Mikey-I recently posted this link for you, I thought you might finf it helpful: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/494/made Also, if you can find it, have a read of: Too Poor To Pay (The Impact of The Second Year of Localised Council Tax Support in London) Jointly published by CAPG & Z2K It is an excellent report, very revealing and very well researched.

That is reprehensible. I have openly challenged "my Guru" on more occasions than I care to remember. I do not take sides, If someone is wrong, I challenge them, no matter where they post. Have you forgotten the "Sarah" thread already? How dare you lie and suggest that I stand back and do nothing? You have stalked that forum more than I have-You have continually "bumped" the "polly" thread on here, often using your Lackey, aka "Dodgeball" to start things off. I wouldn't be surprised if you were behind my posts on that thread, revealing the truth, being deleted. I can participate in discussion-Just not with idiots. Your pussyfooting around bailiffs is wrong. You have a conflict of interest and you dare not upset them-How can you possibly give the best advice if you are worried about upsetting bailiff companies? Anyone who has had the misfortune to be stuck on the other end of a phone with you for hours on end will know that you continually name drop these people as if they're B list celebraties "oh I walked back to the station with Andrew Hobley" "Oh Mike Garlands just emailed me" "Oh Peter Felton says the bailiff industry should police itself" etc etc Get your own house in order before criticising others Sheila.

You didn't cover anything. The other individual read my post elsewhere and changed her stance. There was still confusion-My post rectified this. If I had longer, I'd correct more historic threads but we'll probably have to let them go now.

I have a strong feeling that universal credit is also attachable. There is some confusion here-Only one AOB may be implemented at any given time. The deductions made from income related benefits (JSA, income support, ESA, Pension Credit etc) is at 5% (Regulation 7 of the Council Tax (Deductions From Income Support) Regulations 1993) LA's know who are receiving benefits because the responsibility for issuing CTB is with the authority. Anyone claiming one of the above income related benefits would automatically qualify for CTB also

If you can point me to one post or thread of mine that has cost a debtor money, I will stop posting for good on bailiff help issues. You have already succeeded in getting one thread locked today-Shouldn't you be resting on your laurels? You are a self confessed liar-You never advise debtors-You simply exist to antagonise others. If its not me, its MM. Have a good look at yourself in the mirror.

Far better. If she followed the (incorrect) advice given on here, she would have been at the mercy of JBW. She would have been forced to pay £20 per week and an extra £75 in bailiff fees. One slip up and another £235 would have been added as well. The way she is going, she is currently paying nothing, which gives her the opportunity to put a bit aside in a savings account as back up later on. The £235 fee will be removed, as well as the £75 fee. An AOE will be implemented at around £12.50 a week. So she will be paying 50% less and the bailiff fees will be removed. In addition, there is not the potential for the enforcement fee to be added later on if a £20 payment is missed. Its a no brainer. It makes no difference whether the repayments start tomorrow, next month or next year but they will be starting. There will be no bailiff fees paid on this one. I would venture that it is all about you actually, and the other individual of course-You are the ones who are continually "bumping" the thread, despite the fact that you both know that the OP will not be posting again.

Awwww I'd deliberately kept the big words down to a minimum just for you as well. Thanks for letting us know anyway-I'm really interested.

It is not my fault that you cannot read, or fail to understand what is written. If you interpret my comments to have been stating facts, the LOL. I'll just put it down to another "on block" moment. I would however, expect most educated people to read the comment and see clearly that it was a hypothetical example, used clearly to make a point. It is clear that it is impossible to have a rational debate with you-Your ignorance and illiteracy are bad enough but when coupled with your obsession to get one over me, it just degenerates into drivel. To think you had the cheek to accuse MM of trying to point score last week as well.

There is of course another side to this: The only desperation I can see is from two individuals who appear to be praying that this poor woman has to pay the £235 enforcement fee. Councils and bailiff companies deliberately make it hard for debtors to complain or dispute matters. They hope that by sending letters to act as buffers, that the debtor will give up the will to continue, and sadly many so. One of the most important pieces of advice that I could give a debtor is to never give in, never accept what a council or bailiff company are saying and to continue until there is no avenue left open. Evert time you receive a knock back, dust yourself down and go again. Most of these disputes are marathons, not sprints. In this particular case, nobody appears to have picked up on two vital things. Firstly, the council had the opportunity to set up a second attachment. They didn't do so, probably because it is easier for them to simply pass the case over for the bailiffs to do all the work. This was wrong and should be challenged. Secondly, JBW are going to argue that the OP is not a lodger, but co-habiting with the house owner. The welfare team would be powerless to intervene. In any case, why should this woman be expected to pay a £75 compliance fee when an AOE could have and should have been set up? Isn't this the exact scenario that the CAB & DCLG were looking at when they urged councils to look at attachments before using bailiffs? Isn't this exactly why the Government are now under growing pressure to ensure that attachments are implemented wherever possible before bailiffs are used? This poor woman was recently homeless for Gods sake. It is clear that she is in a dark place financially. The current situation is that the woman has no goods of value. The bailiffs have been notified that they do not have permission to enter the property and the council have been asked to explain why an AOE was not considered. JBW have indeed added a £235 fee. This is currently being challenged. There is also a question as to whether a visit has actually taken place as no paperwork has been left at the property. There is certainly no desperation here. In fact, there is more concern regarding the existing AOE as there appears to be problems with that. A request is in, asking for the account to be taken back and a second AOE implemented (as per Government guidelines) No, it is not law but I would expect the LGO to take a very dim view if the council continue in this vein. Currently, the OP is better off, as she is not having to pay the demands made by JBW (an AOE would see her paying almost half) and she is not going to pay ANY bailiff fees, let alone the £235 enforcement fee. I would hope that most people would be supportive here. Councils do not care about their debtors or their circumstances. If Government bodies have issued reports and implemented guidelines, one would expect a council, who are supposed to act with morals and decency to adhere to them. This council have thus far acted in a particularly reprehensible way.

Now you are just being infantile. What is the point of that comment? I was using a hypothetical example to make a point to CB. How could I possibly know what the ratio of Wont pays are, compared to can't pays. In less than 24 hours, you've posted circa 20 times on here-All aimed at taking cheap shots at me. Get a grip of yourself and post something constructive for a change, instead of this constant pettiness.

No sorry-The paper boy etc imply a right of ACCESS, not ENTRY. Seems like it is you who has a fundamental misunderstanding. Just to throw a spanner in the works, it was also this implied right of entry that was used to justify climbing through windows-That appears to be at loggerheads with your "Cambridge Law Journal".

The 1 in 6 figure was an example to make a point. It wasn't based on any facts or figures-It was hypothetical. Yes, of course most people just want to avoid the £310 fee. I would as well in their position. Many times, it should not have been implemented in the first place though and other times legislation has not been followed. I have no idea what you're on about regarding the font colour, do me a favour and spare me an explanation though.

The first problem that you need to overcome is that of understanding the difference between the two scenarios: I am not saying that a bailiff may not attend because his implied right of access has been revoked (as per a NOROIROA) I am saying that a bailiff visiting a premises may imply a right of entry if he discovers the door open, or if the debtor opens the door and then leaves it unguarded for any reason. The bailiff implies this as an invitation to enter. The courts have accepted that either of these two situations (or a persons conduct) may be implied as a licence to enter. It has nothing to do with a NOROIROA. Come back when you are able to understand the difference between the two. If you are unable to do so, then we'll just have to agree to disagree, otherwise it will be disputed indefinitely.

I'm not sure why there is an issue with not encountering any "won't pays"? Anyone with any hands on experience will say the same-Debtors are happy to pay the original debt, they are usually (for one reason or another) more concerned about avoiding paying the bailiff fees. Even in the two not too distant high profile Newlyn PCN cases, the arguments centred around amateurish attempts at changing ownership of vehicles, to avoid fees, rather than avoid the original debt. I think 99% of debtors know that you cannot evade these priority debts, unless you emigrate. Changing the colour of your front will not outfox the system, sadly. I know of just one person currently who is deliberately avoiding council tax. He is conducting his campaign on YT and is fondly known as "one cell". He has recently been made bankrupt and I fully expect him to be jailed at some point.

It is fairly irrelevant in any case. A letter revoking permission to enter will cover all aspects, including unlocked doors. I will however try to explain the situation in laymans terms, so it might be possible for you to understand it clearer.: A bailiff may only enter a premises peaceably AND with the debtors permission. If the bailiff arrives at a premises and discovers an unlocked door, he may IMPLY right of entry. Once inside, this implication may be revoked if the debtor then asks the bailiff to leave. This is where we enter a grey area though and once inside, it will be the bailiffs word against the debtors as to what was said. This is perfectly illustrated in the JBW/Grant case last year, where contrasting accounts were given (one by the bailiff, one by Grant). I letter sent in advance refusing entry will negate any subsequent arguments. The implied right of entry is not essential but whilst writing the letter, it does no harm to add it on. Hope this makes the situation a bit clearer.