multi occupancy only applies if there is one bathroom facility shared between x amount of bedsits. eg 4 rooms 1 bathroom. then the landlord has to pay. if its shared accomodation but its a house then everyone is responsible for the rates along with the other bills. it is not advisable to pay a landlord "all inclusive" because if he lets the council know you are there, they will chase the occupiers for the taxation not the landlord should he not pay, and of course if its not in your tenancy agreement and you just assume, it could prove to be an expensive mistake.

councils have access to nearly all of the info you have highlighted in your draft letter (benefits etc) but doesnt make difference, they still issue the liability orders and parking fines out dont they. (at present) did you know apparently there are a few types of benefits exempt from attachment, i wonder how local authorities would be able to recover money then? i dont agree with some of the underhand tactics utilized by certain individuals within the industry however if this comes into fruition throughout the country, you will get the people falling into the jsa/benefit category thinking - "well im on benefits and there is a bill outstanding so if i dont pay the council or make any attempt to get a job and they wont send bailiffs out im sitting pretty knowing full well i will never have to pay more than £3 a week from money i get from those who work" and, although this is personal opinion but - i have no respect for people coming into england and not trying to learn the language and law purpously so they can play the "race" card every opportunity they can. and they probably can speak english but act dumb.

if the ticket was a private company/on private land, then would be unenforceable so merely the fact that a walking possession agreement is being mentioned tells you its a council pcn hence bailiffs.

i doubt it will be a walking possession agreement if its for a parking ticket, but probably a levy of goods, most likely your vehicle along with the list of charges itemised along with the walking possession at the bottom. and a signature of the bailiff . if as you have already said you have had previous visits along with the letter sent via post (£11.20 +vat) before that - the fees are not illegal but proportionate to the stage the warrant is at. and if there is nothing else to 'levy' on then i think they can list the vehicle especially if it relates to the pcn in question.

yes you may well be right in your argument. consider this as well though. i imagine its not hard to prove you downloaded the software to join p2p sites and download torrents. also email addresses used probably relate to personal computers as well. can they get your computer and check do you think?

hi to all again, ive done some more research and it looks possible they can find out what folder you downloaded to and what the file is. if you use your own computer for example and you download for arguments sake evacuate the dancefloor (very popular today) by cascada then if your name is john smith the folder reads C:/Documents and Settings/john/smith/Desktop/music/cascada/cascada"evacuatethedancefloor"(2010) - dance [website]- then it doesnt take a genius to prove who it is who actually d/l'd it!

can i just say that the citizens advice bureau are generally a waste of time. they generally know very little about a lot - you would be best seeking advice from someone who knows what they are on about about the particular subject in question.

hi all. i note that one of the three persons mentioned in the ownership of evacuate the dancefloor is manuel rueter aka dj manian. he has and is involved in many songs which will appear as singles but also as many compilation albums available on p2p websites. many people will have come on here to see if acs is real and lets be honest you all will of downloaded the file or a relative will have and you want to see if you can get away with it. the point i am making is that if someone pays asc law for lets say evacuate the dancefloor off either the album or a compilation album with that on, can this guy on the court order who has interest in another song off the same download then persue for liabilty for the same amount for another song, so if cascada album has 15 tracks on - next month can he issue another court order for his next track. then some people will pay through the nose 15times after downloading one album? and if the letters and subsequent payments of fines provoke more music execs to pursue for each individual track then millions of people will be screwed as so many people do it on a daily basis.

"no bailiff please" - if you can, get the first 2 letters sent by equita and take them to the council - they post 2 letters and add the 1st and 2nd fees and dont do a visit. the council will have to tell them to remove the fees. if the council knew this was happening they would not be happy with them, they cant charge unless visiting. they do this on every file they have. really dodgy way of doing it

they cant be real, they look childish

if the removal and consequent sale of your vehicle was deemed to be valuable enough to clear the remainder of your finance, as well as enough to clear the costs and pcn - then your vehicle could be removed. this is the information i was given when i wrote a letter of complaint to the bailiffs/company who clamped my car and i had to to pay, this came from someone who is supposed to be in the association of civil enforcement agencies.

interestingly enough the £24.50 1st, £18.00 2nd, and £12.00 wp etc are the maximium charges applicible to fees regarding each case/visit. so, a bailiff company could in theory charge less than the usual max charges most companies use. so the fees could be correct. apart from adding the visit and levy at the same time. could the company have visited before and this is why the 1st visit has been added on? or perhaps the company could have sent a letter through the post and claimed a visit took place? (i know for a fact this is how equita work) it may be worth asking your local council when the liability orders were passed over to the bailiff company as well, because in some council areas if there are multiple files the company are only allowed to charge a visit fee on 1 account, but if the bailiffs visit on a different day with a different liability order they can add seperate fees, so, if they were given to the bailiff company on the same day, the visits that were seperate should of been done together, and therefore the bailiff company are trying their luck by adding 2 seperate fees. also i think you would be wasting your time by putting a form 4 complaint against the bailiff, he could claim it is a mistake and it wouldnt go anywhere, you are best off just sticking to the payment plan set.

when you speak to the council, tell them equita are posting the 1st and 2nd visit letters instead of calling, this is an illegal act, its amazing how they get away with it, they will be illegal fees, and you should then be able to pay in full with no fees on.

ive had a few dealings with bailiffs, twice actually both after having parking tickets stolen off my car and as such bailiffs calling. i dealt with with 'dukes' the 2nd time and if im honest they were quite pleasant with me, as far as bailiffs go - seem like one of the more professional companies in the industry, you dont read about many complaints about them

you know guys, a bailiff company can only perform a dvla check on a vehicle if it is for a parking fine and it is relevant to the warrant (ie the 'offending vehicle'. im almost certain that the only check that can legally be carried out on a vehicle for council tax arrears is a hpi check, to see if it has finance on it. a dvla check on any vehicle on any road or drive is a breach of the data protection act.

this fee is paid last only after all the debt is paid. also there are only certain councils that allow the bailiff company to charge the sch 5 head h fee. and like an levy fee this can only added if a levy has taken place. so with regards your dispute, if a levy has taken place then they can add this to the file(s)

"It always appears to be the bigger well known companies that crop up here and I have to say it appears that their management knows all about the underhand methods that go on. Some of the lesser known companies seem to have people like yourself who have been their a good few years but get results by their helpfulness rather than intimidation" ploddertom, in response to this would you consider that the reason for more complaints from the larger companies is because its harder to spend the time with each bailiff to train them properly, and as such is not a case of knowing their staff are acting underhand, but not having the resources to keep an eye on each bailiff, as they will be under pressure to post bailiffs in their areas of the country where they work to meet the needs of the councils/clients? and that as a result, the smaller companies have less complaints because they are much more aware of the rules/regs with regards collections?

i personally feel when this comes into force that the typical stereotype of some bailiffs being nothing more than bouncers/doorstaff will be reinforced by the general public because they will have the same qualification and in theory will cross over from each of the employment sectors and looked at in the same way. regarding the complaints procedure, if the bailiff is doing his/her job properly then they will have nothing to worry about anyway. 90% of bailiff complaints are nothing more than in respect that the bailiff has called and requested payment of a due debt, but for the others then they should go through the sia if they are the people who certify them.

if there is only 42.50 outstanding for the first and second visits, and the amount was paid to the council before the levy, then they cannot enforce fees alone. they can only ask for the 1st and 2nd 42.50. therefore they should not have included the levy fee and enforcement fee(van charge) in with the amount. if the amount was including the debt, then they can do a levy and charge the 1st(24.50) 2nd(18.00) levy(24.50-as debt under £100) and van fee(110.00-dependent on size of debt and local authority). so you should contact the company explaning this and ask for the levy fee and van charge back. and i see what your saying about why did they have to come along in a van, but remember companies can claim the vat back on vans.

can you contact your bank and have the payment stopped then pay it over the phone to an operative? at least then you will get your authorisation number and there is someone on the other end of the phone to make sure its wiped off the correct file.

it should be on the records of the company that the address is a "care of" address, so they will know that they cant do anything apart from trying to look the part and like someone has already said, hope you dont know the ins and outs of civil law and pay. when the bailiffs send a file back to the council, they will recommend that commital proceedings are started, most popular are attachment of earnings/benefits. they can instigate bankruptcy proceedings or impose a prison sentance but the amount it costs the council to to this has shot up, and so is extremely rare nowadays. you would literally have to have not paid anything in 4-5 years for them to consider this i think

would it be possible for the company to email the details of the car then you can print it out and show him IF he comes back, which i doubt he will. seanamarts, any reputable firm would want the vehicle to fetch the most amount of money because it pays their fees, and obviously the more of the debt it pays off the better it looks for the council/authority. although, i too heard a similar story about a car repo firm, they would take it to auction after taking all the added extras off it, get their mate to buy it as though it was a bog standard, then give him all the parts for it so he could put it on his forecourt as the original top of the range model it was when repo'd. it was on the news a few years ago... somewhere in the north east i think.

is mobile money a similar type of company to log book loans? if the debt is secured on the vehicle can you legally alter the v5 docs etc to have it changed? surely that would defeat the object of the loan aggreement. also i wouldnt be surprised if they werent bailiffs, probably just debt collectors or repo men with no power other than to take/remove the vehicle.

hi there, to my knowledge a bailiff/ bailiff company can remove a vehicle regardless of how they find it. i'd bet if the vehicle is on a driveway then a bailiff will block it in, but if its on a street of terraces then it will be clamped. ideally for the bailiffs they would want the keys, logbook and mot certificate because obviously they would want it to fetch the most amount of money if it had to go to auction. of course, as well as a cradle lift there is a tilt and slide with the wire to drag it onto the back. clamps are a dodgy issue because whilst the use of clamps isn't illegal, the rules and regs are changing because of the countless unlawful and unregulated private clamping firms as seen in car parks etc. it is possible to easily remove a certain type of clamp as well...(let your tyre down!) the bailiff should do the nesessary checks before removing it, often asking neighbours and the hpi checks (eg. experian), if there has been no correspondance. a common misconception is that a bailiff cant remove the vehicle if it on finance, however if the removal and subsequent sale of said vehicle was enough to pay the original bill w/ fees and also the remainder of the finance upon the vehicle it could be removed. also i heard if there is a logbook loan secured on the vehicle, the vehicle can still be removed. logbook loans are ridiculous in any case.