Bailiffs and stuff understandably get passions raised. Blkuk1 has a point though - as the law stands - much as some people (me included) may regret it - public bodies mainly magistrates and local authorities can and do use bailiffs to collect unpaid fines and taxes. Until the law is changed there will always be bailiffs out there doing the work and it is better that it is the more reputable people that are doing it - can't say whether Blkuk1 is one of those. however this site should be about open views and personally I find it helpful to get the views of bailiffs and debt collectors - sometimes to challenge and also to acknowledge another viewpoint - mods no censorship please. (apart from the pbvious abuse stuff etc etc).

ps second line - my gripe not my grip - it is my grip that I am losing trying to sort the damn mess out!

Okonski I never said it was 02's fault - but nor is it mine - the problem is having two companies involved here - the payment is to 02 and my grip is with Phones 4U - and the relevant act is not the sale of goods act but the supply of goods and services act - because the handset came with the contract. I have tried to mitigate my losses - I have borrowed a handset and sent the phone off for repair - tho a replacement in the meantime would have been reasonable (Vodafone provide this - Julie I agree I rue the day I changed providers). The phone has come back and it still doesn't work. P4U say they will have to send it off another two times before they will replace it - why three times? Why? Either it is repairable or it isn't. I have found out that I am entitled to compensation from P4U for the contract costs whilst the phone is out of action - no-one at P4u or 02 advised me of this until I asked them when P4u agreed they did have to do this - BUT - they deduct ten days per repair from the compensation. So if it does get sent off three times that's thirty days I won't be recompensed for - and no doubt no recompense for the phonecalls (o870 of course) or the time taken from work to visit the shop with the said duff handset. How on earth do mobile phone companies get away with this? Does anyone know whether Oftel deal with mobile phone companies?

Has anyone else had a bad experience with this bunch of cowboys? I signed a contract with them on 16.08.06 for a new phone. On 16.09.06 (no kidding!) it stopped working. I took the phone back on 18.09.06 and was told that as it waas outside their 28 day replacement policy (by a matter of hours by my reckoning) I would have to send the phone off for repair. So I asked if I could have a replacement handset whilst mine was being repaired - no joy. Ok so I decided to claim on my (expensive) insurance Phones4U had sold me - no - as it was a phone fault they wouldn't pay. The operator I spoke to (not helpfully under the circumstances) explained that had I lost it they would have paid but as it was not my fault, they would not replace the handset (at this point I realised the idiocy of being honest - had I pretended the phone had been lost, stolen or dropped in a vat of hot oil I would have been fine!) Anyway, too late, I had explained that the phone was defective and I knew not why. So now I am told I have to keep paying 02 for the contract phone I do not have and wait to see whether the phone can be repaired. What can I do?

So as I read this case - if there is imminent danger of a breach of the peace - the police officer is justified in arresting the bailiff not the debtor - because it is the bailiff who is acting provocatively? This is interesting as bailiffs frequently involve or threatens to involve the police on the grounds that they fear an imminent breach of the peace - but the intention (of the bailfiff) is obviously that it is the debtor who will be charged. Have I understood this correctly?

Zooman - interested in what you say about costs - in our local authority - if the bailiff does not collect then only the original amount of outstanding council tax is returned and the costs remain uncollected. In theory I suppose the bailiffs could try and chase them but the council would never try and recoup bailiff costs on their behalf. Is that unusual? I assumed all council's operated that way.

And just to be clear - if they do send someone round - they are more likely to be a debt collector than a bailiff - as a private bailiff cannot call for a credit debt like this one - unless there is a CCJ and if so itwould be a court bailiff - all you need to do is make it clear it has nothing to do with you.

No they can't pick pocket you - although having watched the Whistleblower programme on bailiffs this week - they seem to get away with all sorts of things they can't legally do - and if it is your word against theirs it seems they get away with it with impunity. Outrageous.

Reckon you might be able to challenge that one maybelline!

Agree with Elsinore - no levy - no more than £39 charges. Doesn't sound like the levied the car.

Rambo I totally agree - they take the **** all the time and seemingly with impunity - it makes me mad! Hadyn I would love to know what you sued Ross and Roberts for and what the outcome was. Maybe more of us should try it.

That does cloud the issue a little - did they remove your car? What happened to the keys? Basically I think they can sieze a vehicle if they have reason to believe it is yours (and the bill is in your name) but if they want to have the right to come back another time to remove goods then you have to sign a walking possession agreement.

oops sorry, that was meant to be http://www.national debtline.co.uk, thats the trouble with cut and paste. Tho you could phone them as well for confirmation.

No, it is not legal to charge a van fee for collection of council tax if the bailiff has not taken a levy. The fees for council tax are regulated by statute - if no levy has been taken then they are allowed to charge £22.50 for the first letter or visit and £16.50 for the second. That is it unless they obtain walking possession - if you would like a summary of what they can charge go to national debtline's web site: National Debtline, for FREE CONFIDENTIAL and INDEPENDENT ADVICE call 0808 808 4000, and go to factsheets, then bailiffs and council tax, where the regulations have been reproduced. They do this all the time - don't let them get away with it. If they refuse to refund you, national debtline's factsheet tells you how and where to complain.

I think this has come up elsewhere on this site - I suggest you read the whole of the Phillips Bailiffs thread - if the bailiff has not obtained a levy then they can charge £22.50 for the first letter/visit and £16.50 for a subsequent letter/visit. If collecting for council tax then that is all they can charge unless there has been a levy taken after which it becomes much more nebulous as you are then in the realms of "reasonable charges"

Unfortunately most collection agencies dont give ***** about the guidelines.

This is what I would do - ensure you open every letter. If it is letter chasing payment - do not reply. File letter. Forget until next letter recieved. File next letter. Etc Etc. If court papers issued -ask for original signed agreement. Ignore all letters unless clearly court papers. Debt is so old court action unlikely. E x

Selling debts is common practice in the debt industry and is increasing - there is nothing sinsister in you recieving a letter from an agency you have never heard of - whether you chose to make payments to them is of course another matter...

There is a lot of muddled information in this thread. For clarity: the local council have instructed private bailiffs. These are not the same as court bailiffs so forget the N245 etc which only applies to court bailiffs (completely different). You have the right to refuse entry to the bailiff but they have the right to destrain other goods/chattels eg a car on the driveway even if you refuse entry. If the baillif does not gain entry and there are no other goods/ chattels to destrain then the account will be returned to the council and will probably be referred to the magistrates court for a hearing to find out why the debt has not been paid.

durr!! somehow only got the first page of this very interesting thread . Sorry peeps. Keep up the good work. E

Beerandy1969 - if you only stopped paying this year then you have been acknowledging the debt with any payment so you have not "missed a trick" - Zoomans advice was valid but only before you volunteered the information that although the debt was old you have been paying until recently and therefore any arguments about the Limitations Act won't apply as there is no period of six years in which the debt was not pursued or acknowledged. The Limitation Act only applies if there has been no contact in the last six years, not if the the debt is over six years old - so forget this although it is still worth pressing for a copy of the original agreement. What you do now depends on your circumstances - you could a) ignore them b) offer them a sum in full and final settlement or c) offer a monthly payment.

Just a thought for people wanting to obtain a statement of bailiff fees - instead of asking for a breakdown of charges under the DPA s7 which carries a fee - point out that under the National Standards for Enforcement Agents - the Code (albeit advisory and therefore not legally enforceable, but any bailiff collecting for a local authority or magistrates court should be adhering to them) they are obliged to supply a statement of fees on receipt of a written request for no charge. Ellie

Not sure what you mean Haydn about isn't it best this way - as Zooman indicates it is the creditors decision whether they issue a claim - however what many people are not aware of is that they (dca's) threaten court action liberally and often do not (maybe never intended?) to carry the threat out - it works - the borrower/debtor makes an offer and they (the dca) consider this a result as they then have a payment offer. It is best therefore not to ignore these threats but also not to be scared into making an offer which is not affordable - calculate what you can afford to pay and stick to it - ideally explaining your circumstances and showing why the offer is the maximum you can afford - if they threaten court then say "fine, that is really REALLY all I can afford so if you are refusing my offer the district judge will have to decide whether it is a reasonable offer or not.

Shaz - do you have any idea what the debt was for? They should tell you whom the original lender was. For clarification "the six year point" only applies of the creditor or their agent has not attempted to collect the debt within the six year period - otherwise they do not lose their right to collect at the end of six years. If you are not sure what the debt is for I would suggest you insist on this information before you make any further payments. Ellie

Thank you - the situation is this: the bailiff has charged fees for two van visits - the first at £350 and the second at £280. There are also other costs - a "redemption fee" which always seems to be added and charges for payments by credit cards. The bailiff is collecting for unpaid council tax and does not have a levy. From your reply I gather that a taxation hearing is inappropriate as what is in question is the legal right to charge the van fees? If there was a levy and I wanted to claim that the van costs were excessive then I could go for a detailed assessment. Have I got that right? Thanks for you help. E