That bit concerns me. I'm guessing that BT may have been crediting your DD payments onto your "new"?? account. How come you have an "old" and (presumably) a "new" account? You need to find out where your payments were going - only then can you work out things. If BT have taken more than you actually owe, then they WILL refund (I'm sure!) but they may have then refunded it onto your "new" account. Who knows?!!

I'm sorry to post this in here, and thereby drag up an old post - but I've been asked by PM how I dealt with them, and my response would be too large for PM I would suspect. My emails to them (and others) are below : First one went to 0800reverse ([email protected]), Someone who's name I got off OFCOM website ([email protected]) and BBC watchdog ([email protected]) Dear Sir, Please remove my phone number 00000000000 from your ridiculously scandalous money making "get rich quick" scheme, with immediate effect. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has complained not only about your charges, and your unethical system (a quick perusal of websites proves so!) How can it be allowed for a non-bill payer - in this case my 10 year old daughter - to accept reverse charge calls? She "accepts" (I have no proof that she actually did) two calls made from a friends mobile with a total duration of 4mins and I (the bill payer) am stung with the cost of £8.83 + VAT. I'm ashamed at OFCOM for allowing your scheme to operate in the guise it has, especially as you are subscribed to their approved Code of Practice. I have copied BBC watchdog in on this email. If they wish to contact me I can provide them with full details of this situation, although being as Mr "Squeeky Clean" Sir Sebastian Coe is a director of this unethical company, I'd be surprised if they will. I also sent this one to an organisation called Outtograss ([email protected]) - who use 0800reverse logo in their blurb : I'm extremely alarmed that your Alliance is involved with 0800reverse, and that you are allowing school children to see their advertising. Are you aware of the cost to the bill payer of these calls? My 10 year old daughter recently accepted two calls made to my phone line, without my knowledge, from a friend... 4mins cost me over £8 + VAT. Your advertising shows their logo and as such children might think this is a reputable company and will undoubtably use them to make reverse charge calls when they have no credit left on their mobile phones. To their credit, 0800reverse were extremely prompt in replying as below: Thank you for your enquiry. I accept, from the information that you have provided, that the reverse charge calls in question were unwanted calls. I have arranged for a credit for the total cost of the reverse charge calls received on your telephone number, to be credited to your telephone account as a goodwill gesture. As requested and with immediate effect, a block (5 years) on the 0800 Reverse charge service has been issued against your telephone number. I hope this action is of reassurance to you and apologise for any inconvenience caused. If you have any further queries regarding the 0800 Reverse service please contact our Customer Service Team on 0845 077 9000.

Thanks for the reply Chris, your words are appreciated. Your comments about escalating this to a senior person was why I put in the official "complaint" to their department. I've worked, in the past, for a Local Authority. Yes, I am on benefits... I have been (continually) since this amount in question - firstly as a couple, then as a single parent. I was getting CTB correctly, the amount owed was outstanding from when I was working. That is why I have mentioned "vulnerable person" in the email, and asked them to take it back from the Bailiffs. What I don't want happening is them applying for deductions from my Income Support now because as I see it, I have already paid it once. Why should I pay it again because of somebody elses mistake (either within the Council or Income Support). My ex financially wrecked me (the reason we split) and they - the Council - wrongly in my opinion, paid her money which in effect belonged to both of us and then expect me to pay it all back to them. That can't be right.

I'm not one for airing dirty linen in public, especially as now this has gone to my MP and through to the councils official complaints, but I have today sent an email as below: "Dear Thank you for your copy of the Liability Order and my Bailiff Visit Warning Letter return. I have also received the information from Income Support, who once again agree with me that they were correct in taking deductions from . The information clearly states their Guidance Notes for Third Party Deductions as below : “Payment to discharge claimant’s liabilities 33301 The DM has discretion to make deductions from benefits which are paid directly to third parties – 1SS (C&P) Regs, reg 35(1) 33302 Deductions and payments to third parties can be made if the claimant or partner is liable to pay *1 1. Housing Costs 2. Miscellaneous Accomodation Costs 3. Hostel Payments 4. Rent Arrears and Service Charges for Fuel and Water 5. Fuel Costs 6. Water Charges 7. CSM 8. Eligible Loans *2 - 1 Sch 9, para 2(1); 2 para 7C Note: Deductions for CSM can be made under the old or new schemes. 33303 IS and JSA can also be paid direct for arrears of CC and CT payable by a claimant or partner (see DMG 33675 and DMG 33650), or for a claimant only for fines or compensation orders (see DMG 33710). Note: Deductions cannot be made for a partner’s fine. 33650 Deductions for arrears of CT may be made from: 1. JSA (Cont) 2. JSA (IB) and 3. IS *1 *1 – Council Tax (Deductions from IS) Regs 93, reg 2(1) I have also, personally, checked information on the internet and whilst it may not apply directly in this case, I’d be very surprised if it wasn’t of relevance. Namely “Income Support (General) Regulations 1987”, Schedule III – Housing Costs – Section 3 (1) (who is treated as responsible for Housing Costs), and also Part V Chapter VII and its interpretation of a “liable relative”. I also note that on the Bailiff Visit Warning dated 14th June 03, as it is addressed to only myself, I was correct in filling in only my details as it states clearly that “it should be completed” only “by the main wage earner or the person who is claiming state benefits” when the “letter is addressed to more than one person”. This should be MUCH clearer for situations such as mine where although I was claiming state benefits, they weren’t necessarily in my name. I still claim that the outstanding amount has been paid to yourselves via my Income Support for the period, and that in view of the fact that this case is in dispute and that I am a “vulnerable person” you should recall this account from your Bailiffs with immediate effect." Do you think this will have any impact? We shall see. I'm prepared to take this all the way as a matter of principle.

Just thought I'd pass on this snippet of information, if anyone didn't know. Back in September I was stung for reverse charge calls made to my phone line, to my daughter from one of her friends. I complained to BT and 0800reverse because I said that the call was taken and accepted by someone other than the bill payer, and that my daughter had no idea of the costs involved. 0800reverse eventually refunded me the money, and put a five year block on my BT line so that the situation can't reoccur. Anyone elso who may never need this service might want to think about doing similar.

I'm just rechecking some dates, and notice something. The Liability Order was obtained on 15 August 2001, which was two weeks before I finished work. The ex's name will have been on the information I filled in because she was living with me, but I was working at the time. Apparently, I had a Bailiff Visit Warning letter on 14 June 2003, which I returned with my income details (obviously by now on Income Support as a couple). On 4 July 2003 Council applied to DWP for deductions from Income Support, they wrote back on 1 August 2003 saying deductions would start on 22 July 2003. Below is a copy of one of the emails from the council : "After further investigation it would appear that the application to the Department of Work and Pension in the name of on 4 July 2003, was not actioned by them. Subsequently the application was incorrectly re-issued in the name of and deductions started 22 July 2003. When this came to light by the letter received by 22 February 2005, the Attachment of Benefits was cancelled and payments refunded back to . This was because name was not on the Liability Order granted 15 August 2001, which means that the Council can not legally collect the debt in her name. A copy of the Liability order has been sent today for your information." Interestingly enough, the council won't tell me what they mean by "subsequently the application was incorrectly re-issued".

I've been in touch via email. All the re-iterate is that I owe them the money and to contact Drakes to arrange payment. There appears to be no reasoning with them, they aren't interested. Another interesting point, who was responsible for my ex's Council Tax when she lived there with me? Why can't they get a liability order on her now for the period concerned? At the very least she should be paying half of the amount owed.

Hi, I suppose this will come under Bailiffs, if not, feel free to move it. In August 2001, I left full-time work to be fulltime carer for my (then) girlfriend. She was on Income Support, Incapacity etc etc & moved in with me at my address. Because she was already claiming, I ended up on her claim and we claimed Income Support as a couple (I know in this day and age... but we did everything legal!) Last year, I get letters from Bailiffs (Drakes) stating that I owe Council Tax of £265ish) for period 2001/2002 - in another area than I am now. Basically, I haven't worked since August 2001 and since then our relationship broke down and I moved out of the house at the end of September 2004. The council involved gained a Liability Order in July 2002 for the amount. In February 2005, my ex wrote to the council - presumably with CAB/Legal help - stating that (not too certain because I can't get a copy of letter) DWP had been taking payments from her Income Support and these were wrong and should be stopped. The council refunded her the full amount of payments that had been made (the £265) and are now chasing me via the Bailiffs for the amount they say I owe. As far as I see it - and from what the Recovery/Attachments team at Income Support say - they (DWP) were correct in deducting from her benefit for the time that we were claiming as a couple. The council are saying this isn't correct as she wasn't named on the Liability Order (although her details must have been on the form I sent back - for them to get her details!) I see no reason why I should have to pay the £265 because as far as I'm concerned it was already paid, and the council were wrong to re-imburse her - except for any payments deducted after we were no longer a couple. Who is right here? The council or Income Support? Who made the mistake? If it was the council - for whatever reason (incorrect Liability Order etc etc) then they should scrub the debt. If it were Income Support for deducting incorrectly then I feel they should give me a crisis loan to pay for their mistake. No one is owning up, and I'm left with threatening letters which is absolutely nightmarish just before Xmas, as a single dad to my 11 year old daughter. Its making me ill. Help!