just an update - i called TEC, filled in the out of time forms, and confirmed with them that they passed on to the LA. I then called the LA and they confirmed it is on hold for 2 weeks for review. I then had some fun and games with the bailiffs. I called the bailiff and he said he hadnt been informed and was on his way to my house to clamp my car. Luckily for me i had called Burchills offices prior to this as i suspected the on the ground bailiff might do something along those lines. I had already confirmed with the birhcalls offices that they had been instructed by the LA to put the case on hold due to my TEC out of time thing. The on the ground bailiff was having none of it, even though i was telling him i had just got off the phone to his head office and they had confirmed it to me. he was all " well they havnt told me so as far as im concerned you could just be lieing to me " I have actually put in a complaint to the LA about the specific bailiff in question, told them about his antics today, and also told them he admitted to me that he was aware the warrant was issued to an address i did not still live at. according to the LA they believe the £50 i have already paid the bailiff can go twoards the re-issued ticket when its issues ( ticket was £50 so it will be paid off with that ) ill update again when i hear back feel quite empowered today. thanks a billion for your help guys

yes your right, i will call them tomorrow and update the thread. many thanks

latest - the warrant was from march 2013. we moved address in Nov 2012. the first i knew of this was getting the first bailiff letter as described above. The bailiff actually phoned me and i asked him the address the warrant was obtained for, and he said it was the old address, so im pretty sure the advice given to me will work. unfortunately i have been in hospital since the back end of last week so havnt phoned TEC yet, but i will do so in the morning. so hopefully all will be well. just wanted some advice , becuase i got a letter back from Birchalls,. I had written to them asking them to break down the costs, because i couldnt understand how the cost had gone up so muich in a short space of time here is what they are saying break down wise - March 7th debt £87 Oct 1st - 1st letter fee £11.20 Oct 16 - visit fee 1 £28.00 Nov 21 - visit fee 2 £34.00 Nov 21 - attendance / van ££120 i should note, that the "1st letter " was the one i replied to asking for more information as it didnt even tell me how much was owed. also there was NO visit on Oct 16th, well no car left or anything anyway. Nov 21 - there was no va, just the bailiff in his car can anyone tell me, are these fees right or not ? might all become irrelevant in the morning when i make this phone call, but i just wanted to ask edit - one more query if anyone can help me - if the LA re-issue this due to me moving address4 months before the warrant was issued, then what happens to the £50 i aleady paid Birchalls ? do they just keep it or does it go towards the original debt that becomes re-issued ? ta

after some help if possible from you good people ... we moved a year ago, a month ago i had a letter from Burchills saying they had an order based on a parking fine i had not been aware of after moving. their kletter did not give a ref for the fine nor did it tell me the amount. i wrote back to them saying please tell me more info / the amount etc they wrote to me 7th Nov saying the balance was £129.04. I wrote back to them asking if i could pay it in 2 parts since i dont have much money right now. I was expecting a return letter from them, but on friday just gone while i was out, i left my brother in my house. birchalls knocked at the door asking for me. my brother told them i wasnt here , and to give him any letter to pass on to me. the guy , who was quite agressive, handed my brother an " attendance notice clearance of goods " letter, and told my bro that unless it was paid there and then he was going to clamp my car ( my car was on the drive as it has a prob at the moment so i had gone out on the bus ) ... i was at a hospital appt so my brother could not phone me, so he said he felt pressured into paying this guy £50 on his debit card. the bailiff told my bro to tell me i must call him to discuss paying the balance. now, the attendance notice actually states the balance as £313.84 how the heck can the balance go from £129.04 up to £313.84 in a week or two, while i am actively communicating with them via writing ? im scared the guy will come back and clamp my car, but i refuse point blank to call him, and am only prepared to discuss with him in writing. does anyone have any advice please or any kind of template i can use for my reply ? also, my brother told the baliff that my car was already levvied by another bailiff ( i am paying off another debt and they had levied my car ),k and the guy said he didnt care about that, and he would clamp my car anyway. i just want to know where i stand with all of this, as it seems a bit confusing. can they clamp your car ? what does that achieve ? thanks in advance

Agreed. The stress of this scenario is causing me to act in unusual ways. No excuse but that is what i have observed. I'm going to go to the IUC. I can't attend on the exact date they have given me, as we just got my wifes cardiology day patient appointment through and its the same date. but i will write to them and explain that, and ask them to schedule a date that is do-able. Meanwhile i shall be seeking legal advice

I didn't say i necessarily believed in it, i was just curious as to others opinions. cheers

Apologies if i came across in that manner, i certainly did not mean to. I was just stating my opinion. Possibly my emotion pertaining to the situation colouring my words. Either way, sorry if you felt i came across that way, it was not my intention.

I agree in principle with that statement, but the guidelines published by DWP for conducting IUCs ( which i linked to in an earlier post, and have read through several times now ) tell staff who are to conduct an IUC what the main purpose is for ( to gain enough evidence for prosecution / an admission of guilt ) ... there are even guidelines in the document that read like a staff manual for a salesperson on how to get better results , such as the advice to be friendly and put the interviewee at ease as this is the best way to get information for prosecution out of them. So i guess it depends if you believe the IUC is there to give the little man his chance to put things straight , or if you believe the IUC to be there so that the system can turn what evidence they do have into a compelling case for prosecution, which as i said before, can only come from verbal exchange within the IUC.

exactly. and in my opinion the very reason for the IUC is to glean this " compelling evidence " it was deliberate. this is a kind of reverse Catch 22 situation, and im sure there are agent provocateurs lurking around the internet trying to scare genuine people seeking genuine advice into walking right into DWP's hands. That should make genuine posters who want to offer genuine advice fairly angry, one would think.

source please ? continually in this thread people give opinions or information without a source or link to proof of information. Here is the paradox i just cant grasp. \you say " We sometimes even have people arrested without sending an IUC letter if the level of Fraud warrants it. " Can you explain, if you have enough evidence that you feel you can just have someone arrested without even sending them a letter or informing them, then why isnt that enough evidence just to prosecute said person ? if you have enough evidence why the need for an IUC ? when you can just prosecute. Maybe im applying idealist values to a corrupt system here, but something about your statement just doesnt sit right. There is a certain zealousness to the statement that shouldn't sit right with anyone interested in justice, liberty and the god given rights that every human being has, that the state con and trick you into thinking you shouldnt have. It's like living in a grotesque amalgamation of George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxleys Brave new World.

yes that is how it reads to me too. It clearly outlines cause for arrest to be repeated failure to attend an IUC. The thing that confuses me, is that the basis for an IUC is to gain enough evidence for prosecution, ergo, one would think if they need an IUC to gain evidence ( in the form of a verbal admission of guilt from the interviewee ) then there possibly is not enough evidence to prosecute, hence the need for an IUC. Otherwise why would they want the IUC ? I know in some guidelines it says that the IUC is " your chance to put your side of the story forward ", but the reality of the machination of the IUC is for the DWP to get more evidence for their case. I have an appointment at CAB next week, and have spent a lot of time researching " freeman on the land " . Not sure if anyone has heard of this ?

Can you link to any guidelines or documentation that says this ? I get confused here, because every document i can find online says one thing, and then people give information here that says the opposite. One would think with a place so created by and operated under bureaucracy that DWP would have to stick to their own documented, published guidelines ?

Can you provide proof / source for this "directive " here are the DWP's own guidelines ( which would could consider their directives on said matter ), and they contradict your statement http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fraud-guide-arrest.pdf Failure to attend an Interview Under Caution 4. Investigators must not refer cases to the police simply because the claimant refuses to attend the Interview Under Caution (IUC). Each case must be considered on its own merits. In England and Wales this must also be in accordance with the necessity criteria set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 Code G 2.4 et seq. 5. In England and Wales if a claimant persistently refuses to attend an IUC, police intervention could be justified on the grounds that an arrest is necessary in order to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or the conduct of the person in question (PACE Code G 2.9(e)).

Hi Mate, may i ask, how did you refuse to attend and did you refuse several times ? I mean did you contact them and point blank refuse, or did you ignore them ? It is just that your experience seems terrible luck , when you read the actual guidelines published by the DWP themselves on this exact matter http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fraud-guide-arrest.pdf Failure to attend an Interview Under Caution 4. Investigators must not refer cases to the police simply because the claimant refuses to attend the Interview Under Caution (IUC). Each case must be considered on its own merits. In England and Wales this must also be in accordance with the necessity criteria set out in Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 Code G 2.4 et seq. 5. In England and Wales if a claimant persistently refuses to attend an IUC, police intervention could be justified on the grounds that an arrest is necessary in order to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or the conduct of the person in question (PACE Code G 2.9(e)). one would think, form those DWP guidelines, that one would have to fail to attend an IUC several times for it to progress to that point.

Hmmm. The letter i received which must be the latest version as it was sent to me last week, and that does not say anything of the sort. Could it be possible that in addition to helpful genuine people on this forum, there could be people who post that have an agenda to misinform and spread fear ? ( I'm not accusing anyone here of doing this, I'm just posing a quandry )