He said he could walk into the house whereas he couldn't-I just put that down to a hyperthetical statement in order to show that he was giving the debtor a chance to resolve the issue. With regards levying on third parties goods,a levy would instantly become invalid as impounding would not have taken place IMO the whole problem regarding bailiffs is the ignorance that people generally have regarding their powers.I wouldn't mind betting that nobody on this thread would have a car towed away where they were not the debtor.This is because they would know how to deal with it.If bailiff law was common knowledge,the threat of bailiffs would loose its impact.It suits the Government for this issue to be cloudy as a large portion of bailiffs are deployed in collecting Government money.I myself have been a victim of ignorance in the past and its only thanks to various websites that have enabled me to learn a little about the real lack of power that many bailiffs have.

I don't think any bailiffs will bother checking with DVLA as there is a cost involved.I'm pretty sure that there is no cost for HPI checks. When we had a car levied recently,the bailiffs asked if we would forward them a copy of the V5 (which we didn't do) They are quite happy to "cast a net" levying anything possible in order to charge for a levy.Like everything with bailiffs,its all bluff & they wouldn't dream of taking a 3rd parties car. There is nothing to stop the 3rd party driving the car away in any case.

So are we now saying (HCEO & danmcr) that if a vehicle is not registered to the debtor,it won't be levied? An example of a bailiff conducting himself professionally,not sure I'd be able to maintain this level of patience:

I don't think that schedule 12 is actually in force yet. If a car is parked on the debtors property,bailiffs argue that it is reasonable to assume it belongs to the debtor.Bailiffs will quote case law from a judge who stated that he didn't think that a DVLA check would "reliably take the enquiry any further forward".He was countering Dr Martins (LGO) determination that in every case,a bailiff should make a DVLA check. On a positive side-If this case law is now setting a precedent then it would be very hard for a bailiff to prove that a debtor owns a car,even if the V5 has him/her as the registered keeper

I don't think they will be able to sieze 3rd parties goods because the TC&E Act 2007,part 3 (which is also projected to come into play at the same time) has excellent clarification on what is required to conduct a lawful levy.To impound a vehicle,or anything else for that matter,the act states that a bailiff must comply with schedule 12,section 13.

The bulk of the charge is for obtaining the summons,not the LO-Still if you have paid all this as well as your council tax then you don't owe any money & enforcement would be wrong.

With regards to this years liability order,my advice would be to pay it to the council (making sure that it goes against the correct years account).You can argue that it shouldn't have gone to bailiffs & you MAY win the argument.If you lose then you will still have to pay the liability order charges as well as any bailiff fees incurred so you might just as well pay it now (around £90 I'd guess.) As for your older bill,you have problems.They will be attending & if they discover the vehicles,you will probably have to prove that your company purchased them.Bailiffs rely on case law in which a judge dismisses the authority of the LGO & alleviates the bailiffs responsibility to prove ownership by DVLA checks.If it were me,I would write to the council,informing them that you will happily pay this debt directly to them & that you will not be dealing with bailiffs.Inform them that by refusing to deal with you directly,the council is creating an avoidable delay in the collection of arrears.The council will refuse to take it back so you need to be on guard for any pending bailiff visits.Eventually,you will be threatened with "committal to prison" but this is a bluff because if you've offered to pay (albeit directly to the council),you cannot be committed to prison.It may well be that the council will hit you with an AOE which can be painful & probably end up with you paying more than you'd ideally like to.This will probably be 2 months off so if I were you,I'd save the £500 a month you proposed,giving you £1000 to play with when the AOE kicks in. I am currently going to court regarding bailiff charges & one item that I am disputing is card fees.The council claim that they are legitimate under Section 93 of the Local Government Finance Act 1993.I'm disputing them anyway.

They are saying credit card OR paying the bailiff in full. I have questioned card charges & the council have replied: "the cost of handling this type of payment is allowable under Section 93 of the Local Government Finance Act 1993."

I'm quoting from experience-It actually happened to me/a family member.I had at this stage informed them that their implied right of access had been removed but the council still refused to accept the debt back on the grounds of vulnerability because they argued that the debtor still had a means to pay.Eventually,the bailiffs returned the debt,due to the notice,not the debtors vulnerability.Obviously in this case,they could not carry out a levy & they were a tad more desperate so they asked for 6 x monthly payments (we eventually agreed to pay the council 12 x monthly payments)

Because nobody is prepared to stand up & make a stance & even when people do,they are accused of being FMOTL. The council & the Government like the set up as it is-It is unclear and allows them to take advantage of the naïve, the disadvantaged, the uneducated & the vulnerable.The threat of bailiffs & astronomical enforcement charges is just what they want people to think-Much as a drug dealer rules by the fear that he has placed upon his debtors. If you offer to pay & then claim vulnerability,the council simply reply along the lines of: "if you have the money to pay,you can pay the bailiffs direct and there will be no need for further visits to levy distress"

No probs Bexxi-My point was that I was chastised for wishing to appeal against a PCN yet the same people are now saying it is OK for you to do so. I did not insult you-I was told that I "had opportunity to pay yet didn't" You are being told differently. My case actually involved a single mother who had been a victim of serious domestic violence which resulted in the abuser being jailed-I got slaughtered on here last night for no other reason than being a male.

If you want to pay 1st & 2nd visit fees then you can indeed deal with bailiffs without a "silly notice" If you have a car (as I do) a bailiff can levy on that & then return to charge extotionate van fees-Still you know best. I personaly prefer to send a "silly notice" & then sit back,relax & read all thei bluffs & idle threats that they will send over the next few weeks until the penny drops for the council that the longer they play this game,the longer the delay in getting their money PS & as stated, I have sent 2 notices to 2 different bailiff companies & both times its stopped them

Nobody is suggesting that the debt will go away-Only the problem of bailiffs Can I just point out,for the avoidance of doubt that I do not have any "freeman beliefs". In addition,I would advise that I have seen first hand that the notice works and have a letter in writing from the council to prove this.I have repeatedly offered on this board to meet anyone in the Birmingham/West Midlands area to show them my paperwork-I think it might be you who is living in the dreamland pal,posting about stuff you've never tried or never seen in practice.

You have evidence of this I take it? I've sent 2 this year to 2 separate bailiff companies & neither have returned.The first company sent the debt back to the council & the second company is just about to.

Well they haven't with the notice that I sent to their bailiffs in March over council tax-Just the usual idle threats about committal to prison (despite the fact that they can't actually apply for this due to offers of repayment being made) Yes I'll sort something out with the car when we get to that point but I really would beg to differ with your opinion that the notice will be ignored.

I do assume they will contact me first however I have no experience with parking ticket procedure so I'll ping the council a notice over in due course (notice to principal is notice to agent & all that).Thanks for the heads up. At this point in time,its actually saved me £112 because I haven't paid a penny (ticket issued in January).

When you get benefits of £70 a week,it is not always as easy as to pay £35 within a two week time scale.In my case,I was a day out.My council lie on an almost daily basis-They are in the local press regularly for all sorts of despicable fraudulent activities running into £1000's-Do you begrudge me a white lie to save £35? The bailiffs will not be clamping my car either because as soon as they contact me,they will be receiving a notice removing all implied right of access.The council will then have a further delay in obtaining this money.

Whatever I received before the charge certificate was binned as I was so furious with myself for getting a ticket,I vowed that I would not be paying it.When the charge certificate arrived,I calmed down a bit (especially as I saw that the fees were rising). I wrote to the council & claimed that the charge certificate was the first correspondence that I received & as I said in my first post,they afforded me a two week slot at the discounted rate of £35.By the time I got £35 into my bank account & phoned,it was day 15. The charge certificate reads: "The penalty charge in respect of this parking contravention was £70.00 To date £0.00 has been received.£105.00 is outstanding. Sorry-My mistake.I thought the charge certificate was £70.00 but now realise that it was £70 at the previous stage. Do I have any options left available to me? Or should I just take it on the chin & pay up? I do believe that it is wrong to expect someone on basic benefits to pay the full amount.In my case,it is not too much of a problem to be honest but there must be some genuine cases out there where £105 is a lot of money.(I accept that like me,there was a window for a discount but this is not always realistic when you are a single parent,living on benefits)

OK-first thing I acted on was the charge certificate (£70) got it taken back to £35 but messed up on the 14 days I was allocated & it has now gone from £35 to £105 (£112 with a court registration fee)

Not sure if I am too late on this one. I received a parking ticket not long back and although I didn't pay within the discounted 2 week slot,the council kindly (& suprisingly) afforded me a further 2 weeks at the discounted rate.Being the disorganised so & so that I am,I waited 15 days before attempting to pay so I have understandably lost the discount.Instead of the next level (£70),I've been hit with a fee of £105 I have questioned this and have received a letter informing me that I can either file a witness statement or pay the amount in full.I am currently in receipt of JSA so £105 represents more than my weekly benefit.In fairness,I'm starting back to work next week (although the council don't know this yet) I have asked to pay in instalments but this has been refused. My questions to the board are: 1.Can I still appeal the amount and also the demand to pay in full? 2.Can I still approach the adjudicator as TT indicated recently and if so,how do I do this? Thanks gentlemen & ladies

The impounding issue is a very grey area-There is no harm whatsoever in stating that no act of impounding occurred-It simple forms another hurdle for them to overcome. In the absence of Ploddertom posting & telling you different,my advice would be to write to the bailffs,copying in the council and informing them of the following; 1.The debt is paid in full 2.All legitimate bailiff charges have been paid 3.The bailiffs were indeed informed & provided with written evidence at the time of the HP situation regarding the car. 4.The levy was abandoned firstly because of no act of impounding and secondly because no walking possession was signed & the bailiff has left it 3 years before returning. 5.The van fees are not applicable as they do not comply with Head C 6.Any attempt at removing the car will be considered an act of attempted theft & the police will be contacted immediately. This will at least give you breathing space for a while so get the letters out tomorrow.Also get proof of posting.

If you spoke with them after they levied the car,this will have acted as an act of impounding as they will have informed you of an intention to not abandon the levied car.If you did not speak with them,no act of impounding took place.Not a big deal either way in the grand scheme of things other than its another barrier for them to break down prior to disputing the validity of the van fee.I would question if an unsigned levy/walking possession agreement would still be valid after 3 years anyway. The van fee is definitely not chargeable for the reasons I stated above. They are on very shaky ground & I doubt they'd dare take the car after so long-They are just trying to pressurise you into parting with money that you are not lawfully obliged to.

Have they visited you 3 times? 1st visit,2nd visit & then a 3rd visit to levy? The van fees are definitely not chargeable as they cannot turn up in a van that is not fit for the purpose of "a view to remove a car" Head C states "reasonable costs incurred" It cannot be reasonable to charge for a van when a removal truck would also be required. Technically the levy could be classed as abandoned because it doesn't appear that any act of impounding took place-Did you speak with them at all when they levied on your car?

I think its pretty clear here that bailiffs are going to come involved-Even if money is paid directly to the council,unless its paid in its entirety then the bailiffs will still come knocking. There will be 2 visits as previously mentioned,costing a total of £42.50 on top of the arrears. Two things are important-Firstly to make sure no cars are parked on the drive or outside the house.If a bailiff levies on a car then the balance of power swings in his favour.Secondly,make sure all doors & windows are locked as well as any outbuildings.Once a bailiff has a levy,he can add further charges.When the bailiff calls,go outside to speak to him,locking the door behind you.If you don't want to speak with him,you don't have to. Write to the council & copy the bailiffs in on the letter,informing them that you will not be allowing the bailiffs entry into your house and that you are not legaly obliged to deal with them.Tell the council that you wish to deal with them directly and to please contact you when the case is returned to them.This will probably drag on. I would personaly just bank any money you have as the council will probably apply an AOE.This can be pretty steep but if you have money saved then you can subsidise the payments with the savings.Thats just what I would do but I'm a relative novice-There are more informed people on this thread than me

1 of his passengers took pics.