Hello ITP. The bad news: If it's a court FINE not a ccj they CAN get a court order to break in. On the one hand forced entries are very rare, the stats are on this site somewhere. But on the other, I've never seen one of these before so does that show serious intent? I can't read the text on your upload, but does the figure say just £60?

Certificate revoked - well done! Tell us more. What happened?

Hello Sarah. Some more info please. Has the bailiff been into your home re: original agreement, or levied on a car outside? If so what goods did he 'seize' / list?

Sorry, missed that post. They should not act with an agreement in place. Contact their office by e-mail to clarify the due dates of the weekly arrangement, otherwise they will make one up, pretend you've missed it and apply a legitimate van fee. Now you have them at bay, i would wait until you are close to paying the final installment before challenging the "van fee" that has already been applied.

"They have taken down my husband’s car details to see if they can levy on it" So they haven't clamped it or left a notice of seizure?. If so you would be within your rights to 'assume' that the vehicle has not been levied on. In which case you can move it WELL away from the house, if possible swap cars with a friend or relative until the situation is in hand. The £350 will include ccs's 'van fee' applied on the day of supposed seizure. They know this is wrong and this fee should disappear when challenged. You should engage them immediately (by e-mail) requesting clarification of the £350 and WHEN it was accrued. Also contact your council asking for their bailiff policy. It should outline the type of repayment schedule the bailiffs can agree to, and when they should remove goods. If they refuse submit the request with the heading "A request made under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act" and adress it to their in house solicitor.

Do they ever believe the word of the debtor over the bailiff In this situation? Worse still the landlord's 'memory' seems to be working in the bailiffs favor.

Hello Lauren. 1) Are the council only chasing you for the portion of the year you were not a student? 2) How much was the council tax / liability order?

Hello GreyH. I take it you have / had a lease ? If so, I'm afraid you're not in a good position re seized goods. The only people with any chance of seeing the goods you don't own (water cooler, leased equipment etc) are the owners themselves, who will have to take up the issue directly with your landlord. Was the lease assigned to a LTD company? Were the leased goods assigned to a ltd company?

It seems to me that the whole 'plan' hinges on whether your in-laws are of the temperament to stand thier ground and laugh off threats of taking their property for your debt. If they are, then combined with the fact that you are paying the debt off, and the distance you've put between you, things should go to plan. You need to make sure you: 1) Do not appear on the electoral role. 2) Use another name on utility bills, or if you don't like that idea 'accidentally' miss-spell your name (with at least two letters wrong). 3) Keep your other post (especially bank / financial related stuff) to your in-laws. 4) Do not fill in ANY online forms with your correct details or use your credit card for mail order. All of the above either share data either illegitimately or through GAIN. I guess they are not supposed to use it for council tax, but 'not supposed to' counts for NOTHING with bailiffs. EDIT - I always use a miss spelled version of my name on ANY form / online form (other than where it would be fraudulent e.g. banks, credit cards applications) for security reasons. Despite the fact that these data gatherers promise not to share your information, it is ALWAYS the miss spelled version that appears on unsolicited advances. Basicly, they DO sell your info. If that weren't proof enough, i used to know a salesman from a reputable national firm who met 'people' in pubs and received up to £1000 a time for disks with 'marketing data' i.e yours and my names / income etc. Don't trust any of them. Even if you are not hiding.

Brief answer (tea to cook!). You have done everything right, and as usual they are wrong. 1) They have no right of entry beyond walking in through open doors and windows (Note: the waistline on all of the bailiffs I've seen would prevent them fitting through my windows, Do they get free pie and chips?). 2) They are supposed to be discreet regarding talking to neighbors and the like. Don't expect any joy, but DO complain if only to do your bit for the statistics.

Multiple accounts at the same time: They certainly can, and do, quite frequently. The scumbags don't like to do it because they are only allowed to hit you for one set of fees regardless of how many accounts they are chasing. "he did also tell me he was arresting me pretty much at the same time" Utter garbage. You would only get arrested if it got called back to court (scarily called a committal hearing, but more a means test and order to pay) and refused to turn up to explain why you haven't paid. If you are paying the council somthing (even against their will via their web site) it's unlikely you will even get recalled to court. If someone is daft enough to push things that far, "being arrested" would usually consist of the POLICE knocking on your door and saying "can you please pay this, or get someone to pay it for you or we'll be back to arrest you".

I'll have to be brief or I'll get ear ache for being on here on a Sunday! First, your friend will have to try a lot harder to get sent to prison. She's not within a mile of that at the moment (note the "whoops I forgot to pay my council tax since 2005" stories on here). Second, assuming she is able and capable of keeping up the 'don't answer the door, car away from house' siege mentality, she can offer an amount / month without the walking possession. If the bailiffs refuse then pay the council direct through their website. Surely it's the £500 that's gone to bailiffs if that's the older one? Regardless, she needs to stop worrying, adopt seige mentality and work out a payment plan that a) stops the newer account going to bailiffs (priority) and b) reduces the balance on the older debt. If she does thing right, they will soon clock up the £42.50 max charges (assuming you prevent them levying) and back off.

Given that we all seem to be in agreement, would Floridian agree to rename the thread "Commercial rent arrears - Van fees" or something like? As it stands i don't think the people that need to know this will find it in future.

HW has nailed it. Whatever they say, you must argue that the purpose of her visit was to establish whether you were in, with the intent of sending someone else round with a view to levy. EDIT - They have admitted as much in writing.

Instinct says they are wrong because: a) A bailiff said it, so probability of 90%+ it's not true. b) Certain regs. DO state the bailiff must be certified to levy distress,(not sure about knocking on the door for visit fees) but bailiff regs are a mish mash of different often vague statutes. Different debt, different laws. The good news is that the new (not yet in force) regs in the Courts and Tribunal Act, DO specify who is entitled to take control of goods all in one document. I'll have to dig deeper to get a definitive answer. I hope someone else can be more helpful. P.S. "in the event that someone answers the door before they have a chance to run off" i like that!

We need to find some supporting case law or official clarification, then get writing some letters. I'll keep looking.

Can you confirm that the lease specifies a due date?

So what happened to this bailiff story then? I sent them an e-mail and he didn't even acknowledge it.

I hope this link is within the rules. It is from a prominent commercial rent recovery firm. http://www.dbsltd.net/downloads/Guide.pdf In support of my opinion, i draw your attention to the phase under the heading 'distraint', it clearly states that a LEASE must exist.

The repossession of the building is off the table. The tenant has now got a lease and as i understand it is not in breach of it. I'm not saying this enforcement doesn't happen every day, but that's not to say its legal! I don't want to get cowboy's hopes up, but i think the entire action was unlawful (no lease - no distress for rent) and all the fees could be repayable.

No CCJ needed with commercial rent arrears just a lease, a due date and a day late! that's it, a landlord can then act employ a bailiff. I'm pretty sure the removal / van fees are not legitimate in this case. They recovered the rent on that visit and did not begin to remove. It's been a while since i learned about this so I'll have to go away and brush up on it - unless someone beats me to it! Must go and eat, catch you latter....

BLF said: "Although you have no written agreement, you have entered into an "Oral tenancy Agreement" with the LandLord. An agreement all the same." My understanding was that even if there was a lease, where no due date is specified, the due date can be inferred by the frequency / date of previous payments. In this case there is no lease AND there has not been the opportunity to establish a payment pattern and therefore an implied due date. I suspect the only legal remedy in this case was the repossession of the building (via a bailiff) then a futile attempt to recover rent due under an oral agreement.

Ahhhh, that explains how the 'paramedic incident' must have come about. I woke up soaking wet with someone sat on top of me doing chest compressions.

Top this one... My council employed a "Walking Consultant", and yes, they consult on 'walking'. I have offered my services as a 'breathing consultant', but i haven't heard back yet, despite having nearly 40 years experience and an impeccable CV of continuous breathing during that time.

HW & PT. I think we are drifting slightly off course here. Unless I've missed something, there still is no levy in place so they have NO right of entry, and are still at the stage of turning up (randomly without warning) as many times as they like for a maximum total of £42.50. Their phrase: "Whilst the law allows me to remove your possessions in your absence, I would prefer you were present so that we can agree the list of items removed" Is only true to the extent that they could remove items outside your house with or without your presence. You have no need whatsoever to wait in for them, that would only apply when they are collecting previously seized goods left on your premises.