Morning Thanks for the replies grumpy. I understand that and it makes perfect sense to me. Even thought the bailiffs and councils tell me otherwises, only a manager told me the correct thing. One question. How does a bailiff prove the below: If, due to the bailiff being involved and pressuring you to pay, then they have done their job, no matter whether you pay direct or not, they will go for their fees. Surely there is no way to prove that, it could all be circumstantial. You could have had the money then, or got into a job at that time...see what I mean? Seems a bit dubious. Also, if a bailiffs job it to "pressure" you into paying, how are they any better than loan shark or a "thug" for a gang going around "pressuring" people to pay for their protection etc. Just makes them sound like absolute bullies, and its a bit strange that people now a days still have a job like that. It must take a person of a certain mindset to become a bailiff. Now if you do pay the council directly and then they pass it on to the bailiff, then it can be hard I understand. But what about in those instances when the council keeps it? Or even actually returns the funds to you (when you have not requested to do so)

I fully understand that it gives them the power to do enforce the collection of the outstanding debts. And I understand that they can charge the fees as outlined in the Regulations. My question is that if the debt it paid directly to the creditor, how can the bailiff charge their fees? So even if they don't collect a debt, they can still charge their fees? So what happens in the instances when the bailiff are unable to recover the fees and it goes back to the council? I've had one like that, with Jacob Bailiffs and then I've paid the council off once its gone back to them. Even the council themselves advised that I had the option to wait until the debt was passed back to them and then pay it off. I was then NOT REQUIRED to pay any fees to the bailiffs. Isn't that the same thing? Because I was not required to pay the bailiffs fees.

Oh ok, I thought the point of the warrant was for the bailiff to recover the fees, and if the fees were recovered through them or not there would be no point in the warrant. Must have completely misread what the point of the warrant was. Something else, just want to get know: I know someone who appealed a pcn of his after they siezed his goods, but they refused to give him his goods (his motorbike in the case) until the appeal has gone through the TEC. In the end the PCN was taken off him and the tax payers ended up paying the storage fees (as the council had to pay them). Does that sound right?

Im Sorry but I am very new to this. If the original debt has been paid off the the creditor does that not make the warrant void? I mean the bailiff is allowed to recover all charges upon execution of the warrant but if the goods weren't seized or sold, and the bailiff didn't get the money from the debater but the creditor has the money how much power does the warrant have? I don't know the legal know how just trying to follow the issue through with logic. Am I just being ignorant?