost, do not lose sight of the fact that what is written on the magistrates liability order is the amount you owe. That is ALL you are legally required to pay unless the bailiffs produce a court order for their fees, which I can guarantee they will not have. You are not in contract with them, so you haven't agreed to pay them anything for them to sue you over.

Tell the council in no uncertain terms that you have paid what is written on the liability order to the bailiffs and therefore you have discharged your legal liability.

Then tell the council that if this money has not been passed on then the council must contact the bailiffs for the balance.

Finally tell the council that you have not seen any court order for any amount over and above what is written on the liability order and that without any such document you are not legally obliged to pay any more.

Do not debate the situation any further with them as the matter is now closed.

Better still drop a letter outlining these points onto their front desk.

Job done.

Don't tell them anything. They are the ones on the outside looking in. Perhaps the situation would be clearer if I more correctly described the magistrate's warrant as a liability order. Once you have paid what's written on the liability order, you have discharged your legal obligation and liability.

If the bailiff tries to tell you otherwise tell them to send you a copy of the court order that states they are entitled to anything at all.

Remember they are private company. Not the law. Nor the court.