"How long have I got before a bailiff will break into my property?" Somewhere between a long way off and never. No need to worry if you are in communication with the court / bailiff. Ignore his threats to the contrary. I believe the lattest figures were approx 30 forced entries per year for £1.5 Billion in outstanding fines. Do not waste your time talking to them on the phone. They will subsequently deny anything that is said in your favor, and make things up like you offered an amount by a certain date etc... Recorded delivery and e-mail only. BTW - They can't call on Sundays so relax. I'm not confident re. fines enforcement, but i believe you are on the right track with the stat. dec. route. Someone who knows better will be along.

There's no rules, you can speak to who you like if you can track them down. Try getting a direct line by asking (in a 'professional' sounding voice) for the head of revenue and finance at the main switchboard / reception. If you have his / her name try the permutations of the email format, like: [email protected] then [email protected] then [email protected] and so on. I'm sure an e-mail from a senior finance officer confirming that the liability order is discharged will do the trick.

It seems we are allowed to say 'lobster'. Thank god for that. But what if someone has a massive problem with a plate of ----pi and chips? Where will they go for help?

Trust. That's a good point. With the sullied reputation of debt reduction / management companies fresh in the minds of the public, i would expect the average person to reasonably assume it was some sort of [problem], or contain hidden costs somewhere down the line. Needs some thought... EDIT - Did that cagbot thing just censor my post? The word it has replaced with 'problem' was [problem]pi minus the 'pi' at the end. What's that all about? EDIT2 - Its done it again, but this time it censored the word ending in 'pi'!!!! The word goes into the phrase "----pi and chips". Comes wholetail or reformed, and is sold in the frozen section. What the heck is that about? Are we allowed to say 'lobster'?

Paddy. Start a thread (copy and paste your story) here:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=168 I don't know why this thread is here. Lots of people, including myself in the past, assume this is the place to post a query and never get spotted.

"I'm of the opinion if we lose this battle we may need to go to the press with our story with an offer to check other people's fees for them free of charge. That would do some damage!" Hopefully. Great minds and all that...... I've been planing to put an advert in our local paper, and do a leaflet drop (with the support of my printer neighbor) to the same effect. I'm trying to finalize the wording, but to the effect of seeking people who have been subject to bailiff action in the last six years. I also need the backing of a local solicitor if things get contested. I'm not allowed to represent people in court. Hope to have all this in place by the summer. It seems that my local fraudsters routinely add up-to £300 van fee on every first visit. 6 years x 350 bailiff actions / year (small town) x £300 x 0.2(?) Hit rate = Pain for bailiff.

They can't touch the car on HP. I believe the concept of taking the vehicle with the consent of the finance company relates to cars on secured finance / secured loans, i.e where the car is security against the loan. If a car is on finance, say a car worth £20,000 with only £3,000 remaining. The bailiff could in theory seize the car, and pay the finance company the £3000+ settlement fee, then lawfully sell the car. When the car is on HP, the hint is in the name. The provider of the car has a contract to 'hire' you a car for the duration of the contract for the fee you agreed. They have no option to unilaterally withdraw from the contract at the behest of a bailiff / creditor. Hence they cannot touch it. HP & Finance are different, and many people are not aware they are actually on HP when they buy a car on 'finance' from a dealer.

I think technically you would have 'stolen' your own stuff off the bailiff. Just suppose, as a theoretical concept only of course, that you or any other debtor under threat of removal, were to replace the goods (which of course have not been accurately detailed by make or serial No on the WPO) with items from say the local tip. Mr Bailiff would have a rather unrewarding afternoon loading and unloading a van full of junk.

"Council said....." Get that in writing, i.e. that the Liability Order is satisfied / discharged, and you'll be one of the lucky few who get away with not paying the legitimate fees due to council / bailiff incompetence. Council screw ups rarely go in our favor, but lucky for you if it does. Do not confuse this with the incorrect belief that the bailiff can't enforce for his fees, otherwise none of us would ever pay any would we?

Ha, coincidence and confusion! I meant set up a Phoenix firm, but that's irrelevant if you're a sole trader. You were obviously referring to Phoenix debt collectors! They could go for bankruptcy as you are sole trader, but like you say, even if they do,no assets means nothing to lose and you'll carry on trading with no arrears.

The law clearly specifies that the amount due under the regs, i.e. the sum the bailiff is empowered to collect by means of distraining goods, is the sum of the liability order and the fees accrued according to schedule 5(?) Advice to the contrary is wishful thinking, and could cost the debtor his car or the addition of legitimate 'van fees'

"If you have satisfied the order then the dispute is over the Bailiffs fees. He cannot persue the levy on your car for his fees alone as the levy was made to satisfy the LO" Yes, but as is often confused on this site, the legit. fees effectively become part of the Liability Order. The fees only become a separate issue if the council are dumb enough to discharge the liability order without the bailiffs getting paid. In this case, as most others they have not! On the contrary, they have specified that they are still due.

I would like you to try something, that can only help if there is a dispute later. Can you hand deliver a letter to the council stating: That I ------------- hereby tender the full amount due under the Council Tax Enforcement Regulations. That sum being the total of any outstanding liability Order plus the legitimate enforcement fees accrued to date according to the regulations. Total £--------. Technically, you will have fulfilled your obligation under the regs. You don't have to hand over any money, unless they accept on the spot. But the tender doesn't count if you cant pay it (about £55 we reckon) when / if they accept.

Send Hw's letter. We need to be 100% sure this levy was applied on the 2nd March, not in January. Can you confirm it has the 2nd on the distress notice. It seems clearer from your post #10 that he certainly added £120 'van fee' on 2nd March.

It's good they are sending it back for committal, but if you don't pay the legitimate fees you could ultimately be hauled before a magistrate, who will order you to pay them.

The legitimate bailiff fees effectively became part of the Liability Order as they were accrued. So technically the LO isn't settled. Until it is settled, they can come back and add a 'van fee' like i said before. Someone (not HW) seems to be hinting my advice was incorrect. It wasn't.

No assets. That's very liberating when these jokers are on your back. I agree there is a risk of the council issuing a winding up order (it's a Ltd Comp. Yes?) but so long as your landlord is OK with you they would be doing you a favor by the sounds of it. Phoenix firm the next day, no NDR arrears!

To be extra clear. No, he can't force his way. And he may not find your car, but if he turns up before you pay the legitimate fees, you will owe a 'van fee' as of his next visit. Hopefully someone with the fee scale to hand will confirm the exact amount. Pay it as early as possible tomorrow. Subject to confirmation of the above assumptions, whatever fees they subsequently try for, we will be able to show the amount due under the regs (i.e the Liability Order value plus legit. fees) was satisfied as of the moment of your payment. Any subsequent visits would not be lawful / chargeable.

Mr bailiff is due the first visit fee (Jan), and a levy fee the day he slapped the distress notice on the car.(2nd March) He would have to have returned another day with the intent to remove the levied goods for the 'van fee' to apply. It's an 'attendance to remove fee' but they normally call it a van fee, even if it is an (invisible) tow truck they are referring to. But if he returns in the meantime, with an (invisible) tow truck, before the legit fees are settled, he probably will be able to legitimately charge the new 'van fee'.

I'm hoping someone who knows about enforcement while on benefits will come along and tell us about the options regarding deductions from benefits instead of bailiffs. But until then, in the absence of a better plan. I would send them the £24.50 plus correct levy fee (can't find the sheet now!, but something like £30), and contest the legitimacy of the additional charges. The distress notice is dated the 2nd March yes? Does it, or any other accompanying paperwork state the fees / total due at a particular date? What date did you hear from / ring the council when you were told about the £218 fees? EDIT - When i say 'send' them the money, I mean pay it as cash with receipt over the counter to the council, or by card online and print the receipt.

In the mean time, i can tell you there will be some fees to pay, but there should be some scope to reduce them. It seems you would certainly owe; A first visit fee £24.50 and a levy fee of I'd guess around £30 (too lazy to work it out!)

Sorry,and 6) You are currently unemployed? on benefits?

If I've understood you correctly, it seems: 1)You have paid the value of the liability order to the council directly 2)You have paid nothing to the bailiff. 3)It is claimed there are £218 in bailiff fees to be paid. 4)You are aware of him visiting twice. The end of Jan and the 2nd of march. 5)He has levied on your car.(on the second visit)

PT said: "it is actually unlawful to sell furnishings without the correct labels even if they have been cut off." It certainly is illegal. We had a visit from trading standards. We had to obtain and keep flame retardant certification for foam / fabrics we used in manufacture. He said if we applied the temporary or permanent 'fire tags' without being able to provide the evidence, it would be standard procedure to initiate a criminal prosecution. It would not matter whether the fabric was retarded or not. He specifically mentioned that to sell an item without the tag would incur summary conviction, and to retrospectively, incorrectly apply one was the most serious offense that would be 'pursued vigorously'. He even went as far as saying that we should not remove the temporay tags (the big triangular card ones you see hanging off your sofa / chair on delivery). The customer must do it themselves! Found this, makes it quite clear: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4Aj2IecuGhcJ:www.eastriding.gov.uk/corp-docs/tradingstandards/tsd415.pdf+Furniture+and+Furnishings+%28Fire+Safety%29+regulations+%28as+amended%29.+%22old+stock%22&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh4wccG7hSHeJuqmQExUbE3cvF-rqsdjBM361dXc9L9aGJqrxq4BFUGl6jYWCWToInaH9bwhbW7HySAyjM5GXU1_GwHFWTyyRLZiCWlL0O4mpPxu0bKbZiGIjzXqaIHQ4YNkBiU&sig=AHIEtbRVQgIihOhxOsY8Tu5gw4-_Ph0mjQ

Not if the seizure / levy occurred on the same day as the 'attending to remove' fee. The latter would be invalid...... Unless they return at a later date.