Sounds like to me this may be for a different vehicle you owned at some point. The van isn't registered in your name so it couldn't be for that vehicle could it? Your name, whether your full or partial name, isn't linked to it. I'd keep the status of the van as it is - adding your name to it now could cause problems. Get as much info from the bailiff - creditor, ref numbers and so forth. To be clear, you say the van is used for work - in what capacity is it used, ie for carrying tools, supplies etc, and what is it's value?

Rather than trying to belittle the OP, reading the thread properly allows you to see the issue. Someone has used the OP's address fraudulantly - my guess is that he told the council he had moved and used the OP's address as the 'new' address. The OP doesn't know what the debt is for, but as it's the council it's likely to be either council tax, a benefit overpayment or some sort of service charge. End of the day, it doesn't really matter which as the OP doesn't owe it. The OP has repeatedly told the bailiff and the council that the debtor doesn't live there and provided proof of their own residency yet the council continue to pursue the debt and the OP is getting pretty pee'd off about it, as you would expect. The advice here should be to reassure the OP that the bailiff cannot enforce as the debtor doesn't live there. The OP doesn't need to engage with the bailiff and any goods outside cannot be touched as they don't belong to the debtor. The OP can happily wave at the bailiff through a window and tell him to jog on. It's pointless complaining to the bailiff as we all know. They will just file it in the shredder. The complaint must always be directed to the creditor, especially if they are a public body. The OP needs to contact the CEO of the council with a stage one complaint, and copy their local councillor and MP into the complaint. The OP needs to stop wasting money on solicitors as, generally, high street solicitors know little about the legislation governing bailiffs and fly off into unnecessary tangents looking to line their own pockets. The OP needs to suggest in their complaint that a goodwill gesture of say, £500, be paid for the stress they have suffered due to the council's incompetence. The complaint should be to the point avoiding unnecessary reference to CIVEA guidance, GDPR and so forth. Go through the official motions in a level-headed way, leave a paper trail and don't even speak with the bailiff. I would've expected better from this site.

How is it incorrect?

Why must you start insulting people. I merely mentioned that someone disputing a judgement, ie they thinks it's wrong, doesn't automatically mean it's set aside or quashed. You would need to present evidence as to why it should be set aside or quashed or overturned or whatever term you decide to use. Whether it be a CCJ, criminal conviction or a LO, this would be a basic requirement.

You stated: That has been shown to be incorrect. Perhaps you need to clarify.

So what's different about this particular case from the tens of dozens of other similar cases? In all those other cases you advise to not pay the council direct? Why not?

Well to be fair, no-one can get any judgement set aside just because they dispute it. There needs to be evidence as to why it's disputed.

All I did was correct you by saying that a LO can be set aside. I made no mention of how - that was just your assumptions.

So the current position is that Dodgeball says you cannot set aside a liability order, and several judges and barristers, plus common law confirm that you can. The choice is yours.

Just to clarify - a LO can be set aside in a magistrate's court. I think Judge Burnton referenced it 4 times in the quote from the link.

No, just repeating that BA advised that the OP should inform the EA that they will pay the arrears to the council unless a new NOE is sent. BA is very clear in that. Of course as we know previously BA has maintained that once an account is with the EA then a debtor cannot pay directly to the council. Has something changed?

Don't recall where I said anything about making a claim. Just merely stating that a LO can be set aside. Can't decipher the rest of that sentence I'm afraid.

Oh for heaven's sake, you've quoted from the section about bankruptcy. The fact remains that a liability order absolutely can be set aside. Not by the CivPR obviously but by other means, ie LGA 2003 s82. Another part of the page says: 3. The application to the justices for the order to be set aside must be made promptly after a defendant learns that it has been made or has notice that any order may have been made. Prompt action means a matter of days or at most a very few weeks, not months and certainly not as much as year. Your earlier advice simply implies that there is no means of removing a LO once in place, even if it's made erroneously.

BA advised the OP to inform the bailiff that if they don't send a new NOE he will pay the arrears direct to the council. This surely means that although the account is with the EA, paying the arrears direct to the council is a valid option, otherwise why even advise it?

Not sure why you stopped there - being a little selective aren't we? The rest of that section says: Common law route However, the authority to set aside liability orders has now been established as a common law principle following a series of three cases beginning in 2002. Etc, etc.

Why give them the heads up? If you're advocating just paying direct then surely the OP should just do that rather than give the EA opportunity to add fees.

Indeed, but really no more than a potayto potahto situation.

Of course you can, otherwise LOs mistakenly imposed could be enforced.

For heaven's sake - the answer to the question is no, they cannot climb over a fence or gate as this is not a normal means of entry. Lord knows why no-one could just provide this simple answer.