the baliff will only be able to remove goods once he has levied against goods if you let him into your home he can levy, so under no circumstances allow him in you dont have to.... if he forces his way in call the police.... if he comes in he will want you to sign a walking possession order which means he can come back and break into your home and remove goods that he has levied against, try not to sign the order..... you can write to the baliff saying you are aware of your rights and wont let the baliff into your home... I think the fact you are not in full time employment gives you certain rights as well , other in the know people on here will be able to advise you in more detail. the baliff will add costs to the council tax.. he has attended only once so he can only by law add about £25 to the bill as costs, If you read through a few threads on this forum that have similar circumstances to yourself you will see what you can and cant do and what a baliff can and cant do... hope that helps

thanks for the interesting piece of information, I will copy the relevant section and use it accordingly..... I am at the throat of the solicitor at the moment who is refusing to give me sight of the high court writ saying that the case is now closed. I am demanding seeing it as they are supposed to be the ones who have filled for the writ and have been paid the relevant costs by me. I am saying that they are responsible to provide me with a copy of the writ. I have spoken to a very informative sheriffs office earlier today who told me that a copy of the writ should have been presented to me when the HCEO met with me and demanded payment under its terms and conditions . I was also told that the writ should have been sealed with a court stamp. All I can get from the HCEO is a copy of a document that they have put together and added their own stamp, I really hope that they haven't obtained a writ and they have tried to blag another £100 out of me thinking that like most people I would be glad to get them off my back... unfortunately for them I have time on my hands and have been in business tooo long to lay down and take it up the jacksi...

has anyone got any views regarding the fraud act 2006 and the fact that the HCEO knowingly charged fee's that were not allowed to be charged as I am considering lobbing it over to him as a bit of a shot across his bow... 2 Fraud by false representation (1)A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b)intends, by making the representation— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2)A representation is false if— (a)it is untrue or misleading, and (b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. (3)“Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of— (a)the person making the representation, or (b)any other person. (4)A representation may be express or implied. (5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention). 3 Fraud by failing to disclose informationA person is in breach of this section if he— (a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b)intends, by failing to disclose the information— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. 4 Fraud by abuse of position (1)A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person, (b)dishonestly abuses that position, and ©intends, by means of the abuse of that position— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. (2)A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

I got from them a breakdown of charges and challenged the ones that stood out as being false, they have refunded me and said it was an oversights, but as I have said previously their official paperwork had the total fee charge that they were going to collect irrespective of what action they had to take and as far as I am concerned that was intent to deceive and might be classed as fraud .....I have asked them if it is standard practice to collect fee's in this manner and they have said no and the 2 enforcement officers will be repremanded, re trained etc etc... I have asked to see a copy of the official high court writ taken out, but they have sent me by email a piece of paperwork that is not from the High Court , carries no High Court certification, stamp seal etc. The HCEO has stamped it with his stamp and it is laid out like the front page of the paperwork that their officer gave to me when I met him ---- hopefully they haven't applied for a writ, charged me as if they had and dropped themselves further in it... cos I aint going away till I get every question answered and dealt with etc... so does anyone know what an official copy of a high court writ should look like ?

I cant understand why the high court writ would not be on hight court paperwork to make it official ? and why would the HCEO stamp it with their stamp ? I somejow think its a blagg, the HSEO has already had to refund me nearly £400 in costs for fees they should not have charged for and I think its just another way to get an extra £110 out of me... Their answers to my emails are a bit evasive

does anyone know ..... if a high court writ is taken out by a solicitor forllowing a county court judgement is there an actual document produced by the high court with a high court stamp etc. The reason I ask is that I have been trying to get from the solicitor or the HCEO a copy of the writ and so far they have not produced one, the HCEO has sent me a copy of a writ that is not on High Court paper, doesnt have a court stamp on it but the so called copy writ has been stamped with the sheriffs stamp...... any comments ?

EX345 - HMCS clearly states this below Fees charged by Bailiffs/Enforcement Officers Civilian enforcement officers (CEO’S) Magistrates’ Courts — are not allowed to charge you more than the amount you are fined. However, additional costs for removing and selling goods may be added to the amount you owe. BUT IT ALSO STATES THIS There is no statutory scale of fees for bailiffs enforcing magistrates’ courts fines. You can contact the magistrates’ court direct and ask for the agreed scale of fees that bailiffs can charge. I assume the fee's referred to in the above statement are for the removal and selling of goods, not the visit, seizure or letters ? Have you spoke to the court and found out the agreed scale of fee's the baliff can charge, if there is not an agreed fee for seizure then they cant charge, if there is an agreed fee for seizing goods then they can charge. How come they charged you £50 for a letter when it is not on their fee advice sheet they gave you ? You need to check and see if the court agree's that £50 can be charged for a letter as well....

The siezure fee looks excessive, have you checked out the correct amount they could charge if it is legal for them to actually make the charge ?

maybe put a notice in the car widow when you park it on your drive saying that this car belongs to mr xxxxxxxx then the baliff is on notice that it isnt yours. If the baliff clamps it and levies on it, it is then the owners responsibility to prove it is theirs and not yours which is hassel that you dont want... if you put a notice in the car window, or better still a copy of the vehicle registration document so its plain to see, then you might have a case against the baliff because he would have levied knowingly incorrect I would have thought that only when a levy has been made by the baliff will the levied against goods transfer into their custody, while there is no levy they are still yours to do with what you want and will be part of your bankruptcy so therefore belong to the official receiver etc... The liability order might over rule this as has been pointed out, speak to the receiver about it for clarification then come back on here and let everyone know what the ruling is I think on the walking possession order that a baliff will want you to sign it says that you have to inform anyone else who wants to take possession of the goods that they are already in the possession of the baliff. So if nothing is signed nothing belongs to the baliff dont speak to the baliff or the council etc or inform them of what is happening because they will act quickly to secure their debt, and dont let them into your home or sign anything, if the baliff comes tell him that you are fully aware of your rights and that you dont have to let him in. A friend of mine declared himself bankrupt, his debts were gone and he started to live his life again, its not ideal but probably loads better than being pestered by baliffs etc, that was about 2 years ago, he has his own business, bank accounts etc good luck with everything

does that mean there will be no inside info for moi then

The sheriff / bandit charged me for levying against someone elses goods even though he never acutaly levied, in a premises i did not occupy, removing goods that were never removed, using a van that was as expensive as the cost of hiring a private limo to take the goods away driven by lewis hamilton etc.... I paid him, cos I was concerned regarding his legal status and what he said would happen next, and the fact that all these costs were under a heading of enforcement which in the Sheriffs dictionary is defined as "the chance to rip the arse out of people who are ignorant to their rights when dealing with bandits, I mean Sheriffs" but after I paid him I asked for a breakdown of the charges and challenged them, and got a cheque back for what was overcharged.... I got a result, but how many people do not fight back and allow the bandits to commit daylight robbery..... If fair and balanced is fair and balanced he will help me from the inside take this matter further with the sheriff in question, so lets see what he suggests

point taken, but if clare52 writes to the council and puts them on notice that that the baliff has not had the wpo signed by the correct person, and has not got legal access to the goods and has made charges for fee's that are not due and holds the council directly responsible for the baliffs actions as he is acting directly for them as their agent then the council will I am sure put a hold on the case while it is sorted out. Thats what I would do as soon as possible and copy the letter to the baliff and my local MP so everyone is fully aware of the situation.

what advise can you give to me ( you knowing the inside track ) regarding a sheriff that purposely overcharged for several things when making the first visit and was paid at that first visit fee's of around £400. The Sheriff has since refunded the overcharge and appologised in writing saying it was his agents mistake when his agent had everything down on the sheriffs official paperwork. As far as I am concerned this is the standard practice of this sheriff, and I am going to do everything in my power to cause as much grief for this sheriff as legaly possible.... I will be interested to hear your comments and advise regarding this as I am sure that you want these rouge traders banished from your industry as much as everyone else...

I have just read your post again and it certainly came across that way to me ? anyway moving on

as far as i was aware if a levy was made and the baliff doesnt stay with the goods or appoint someone to stay with the goods or remove the goods and a wpa is not signed then there is nothing to stop the person levied against removing the goods as the baliff cannot prove that he has levied, if that was not the case then the baliff can simply look through a window and list and stick the levy list through the letterbox and say he had peacefull entry, the wpa gives the baliff the rights to collect the goods if payments are not made and the person levied against by signing the wpa has agreed not to remove the goods. possession is 9/10 of the law....... regarding the court case to establish and enforce, it would be the baliff who would have to take the case to court in my opinion not the defendant.