You're posting without giving anyone a chance to reply. Type the following into Google and it's the third one down. "We would usually view any breach of the National Standards, the CIVEA Code and Guidance (if the firm employing the bailiff were members), or any breach of an agreement with the council, as maladministration."

Yes Dodgeball and it's not being argued the NS are legally binding. Directly above the part you quoted it says "it sets out what the Ministry of Justice, those in the industry and some major users regard as minimum standards." so Parliament expects them to be followed, ergo the LAs and EAs are bound to follow them.

The LGO has stated that any breach of the NS would be considered maladministration, so it seems to me they are expected to be followed. I can't see how anyone can argue that they are not bound.

From what I can see, there is a confusion with Dodgeball assuming 'bound' means 'legally bound'. I can't see where anyone has argued that authorities and bailiffs are legally bound by the NS. However, the LGO has ruled that should LAs or bailiffs breach the NS then they would consider that as maladministration in any complaints. This means that the LA and bailiffs are duty bound to follow the NS. There is even a sticky on these boards that explain that Parliament's intention is that the NS are to be followed. If they are continually breached then I have no doubt that Parliament will decide to enshrine them in law as they have had to do with the 2014 changes. They were put in place as too many bailiffs would not act within previous guidelines.