Yes indeed, TE7 & TE9 are out of time witness statements, PE2 & PE3 are out of time statutory declarations, so as with all stat decs, obviously need witnessing. As stated very early on in the post, it is not the OP's debt, so clearly the person to whom the debt relates needs to do the relevant forms.

You can get the forms here http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/FormFinder.do There's some excellent advice on the internet for filling these in (it's important they're done well), so have a quick Google and you'll find some superb examples without much trouble.

All good, and much as I was working towards in post 22. It's certainly a lot better than you being told to increase your offer to the bailiffs which was mentioned as late as post 12! I'm glad for yourself and your husband I changed the direction of the thread then, as had you followed that advice you'd be £450 out of pocket!

Fair enough, I only told the truth openly. It does mean, given the problem with my pm's, I'm stuffed in terms of trying to reply and possibly help the OP though. Off to bed now anyway, so will see what is left in the morning! Hope you can get it sorted out - and please leave it so Zoltron knows I can't answer his question about my thoughts immediately, I have tried to reword it above, as you'll have seen. Hopefully that will be acceptable. Thanks.

I'm posting this separately as the site team may choose to delete it You asked also about my thoughts. I stated I wasn't pursuing them, as I've been working quite hard on another project, but I'm happy to explore what I was thinking further, and see whether or not the idea may have some mileage. I do have a real problem though, as even if I come to the conclusion it does have mileage, I would probably need to run it past site team first Also of concern is the fact there has been direct criticism of my asking about your I&E - it was stated it was not necessary. If the site takes this view, as it may well do unfortunately, then I would not be able to pursue my line of thought with you anyway. I'm having to tread carefully , so it's best to be honest and upfront with you, rather than try to invent something as to why I may not be able to discuss my thoughts with you. In any case, I need to explore them further, so can't do anything on that front immediately. I'm not trying in any way to evade your question, but there's no point posting something which has no legs, so further research (and questions) are necessary. As stated, it may be felt I shouldn't post my thoughts, even if I felt they did have legs, in which case, given my standing (or lack of) on the site, I'd have to respect that decision. Let me look into things further first. I've tried to address everything you asked me - if I have missed anything, do post up!

I will try to answer some of your points as best I can, starting with the £75 Compliance Stage fee. I have written about some of this before, but I'm happy to repeat it. Before I do, I'm glad you've started to make some repayment. We know there's a risk attached to this, but at least you are showing willing to repay the debt, so cannot be seen as willfully refusing. If the account is passed for enforcement, each of your LO's will attract a £75 fee (£450 in all). Regardless of who you make payment to, it will be passed to the enforcement company. The £75 fees will be paid first to the EA before any money comes off your debt. This means the first £450 you pay would go directly to the EA. If your disposable income is limited to £40 per month, obviously it would not be until the 12th month that the £450 compliance stage fees would finish being paid, and money would start coming off the debt. Once you have paid the £450 compliance stage fees, any money paid after that will be split pro rata between the LA and the EA (roughly 70:30 or 60:40 depending where you read on here, but around those ratios); this means the debt is not clear either to the LA or the EA until the last payment is made. If the EA does not collect and the account is returned to the LA, the enforcement power dies and the fees die with it. If you have already paid, eg, 3 x £75, this will have gone to the EA, your debt will not have been reduced, and you will not get this money back. If you have paid nothing, the EA will get nothing and the enforcement power dies, along with all associated enforcement fees. There is some absolutely nothing stopping the LA passing the account to another enforcement company, though one would have to ask the question why would they if one has already failed? Hopefully they would look to an alternative collection method. It is not unknown though, and my understanding is that the compliance stage fees would be chargeable again. There is a real incentive not to default on any payment arrangement in case this happens. In terms of taking action in the small claims court, my question would be what has the LA or the enforcement company done wrong? They have followed legislation, got a Liability Order and passed it for enforcement. That is all perfectly above board and legal, so I'm not sure on what grounds you would go to court? I hope that answers your questions, at least as I see the answers, others may disagree with some or all of what I've written.

I already asked. The details of the hire / lease contract are going to supply the information we need, I think.

Yes, it will be interesting to see the result of the current case. I agree entirely the vehicle should be kept out of the way - it is always better to play safe if there is any doubt.

Indeed, this is why it would be useful to know the details of the hire / lease agreement.

It is not straightforward without knowing more details, which you may not be able to supply. In an ideal world, the registered keeper (RK) would have paid the PCN, then reclaimed it from your husband. This would not usually involve bailiffs. However, there can be an issue there of hirers complaining that they have been denied the right to appeal tickets, so often the company may (or may not) transfer liability for the PCN to your husband - the PCN would have been incurred either through him being caught on CCTV, or through the Notice to Owner after a PCN is placed on the vehicle. Do you have any way of knowing what the details are regarding your husband's hire / lease agreement with the company for whom he works?

The Notice to Owner would have been sent to the company from whom your husband leases the van as they were the registered keeper. Do you know whether your husband was aware of the Notice to Owner, or was the first he would have known about it the letter which arrived at your house? This is important as there is a discounted period of two weeks, during which your husband could have paid the 'fine' (PCN) at a reduced rate. If he did not have this opportunity, the ticket should be appealed.

It is interesting. What has been posted is only pretty much what I have said already, yet it was removed twice. Purely on a point of accuracy, the precedent would only be set if there was an appeal by one side or another. As we do not know whether this will happen, we cannot state a precedent will therefore be set one way or another. The issue of whether or not it would serve further to harm all debtors is significant, but regardless of that, debtors need to be aware of what the situation is. A discussion will be interesting reading. It will be important to ensure the information is balanced, explaining both sides of the argument so people are as informed as possible. I will read it with great interest.

I'm unsure why this post is repeatedly removed? The only point I am making is the case referred to above is not a precedent setting case as it is in a lower court. This means the critical issue of beneficial interest will not be determined one way or another by the judgment. It will remain arguable either way. Surely it is in members' interests to be aware of this? I am trying to word it and reword it in a way where it cannot be read as having a dig at anyone. It is simply stating information.

This isn't your debt. Depending on the circumstances with your husband, there is no earthly reason why you should be making any repayment proposal at all. The debt would only increase if they were able to take control of goods and things moved to the next stage - impossible if they are not given access. Bailiffs can visit as many times as they want, but if they don't get in, and there is nothing of value outside, the debt should not increase, so don't worry about it spiralling. Did your partner own a vehicle (it does not have to be a car) which he sold recently? Does he allow anyone else to register a vehicle in his name? As said above, we don't know the circumstances between yourself and your husband, but it is really in your interests to engage with the enforcement company either to try to reach a payment arrangement if your husband is expected back, or to tell them he no longer lives at your address if you are not expecting him to return. You are right to keep things in writing, whether this be email with the enforcement company, or text message with an enforcement agent.

Yes, I like to be practical too. There is a debt to be paid. I'm quite surprised I'm the only one on here who has suggested starting to repay it. I'm not pursuing my line of thought at present, as I'm quite busy trying to complete another project. It's probably best simply to agree to differ here, as another thread will end up being closed otherwise.

You and I differ here DB. I mentioned yesterday that passing this for enforcement would increase the debt by at least £450, if all was agreed at Compliance Stage. With £40 per month available, it would take until the 12th month before the LA got one penny. By this stage, they could have had £480 in their coffers, with Zoltron having paid close on £500 off the bill. This seems to me a far more sensible route. Anyway, we'll see what happens. As said, I have some thoughts, but don't want to complicate things further at this point in time.

I think, Zoltron, it is almost certain the LA will be aware of this thread. I'd be exceedingly surprised if they were not. It would not surprise me if they've even discussed this thread now. As BA says, it shows clearly you are trying to get an amicable solution. It would be a shame though, in my opinion, if this necessitated increasing your indebtedness to get that solution. I feel strongly, as I've stated right the way through, the LA should deal with this in-house with no further costs to yourself.

The questions regarding the CAB's I&E for you are, in fact, necessary and very relevant, but I needed a little time to gather my line of thought and check some issues before posting, as stated last night. Your above post adds some further issues. That aside firstly your circumstances are very sad, I'm sorry. I'll be interested now to follow the post. There are things which are occurring to me, further to my thoughts last night, as a result of the above post, but I'll leave it to others for the minute, as I don't want you to be overwhelmed with questions which are seemingly going nowhere. I'll resume if you don't get a solution, though I'd still be inclined to be seen to paying something - I guess you've kind of picked up on that by now.

Okay - thank you for your comprehensive answers. I'm slightly puzzled at the moment, but will come back tomorrow with 'a fresh head' to see if I can make a bit more sense of things. In the meantime, your best bet would seem to be what Wonkeydonkey suggested, and personally I'd still consider starting to pay something, so the council can see clearly you are not refusing to pay. I appreciate paying something at present is not without its hazards, so you may want to see what others think of the suggestion. I wouldn't want to see you facing further problems; none of us here would.

Sorry to post again Zoltron and others. I don't think it has yet been established whether or not you have any other debts? On the I&E from the CAB you would have been given at least a summary of your situation. This would have had a section for Priority Debts (which would include this debt), and a section a Non-Priority Debts. Are there any debts in this section? I'm trying also, currently unsuccessfully, to match up a significant overspend on food, with the trigger figures for Housekeeping and a joint income related claim for ESA (I assume you are placed in the Support Group?) You stated you were slightly over in other areas also - which areas were these? Sorry for the questions, but I'm trying to clarify things in my own mind. So four questions: 1. Have you any non-priority debts? 2. Are you both in the support group for IR ESA? 3. Which other areas were red flagged on your I&E? 4. When you say you are quite a bit over on food spending, are you able to place a figure on 'quite a bit' please? In the meantime, I think Wonkeydonkey has come up with your best way forward as things appear to stand at present. I really hope you get something resolved soon.

I agree PT. The possibility of it being seen as a refusal to pay is why I suggested setting up a Standing Order now, so at least some payment is made. The CFS is fairly generous, and food is usually just a part of a category headed Housekeeping, which includes not only food and drink, but other items such as cleaning, toiletries, newspapers, cigarettes and tobacco, pet food, alcohol and possibly other items. Usually the creditor (in this case the council) only see a summary of the I&E. The trigger points are more than realistic in my experience, allowing for a decent standard of living. It's impossible to comment accurately without seeing the I&E (which I have no desire to do), so if other areas are close to trigger points, it could well be the council might seek a reduction in these areas. Whether or not that is acceptable is arguable. Even if Zoltron is spending double the trigger, and was able to cut back to within it, they would still be far short of the figure currently being demanded by a seemingly inflexible council. I return to the fact they cannot have what you have not got, so at some stage they will have to give if they want payment. It's a fine balance between showing a willingness to pay in the hope the council will see some sense, against setting up a standing order now, knowing it may be passed to an enforcement agent further down the road. If it were me, I would show willing to pay, and try to argue my case in the meantime with an incalcitrant council. Others may well state differently. Ultimately Zoltron must weigh up their options and do what they believe to be best.

I think that's a fair question PT, and one which has not been answered definitively. This is what Zoltron has said so far: Q2. Have you put together a Income & Expenditure? A2. Yes this was done by Citizens Advice Bureau, which highlighted some red flags due to excessive amounts spent on food and shopping. Our food bill is higher as we have to spend extra on pre-prepared foods, ready meals and gluten free foods due to my coeliac disease. The council have been made aware in a letter from our GP about our dependence on ready meals and my coeliac disease. In a previous post Zoltron had stated: "We have provided also income and expenditure to the council who questioned some red flags on our spending, mainly our food bill, which is almost double what the council were expecting. Our problem is because we are both disabled to varying degrees we depend much on ready and pre-prepared meals which are more expensive, this isn't through choice it dictated by our personal needs, for one main reason I suffer from coeliac disease and gluten free pre-prepared meals are highly expensive, the council fails to simply realise this." The CAB will use a CFS or similar, so will have provided an explanation for the red flags, which Zoltron has backed up with a letter from their GP, so it would be bizarre if they had failed to accept this. Thereagain, it's not exactly a straightforward case, so perhaps we should expect the bizarre. It doesn't alter the fact they can't get blood out of a stone though, nor the fact that passing this for enforcement would add a very significant sum to the debt, even if a repayment plan could be agreed.

Hi Zoltron, BA is correct in stating the council will look to get the money repaid in 12 months, as they dictate the terms to the enforcement company as well. This is their choice, they can choose to give you longer. The way I look at it, if it is passed for enforcement, with six liability orders, the first £450 of any money you pay won't touch your debt, it will go straight into the bailiff's pocket (6 x £75 Compliance Stage fee); the remaining payments would then be split pro-rata between the council and the bailiffs. In reality, this means it's going to be about 12 months before the council see one penny going off your debt - this is the problem they face if it is sent to enforcement and you have only £40 per month disposable income. Given this is the case, I feel it's important to show you are willing to repay the debt to avoid more serious trouble further down the line. Setting up a standing order (which can always be cancelled) would be a start. Vehicles with a blue badge should be exempt from seizure, so your vehicle should be safe. I am still struggling to see why the council don't agree to your proposal given they have all the information. It means they'll get money faster, and at the end of the day, you cannot pay what you simply do not have. The debt has to be paid, it's not going to go away (though technically the council could choose to reduce it or write it off), so I see no harm in showing willing to pay it, and just cancel the standing order if it goes to enforcement. I don't really know what else you can do. Perhaps others may have suggestions, given your dispoable income is only £40 per month. Specifying a 12 month period is simply unrealistic for your circumstances.

Surely the council or CES could resolve this quite simply by asking the EA to describe just a few things about the inside of your house. If he has entered it to talk to you, as he claims, it is inconceiveable he would not be able to remember anything. You could possibly suggest that to them?

Re posts 22 and 33, I should have corrected an error. The Compliance Fee would, of course, have been £90 for this, not £75 as posted. Apologies for the oversight.