I understand that I should not withhold rent but it wasn't actually ME withholding it, it was Housing Benefit withholding the rent due to me to pay to the landlord - if you get my drift.

At the time the landlord served notice it was the day the rent was due so I was 2 months in arrears - that was November. HB have withheld their payments to me because of this case so I am now 3 months in arrears. By the time it goes for a second hearing I will be 4 months in arrears. HB also refuse to pay the landlord direct even though he would normally be entitled to have it paid direct to him after 8 weeks arrears. Thanks for telling me I can still sue even though I leave. I didn't know this. My stance is that I don't want a CCJ as a result of money order judgment thing so I was trying to appease the landlord in order to avoid this.

Current Events: Boiler was finally fixed in mid-September but there are ongoing problems with the hot water and boiler generally. Landlord served notice using section 8, 10 and 11 because single mum withheld rent. Single mum filed a defence and counter-claim for damages for landlord's failure under his repairing obligations and his reasonable time for doing said repairs. At hearing, judge did NOT grant possession to landlord but gave tenant time to serve and file a defence (Feb) - tenant claimed 200 days (with full evidence) of time she lacked as having quiet enjoyment etc., which amounted to the landlord owing HER money. Judge warned landlord that it would be a very costly exercise if he insisted on not compromising and going to court. Tenant did not query landlord's statutory right under section 8. Tenant wrote to landlord with proposal for cessation of proceedings (because she feared a CCJ) and that they should both drop their respective claims as tenant is moving out anyway. Tenant is still in situ but hopeful to find somewhere else before the next hearing.

Petersfield, Hampshire

Thank goodness at least someone came back to me.... rang around for a few quotes yesterday and they all approx £130 plus for doing it! crazy money!

Took an AST in April - single mum and child - within 3 weeks I felt ill - clever child thought it could be carbon monoxide poisening symptoms so called Brit Gas emergency - he got his scanner out and detected leakage so condemned boiler and turned off gas but left hob on. 3 weeks later annual gas inspection due anyway. It failed boiler and flue. Landlord didn't want to pay out so had a go at fixing flue himself. British Gas wrote in a letter that he could fix the flue but not tamper with the gas. Landlord has been in and out of house some 2-3 times per week staying between 3-6 hours each time as well as British Gas who each time had to inspect his work. Each time it failed. It has failed approx 6 times now. British Gas refuse to quote him for repair because (a) too old so much they don't make the parts for it and (b) don't want to give a warranty for such an old boiler. landlord managed to get flue from manufacturer but couldn't fix it together properly so he put sealant round the flue. BG failed it again. They were aghast. I was here every time. Area manager involved and all sorts. Family have had very little enjoyment of property without boiler and have telephoned Local Authority and H&S Exec who have made a few waves but now landlord getting very aggressive with single mum demanding MORE access and making threats that if single mum doesn't let him have access then he'll just come in anyway, given that he is the landlord. Single mum says she has been more than accommodating giving him free and uninterrupted access without notice because of the severity of the case. Reminded that he has been coming to the house at all hours for the last 2 months as and when he felt like it. Single mum firmly believes landlord is trying to rely on a less intelligent BG man to pass the boiler, even knowing the possible consequences because he doesn't give a damn. Single mum also believes that he is trying to use the "tenant won't let me have access" argument because he doesn't want to spend the money. Question: 1. Am I ever in a position to say NO to more access? Can't I just insist he get a professional just as BG have told him. 2. I really am quite frightened of him so I am thinking of changing the locks, where can I go for a cheap locksmith?

The Final Countdown. Here's Waverley's reply to my earlier letter for those who may be interested...... I have every intention of seeing this through to the end... Dear Ms Thank you for your response to my e-mail. I have noted the points that you make. Waverley is not disputing that you made a payment on the 24th. However this payment did not cover the full amount owing including costs. The Council only instructs bailiffs to take over the recovery of unpaid council tax as a last resort. Before this action is taken, Waverley sends reminders to prompt the council taxpayer to take action to avoid costs being incurred and passed on to them. My letter set out the Council's position in detail. The bailiff has advised us that you will need to pay them the outstanding amount in full midday on the 17th February to avoid your car being sold at auction. Clearly I would urge you to do this to avoid this action being taken. If you feel unhappy with my response, please write again as soon as possible to the Chief Executive, Mary Orton. Please explain why you remain dissatisfied with my response and ask her to look at the matter again under Level 3 of the Waverley’s complaints procedure. Yours sincerely Graeme Clark Head of Finance Waverley Borough Council Dear Mr Clark Firstly, I deny ever having received any reminders by Waverley (they may have been sent to my old address to which this council tax refers). You are referring to £100 being your costs under the Liability Order that were sufficient enough for you to instruct bailiffs. Bailiffs costs to date, which you consider as being reasonable, are in excess of £1000 for what can only be your £100 costs. I most certainly am dissatisfied with your response and extremely aggrieved by the amount of bailiffs costs and I repeat they are wholly disproporitionate to the amount owed and I am already advised they are illegal. I strongly urge you to please re-read my letter as to my intended action should my car not be returned forthwith. Yours sincerely

Oh my goodness, for a moment there I thought you were referring to MY letter... how upset I was about to be..... Today is saturday, its 10.10a.m. and I am giving serious consideration as to whether I shall pursue this. After all, I have just lost the long - term temp booking I had hoped to start and I suppose my car is now gone forever - the family and I are all pretty cheesed off generally and my son started a paper round this morning and said "well mum, we've always got MY money now!" and I've said that he can open up a children's iSA with his £110 per month until he knows his Lalique from his Ming.

In case anyone is interested - looks like I won't get my car back and I have until midday today to come up with the money - I won't be doing that..... here is the correspondence passing between us. Even the Director of Finance has responded with incorrect facts - the general consenus of opinion is that my advice on the law is out of date. From: [email protected] Subject: Waverley Borough Council - Outstanding Council Tax Dear Ms I am writing regarding the vehicle EU02 LCP Renault Megane, which our bailiff Mr T Cooper had removed. It is now with the Auctioneers and will be sold in the next auction as a non runner, as it does not have the keys or log book with it. This will result in a low sale price. However, if you send us the keys and the log book, the vehicle will sell for considerably more. Thus reducing your debt further with Waverley Borough Council and ourselves. Clearly getting the best price for the vehicle would be to your advantage. If you would like to discuss the matter further, please do not hesitate to contact our office on 020 8661 2515 between the hours of 10am - 4pm . Kind Regards Deborah Harding Administrator Contact telephone number 020 8661 2122 9am - 5pm Alexander's Commercial Services Limited Dear Ms Harding I am in receipt of your email sent this morning at 05.03 a.m. I would reply as follows: Dear Sirs With reference to the above account I see that both Mr Piper of Waverley and Alexander's bailiffs are still denying me the right and opportunity to settle "the full amount due under the regulations". Alexander's email from Debbie today says that the car is now with the auctioneers and implies that the car will not fetch the required amount to cover their own fees (given that the council tax due was settled in full at the end of January). As you must doubtless be aware that the "regulations" state that any goods levied and seized for sale at auction must cover the cost of the debt. You have failed to consider this. The value of the car if sold at auction would not raise the amount demanded, such amount I will deal with in my next paragraph. In the meantime, I would refer you to the Judgment of Throssell and Leeds City Council where the Judge states : "as for your car, how old is it? i.e. would the sale of it actually cover the cost of the bill anyway? ... a vehicle should only be removed if the proceeds of sale provide that there would be a surplus available to the pay the debt" . As the sale of my car will not cover all these costs, I put it to you that your Bailiff has acted outside "the regulations". On the question of Alexander's costs. You are fully aware that your costs are exhorbitant in the extreme. They are not only illegal and disproportioinate to the £259.61 council tax owed and already paid, but wholly unreasonable by anyone's reasonable standards, such standards judged by the standards of the ordinary man (Hart, Law, Liberty and Morality) and as such I now insist these costs be taxed by the County Court. Additionally, I have today spoken with Croydon County Court with a view to registering a formal complaint about Alexander's. I intend also to request that they issue a Summons against Waverley Borough Council by virtue of Regulation 46 Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regs 1992 as a matter of urgency because my complaints about the levy to both Alexander's bailliffs and Mr Piper acting on behalf of Waverley have been ignored. This is evidenced, inter alia, by my own recordings of various conversations, one, on my doorstep with your Mr O'Neill (who was an uncertified bailiff and without valid certification at the time of his visit); telephone conversations with Mr Piper of Waverley, emails and correspondence. However, in one final attempt to resolve this matter and prevent further legal action being taken (and I fully intend to pursue this matter to its end conclusion including the local government Ombudsman notwithstanding the intention of sending a subject access to Alexander's via my own solicitors) I would invite you to reconsider your costs to a more realistic amount to bring this matter to an end. Your fees stand short of a thousand pounds. I trust you are able to revert back to me as a matter of urgency. c.c. Simon Piper, Waverley Borough Council Sue Petzold - please forward to Mary Orton and confirm receipt. I am writing to follow up your telephone conversations last week with our Customer Relations Officer, Sue Petzold, and your correspondence with our Principal Revenues Officer, Simon Piper, regarding the problems you have experienced with Alexander’s the bailiffs. I understand you are concerned in particular about the level of fees charged by the bailiffs and the fact that they have taken away your car. I have investigated your concerns under Level 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure and would like to make the following comments. First, I should explain that you initially incurred bailiff fees because the liability order granted to the Council on 22 July 2010 for your outstanding council tax of £251.69 plus £103.00 costs was not paid in full before the bailiff attended your property on 2 and 3 November 2010 to enforce payment. Unfortunately you offered no payment towards your debt and it was necessary for the bailiffs to make a third visit to your property 25 January this year, as a result of which the bailiff fees now amount to a total of £749.50. I have looked at the bailiff fees you have incurred, and I believe these to be reasonable given that it has been necessary for the bailiffs to attend your property on four occasions. Had you made an arrangement with the bailiffs to pay your outstanding debt when they first visited you in November last year, the costs would have been much lower. However, it is open to you to challenge the level of fees charged by our bailiffs by making an application to the County Court for the fees to be assess. I understand that your nearest County Court is Aldershot and Farnham County Court at 78-82 Victoria Road, Aldershot, GU11 1SS. I would suggest that if you are still concerned about the fees, this is the most appropriate course of action for you to take. It seems that the bailiff’s third visit prompted you to pay your outstanding council tax, but unfortunately you did not pay the Council’s costs or the bailiff costs. As a result, and as Simon Piper has already explained to you, your payment of £251.69 was credited to the enforcement fees in accordance with regulation 52(4) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations. This means that your outstanding debt is as follows: Council tax debt £354.69 (including costs of £103.00) Bailiff fees £497.81 (ie £749.50 less payment of £251.69) Total £852.50 I hope you now understand why your debt has increased. It is likely that the bailiffs will be arranging to sell you car in the very near future, and I would therefore urge you to contact the bailiff as soon as possible to pay this outstanding amount. If you feel unhappy with my response, please write again as soon as possible to the Chief Executive, Mary Orton. Please explain why you remain dissatisfied with my response and ask her to look at the matter again under Level 3 of the Waverley’s complaints procedure. Yours sincerely Graeme Clark Head of Finance and Performance Dear Mr Clarke Re: Council Tax I am afraid you are misinformed on a number of issues, namely: 1. I have no recollection of Alexander's attending on 2nd and 3rd November. I do however have a notice of seizure dated 11th November wihch I found on the grass outside my house. 1. I wrote to your Mr Simon Piper on 24th January saying that I paid the full council tax owed. 2. The visit by baillifs on 25th January was therefore unwarranted and I emailed both Simon Piper and Alexander's bailiffs copies of my letter to this effect. 3. By January 31st payment had been made. 4. On 2nd February Alexander's bailiffs towed my car. 5. On 2nd February I sent copies of my bank account to Simon Piper to this effect. If this cannot be resolved civilly and promptly I shall enlist the services offered to me as a student of the College of Law. .......................... MEANWHILE, Thank you for your email dated 9 February 2011. I would like to state that at every stage from the initial bill to after the removal of your vehicle, all notifications have been left at your property as per the regulations. The email Deborah sent you clearly states that the vehicle will raise more if sold with the keys and the log book. The vehicle is valued at approximately £1000, but we are unable to ascertain exactly how much it will sell for as it is an auction sale. Please note that neither of our bailiffs that attended your premises acted outside regulations at any time. All actions taken were perfectly legal. Your email states that you now insist that the costs be taxed by the County Court. You should know that costs are assessed and no longer taxed. As with the many comments in your various communications your advice is out of date. At every stage, from the summons and initial bill onwards, it has been made clear what costs have been and would be incurred if you failed to comply with your legal requirements. All our actions have been legal and it is you that has acted illegally by refusing to pay. It is your right to make a formal complaint to Croydon County Court against Alexanders and Waverley Borough Council, but please be informed that we will make a claim against you for any costs which we duly incur as a result of your actions. Your email clearly states that Mr O'Neill was an uncertified bailiff, again your information is incorrect. Mr O'Neill was a Certificated Bailiff and still is. The online registration of Certificated Bailiffs is a Government initiative and it is their responsibility to maintain. You would not now be in this position had you used the money you intend to use on a solicitor to pay your Council Tax or had should spent as much energy trying to resolve this before it went to court, as you are now trying to justify not paying the legally incurred costs and charges, either the councils or the bailiffs. You have until 12 noon tomorrow to pay £972.50 in full or your car will be sold, please note that there is a 5% service charge for payments by card. Yours sincerely For and Behalf of Alexander's

thanks hallowitch - I am going to send this and tweek it a little - frankly, i don't think Peter Piper and Alexanders have the intellectual capacity to understand it but i will send it nonetheless tomorrow after I have had time to sleep on it. Your input has been so very helpful I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. thanks. I wonder what our other comrades think about it?

hallowitch - the answer to you first question is No, it was not broken down and makes no mention of further costs - just to remind you.. 1. Notice of Seizure of Goods and Inventory - dated 3rd November 2010 for an amount of £696.19 (as mentioned in my earlier post made up of £24.50 first attendance; £35 stat levy fee; £270 enforcement costs) 2. Notice Not To Move dated 3rd November for an amount £696.19. 3. Notice of Bailiffs Attendance - dated 25 january 2011 £866.19 with hand written note saying please ring me asap within 24 hours to stop tow truck and additional costs" 4. Notice of Bailiffs Attendance No. 2 dated 25th January 2011 £866.19 including costs of £170.00 with a hand written note saying your car has been immobilised (clamped) and will be removed by 10am today unless amount paid in full" 5. Removal Note - dated 2nd February Pursuant to Order the items listed below have today been seized uand will be sold by Public Auction witho payment includin all csts are paid into ofice by 7 Feb 2011. 6. Notice of Bailiffs Attendance dated 2nd February for an amount £866.19 saying Alexanders "have attended your premises today with transport for the purpose of removing goods in execution on behalf of Waverley Council. If you do not contct me to make arrangements to pay the amount specified below i shall return with the intention to remove goods. This will incur substantial further costs as teh law directs and removal m ay take place even in your absence. Amount outstanding £866.19 ... within 24 hours to stop additional costs - PS we have photographic evidence that car was seized and immobilized" Hope this answers your question hallowitch

if I dont manage to get my car back (and I will give it one last attempt with hallowwitch's help) can't I sue them on the grounds "proportionality" because their fees are disproportionate to the original amount owed?

bless you for helping me out.

LR say there is an expiration date which the rules say must be adhered to. Phoned CCC spoke to Ms C on her direct line - she first of all wrongly said there was no one by that name, then I insisted and she came back with confirmation that his certificate was granted on 16th November 2009 - application being applied for on 8th September - she said it was down to the Judge to decide whether he could continue working without a certificate in the interim - possibly not, if it was a new certificate but if it was just a renewal then, "maybe". From the information I have, this was a renewal.

in other words the bailiff had a month when he was not registered - can I use this against them do you think?

Just had a phone call on m y mobile from Alexanders from Debbie. She says they are having difficulties with their emailing system!!!! and that the amount of £954.50 DOES include the £251.69 I've already paid - what an utter rip off!! the removal fees were £250 she also says. Time and Date noted. Recording kept for possible future reference.

Just made the phone call and they say that there is a Mr Jean-Darren O'Neill (who also goes by the name of John). When he visited my property HE WAS NOT REGISTERED. His registration ran from 16th November. So, when he visited my home on 3rd November, HE WAS NOT REGISTERED. Further, his registration ran from 17 Oct 2007 until 16 Oct 2009 (because its renewed every 2 years) and renewed on 16th Nov 2010.

yes, I['ve paid £251.69 already. Here's the response frm Alexanders: Thank you for your email. Please be informed that to release your vehicle, we require the full outstanding balance, which is £864.50 plus £15 per day storage costs. If paid today, then the total needed will be £954.50. If you need any further information, do not hesitate to contact our office. Kind Regards Deborah Harding Administrator

My tax credits are cleared by saturday.

hallowitch - no, I havent - I don't think he can do anything for me right now can he?

Right, I've got my paperwork. 03 Nov 2010 - "Notice Not to Move" from Alexanders (signed by non certified bailiff called Mr O'Neil) saying this vehicle is now seized AND "Notie of Seizure of Goods and Inventory" also dated 3rd Nov (stating the LO costs; costs of 1st attendance as £25.00; levy fee £35.00 ; Enforcement costs £270 - total due if paid immediately £696.19) 15 Dec 2010 - letter Waverley BC to me with breakdown of council tax and LO - £354.69 24 Jan - i wrote to council questioning disproportionate costs 25 Jan - Notice of bailiffs attendance - amount now £866.19 25 jan another notice of bailiffs attendance including costs £170 - car now clamped (or so they thought) 25 jan I move car 30 jan - council tax left my bank account - £251.69 2 feb Alexanders came back and found my car, towed it and left a notice saying "pursuant to the above order, the items listed below have today been seized and will be sold by public auction unless full payment including costs are paid by 7th Feb. 2 feb - Alexanders put thru letterbox a Notice of bailiffs attendance with an amount of £866.19 - Mr T Cooper 8 feb - Alexanders want £ 954.50

I don't have any money until m y tax credits come through and that will only be £200 adn we will have to go without groceries. the only other alternative is not to pay the rent at the end of month - my car isn't worth £1000 or more even with the keys and log book - it really is an old banger.

Original summons (I presume its the LO) £351.69. First visit £24.50 (with the intention to levy but NO levy) I pay the entire council tax bill of £251.69 This leaves £100 out standing on LO. Then, 2nd visit - car clamped (or so they thought) Then 3rd visit - removal of car - £300 max (you say) The current maximum according to their notice now stands at £864.50, this does not take into account levying the car, nor storage (which I believe can only be £2.50 per day according to CAB) I do not have a written demand for this but I do have it in writing, somewhere yes, by 25th Jan it had risen to £866 PRIOR to the removal of my car - I don't have a written demand but I do have it in writing, right beside me dated 2nd Feb. Alexanders have just emailed me a response which now follows and I have asked them if this includes the £251.69 already paid: .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P{padding:0px;}.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}Dear Ms Thank you for your email. Please be informed that to release your vehicle, we require the full outstanding balance, which is £864.50 plus £15 per day storage costs. If paid today, then the total needed will be £954.50. If you need any further information, do not hesitate to contact our office. Kind Regards Deborah Harding Administrator Contact telephone number 020 8661 2122 9am - 5pm Alexander's Commercial Services Limited Company Reg. No 3498683, UK Reg. Office: 75 Park Lane, Croydon CR9 1XS

This is the reply I've just got back from Alexanders bailiffs which completely ignores my earlier email asking them for a figure to return my car! Is ther nothing I can do? Dear Ms Stewart I am writing regarding the vehicle EU02 LCP Renault Megane, which our bailiff Mr T Cooper had removed. It is now with the Auctioneers and will be sold in the next auction as a non runner, as it does not have the keys or log book with it. This will result in a low sale price. However, if you send us the keys and the log book, the vehicle will sell for considerably more. Thus reducing your debt further with Waverley Borough Council and ourselves. Clearly getting the best price for the vehicle would be to your advantage. If you would like to discuss the matter further, please do not hesitate to contact our office on 020 8661 2515 between the hours of 10am - 4pm . Kind Regards Deborah Harding Administrator Contact telephone number 020 8661 2122 9am - 5pm Alexander's Commercial Services Limited Company Reg. No 3498683, UK Reg. Office: 75 Park Lane, Croydon CR9 1XS

This is a follow on from "the bailiffs have broken into my back garden". sorry its such a long thread.... my depression has got so bad now, mostly because of this, that I'm now seeing a psychotherapist - so I can at least talk to someone - she phoned a lawyer and he said that Councils can often "negotiate" how much they will accept to return to my car (apparently, a bit like the "poll tax" - i wasn't very aware when that mallarky was going on ) - It is quite clear from my correspondence with Waverley that he simply WILL NOT address the issue of costs - every time I ask him about costs he continues to FAIL to address the EXACT amount. This is evident in 2 letters he has written to me ... he simply says "... and bailiffs costs ...". he knows that the costs are disproportionate to the amount owed but he just detracts from answering the question. He keeps going on about me applying to the court for the costs to be taxed. He simply fails to "get a grip" on the fact that Waverley have instructed the bailiffs and the bailiffs are acting as agents for Waverley so, ultimately, it surely must be Waverley who decides what costs can be adminsitered.????? Currently, as per my psycho, I asked Waverley what was the minimum amount they required and they simply said get in touch with the bailiffs b....... well, I attach all the emails going to and fro.... My question is, shall I apply t the court for a summons as previously suggested so I can show how the bailiffs have acted uneasonably (incidentally, my landlord has noticed the back gate has a huge chunk missing...... I obviously pleaded ignorance...and the neighbours have informed her that "dodgy" people have been round..... I've now been served notice to quit etc.,etc.,) or what on earth shall I do? .ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P{padding:0px;}.ExternalC lass body.ecxhmmessage{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} Alexander's bailiffs please see copy correspondence. How much do you "legally" require to return my car - my children are not at school, I am not at work nor am I at college and I would pleased if we could resolve this matter so my family can return to normal. To: Subject: RE: Council tax account: 12449105 From: [email protected]. uk Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:01:57 +0000 Dear Thanks for your e-mail. I suggest you contact Alexander's for the exact amount required as Waverley does not necessarily know all of the charges that are being accrued. I suggest you contact the bailiff's office on [email protected] o.uk or telephone 0208 661 2515 between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm. Yours sincerely Simon Piper Principal Revenues Officer Direct line: 01483 523104 From: r To: Date: 07/02/2011 15:18 Subject: RE: Council tax account: 12449105 Dear Mr Piper Can you please tell me what is the minimum amount you require to return my car. Thank you R To: Subject: RE: Council tax account: 12449105 From: [email protected]. uk Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:42:31 +0000 Dear Thank you for your e-mails dated 2 February. As you are aware, your payment of £251.69 has been credited to the enforcement's fees in accordance with regulation 52(4) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. The liability order granted to the Council on 22 July 2010 is in the sum of £354.69. The bailiff has been instructed to enforce payment of the unpaid liability order and the enforcement charges, hence the removal of your motor car and its impending sale at auction unless the outstanding debt is paid in full. Schedule 5 of the regulations does not comment on the total level of fees that may be incurred by a debtor when a liability order is enforced. A number of the fees are a percentage of the sum owing or fixed sums while the charges for a bailiff attending are required to be reasonable. If you wish to challenge the fees you may apply at your own expense to have them taxed in the county court. You will note from regulation 45 (1) that the costs incurred in enforcing a liability order may be recovered by distress and the sale of goods. If you are aggrieved by the levy you may appeal to the Magistrates ' Court at your own expense under regulation 46. There is no requirement for the bailiff to separate the enforcement charges and pursue them through the County Court. Yours sincerely Simon Piper Principal Revenues Officer Direct line: 01483 523104 From: To: Date: 02/02/2011 12:04 Subject: RE: Council tax account: 12449105 Dear Mr Piper Your bailiff contiues to come to the property pursuing the amount of £866.19 even though the council tax of £251.69 has been paid. They are obviously acting on your instruction and as you will know that under Regulation 45 Schedule 5 of the Council Tax Administration and Enforcement Regulations do not allow for fees of this amount. You are fully responsible for the bailiff's actions. You will be aware that he cannot use a Liability Order to pursue me for costs and it is he who must make an application through the small claims court for these fees. Yours sincerely Please note that all correspondence is being copied in to Mary Orton, Director of Waverley To: Subject: Council tax account: 12449105 From: [email protected]. uk Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:37:34 +0000 Dear Ms S Thank you for your letter dated 24 January received today in reply to my letter dated 15 December 2010. I note that you have made arrangements to pay Waverley £251.69. This is not accepted as full and final settlement of the debt owing to the Council as it does not satisfy the amounts due in law from you. In accordance with The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 the payment, when received, will be credited to the costs and charges first. Assuming your payment of £251.69 is received the balance of £103.00 will remain unpaid, in addition to the bailiff's fees. The bailiff's fees have been incurred as a consequence of your not paying the council tax owing to Waverley and I explained in my letter dated 15 December the actions taken by Waverley prior to the bailiff attending. If you wish to challenge the level of the bailiff's fees you may apply to have them taxed by the county court. In the meantime I expect the bailiff to continue to enforce the liability order dated 22 July 2010. I urge you to settle the debt in full with the bailiff immediately in order to prevent the bailiff's fees increasing further. Yours sincerely Simon Piper Principal Revenues Officer Direct line: 01483 523104 We are passionate about improving lives, leisure, environment, value for money and subsidised affordable housing.