Hi all, Thank you for taking the time to read this. I was involved in a very serious car accident that left me requiring over a years worth of physical rehabilitation through the army, unfortunately i ended up being medically discharged in late October 2018 due to not meeting the physical requirements to remain in my career. Since then i have struggled to find work that meets my needs and i received a letter from Marstons demanding £600 for a speeding fine around the time of my accident. I was away at different rehabilitation centers for long periods of time and must have missed the letter from court, but Marstons are refusing to accept a payment plan or be understanding of my situation. I feel like i am going around in circles and don't know what to do. The magistrates courts have updated their system to classify me as vulnerable, as well as Marstons welfare/head office after i sent evidence of my medical discharge/injuries and blue badge to them, however when i spoke the enforcement agent as requested by Marstons head office he refuses to accept this fact and work with me in any way to resolve the situation, in his words that he texted to me, 'i'm just disabled, not vulnerable'... I currently moved back home with my mum and younger siblings and this enforcement agent has been very threatening towards us, saying he will take anything my family don't have receipts for and even making my 10 year old brother cry on his birthday thinking that he will be taking away his playstation, which makes me feel absolutely awful that i can't seem to resolve the issue and that nobody can help. The court seems very sympathetic and understanding and wish they could help but apparently the case is with Marston now? Is there anything i can do in this situation? i feel so stressed and lost.

New law introduced to protect vulnerable people in care READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-law-introduced-to-protect-vulnerable-people-in-care

New law introduced to protect vulnerable people in care READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-law-introduced-to-protect-vulnerable-people-in-care

New law introduced to protect vulnerable people in care READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-law-introduced-to-protect-vulnerable-people-in-care

New proposals to help vulnerable people benefit from cheaper energy READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-proposals-to-help-vulnerable-people-benefit-from-cheaper-energy

Hi, I’m hoping for some advice for my uncle. He is 71, has had schizophrenia all his life, used to live with his parents till they passed away 15 years ago and now lives alone. My mum (his sister) and my dad visit him weekly to check on him, take him some food and do a little clean for him. He receives DLA (lowest rate) and pension credit and has rent paid on a small run down flat. He is usually very private about his finances last time they visited he was very anxious and told them he received a letter from the DWP to ask for bank statements to prove his amount in savings. They asked to see the letter but he said he had thrown it away. When they asked him how much he has, it turns out he has nearly £25,000. Obviously this is way more than he is allowed and we would like to know what is likely to happen now, and what is the best thing to do next? The money has not come from any outside source, purely from his entitled benefits mounting up over the years resulting from him living very and neglecting himself and his home due to his mental illness and medication. For example; he doesn’t eat well, only one decent meal a day and my parents take him fruit and veg and meals when they can. He was going out in winter in a thin summer coat so they bought him a warm winter one. His couches and bed are over 20 years old and falling apart and he refuses to buy a new ones saying they’re fine! he only has this much in savings because he hasn’t had the mental capacity to use his entitlement to care for himself properly all these years. He doesn’t smoke, drink or buy any new clothes or possessions for himself. We are wondering whether to try to convince him to spend a chunk of the money on things he does actually need and keep receipts before sending the bank statements in, or if this is likely to get him into more trouble with the DWP? He talks about being anxious about funeral costs so we could help him get a prepaid funeral plan. He also needs a new mattress, bedding, 3 piece suite, TV, white goods for the kitchen, new clothes and shoes etc all of which he has neglected to buy for himself for 15 years. Thank you very much for your advice!

This is another recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsman. This particular case addresses the common subject of single parents and whether or not they may be considered 'vulnerable' for the purposes of bailiff enforcement. There have been a couple of Ombudsman's decisions regarding 'vulnerability' and as in this particular case, the LGO confirm that it is for the debtor to provide evidence as to how their 'vulnerability' affects their ability to pay or deal with the debt. LGO Decision: North Hertfordshire District Council Miss X complains the Council has used bailiffs to try and collect a disputed council tax debt, even though she is vulnerable. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint as she has not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The complaint 1 The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complains via her MP that the Council has used bailiffs to try and recover a disputed council tax debt, despite her telling the bailiffs she is a vulnerable person. Back to top How I considered this complaint 4 I have considered Miss X’s complaint to us, the information her MP sent and the Council’s to Miss X’s complaint to it. Miss X has had the opportunity to comment, via her MP, on an earlier version of my final view. What I found 5 In 2010 the Magistrates’ Court granted the Council a liability order for a council tax debt it said Miss X owed. The Council passed the debt to its bailiffs in the same year. 6 Miss X disputed the debt, saying she should have received council tax benefit. The Council said she had made claim for backdated council tax benefit, but this was refused as it was outside the time limit for backdating benefit. 7 I note the points above as background, but I am not looking at why Miss X owes the debt as any complaint about her liability is be late, and the Ombudsman has previously considered a complaint about Miss X’s benefits. 8 In spring Miss X sent the bailiffs a ‘‘cease and desist’ notice saying as a single parent with a seven year old daughter she was a vulnerable person and the bailiffs should not be taking action to recover the debt. 9 The bailiffs wrote to Miss X asking for further information so they could assess her situation and decide how it affected her ability to pay. As Miss X did not send the information the bailiffs visited her twice later in the year. Miss X then complained to the Council about this. 10 In 2014 the Government issued National Guidance for Enforcement Agents. Paragraph 77 says - “Some groups who might be vulnerable are listed below. However, this list is not exhaustive. Care should be taken to assess each situation on a case by case basis.” 11 One of the groups listed who might be vulnerable are single parent families. 12 The Guidance is clear that if a debtor falls into the list the bailiffs must assess the individual case to see if they should take extra care in recovering the debt. Just because a debtor is a single parent does not, of itself, mean they are vulnerable. 13 The bailiff’s asked Miss X for more details of why she was vulnerable; she did not provide any information. So I cannot say the bailiffs were wrong to continue their recovery action. 14 I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council using bailiffs to recover a debt from a vulnerable person. Miss X did not send any other information to support her claim and the Council and bailiffs were not at fault to continue recovery action. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/other/16-010-888

My friend is currently in hospital with depression and anorexia. She almost died. Her ex-boyfriend has done a runner from the flat they shared years ago. She has not lived at the property for over 3 years is not on the electoral register. Long story short. It seems her ex is facing a decree (ccj) for the arrears on the 12th January and because she is also named she will presumably get the same. She does not need this on top of the other trouble she is dealing with. This decree will be effectively done without her knowledge as the judge has no address for her. First question with no address to send the paper work could she get this decision recalled? How easy is it? Second question. Is it possible to prevent this from happening in the first place? Her only crime it seems was not formally removing herself from the tenancy agreement three years ago. Please help I don’t want her to attempt suicide again.

To put it bluntly Councils have been saying to people faced with homelessness that you will have the same issues as the street homeless have now so are not more vulnerable. Also because you have these issues before you become homeless there will be no risk soi we do not have to help you. Judge says [naughty word]! http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2015/05/vulnerability-a-fresh-start/

Hackers could have accessed everything from encrypted corporate email to online banking apps using vulnerabilities recently found to affect Qualcomm chips in up to 900m Android smartphones and tablets. Checkpoint, an Israeli cyber security company that found four flaws in the chips, said cyber criminals could encourage users to download a malicious app and escalate its privileges so it can see everything on the device Qualcomm is the leading maker of chips for advanced smartphones. Checkpoint said devices using Qualcomm chipsets include the Google Nexus 5X, 6 and 6P, HTC One M9 and HTC 10 and the Samsung Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge. Checkpoint informed both Qualcomm and Google, which develops the Android operating system, of the vulnerabilities. Google said users of Android devices that have downloaded the most recent security updates are protected from three out of the four flaws. The fourth will be included in an upcoming update. There is no evidence to date that cyber criminals have yet exploited the flaws. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11b8cabe-5c7c-11e6-a72a-bd4bf1198c63.html#axzz4IjA843Kx

Since the introduction of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, it has been very interesting to observe the number of forum posts (here and on all other websites) where debtors (and indeed regular forum posters) consider that in cases where a debtor is identified as being ''vulnerable', that the local authority (or creditor) should be obliged to recall the account from an enforcement agent.....and remove all bailiff fees. In the majority of cases, the fees under discussion will be £310, consisting of a Compliance Fee of £75 (applied when sending the Notice of Enforcement) and an Enforcement Fee of £235 (applied when an enforcement agent attends the debtors premises in person). In the following post I have outlined my opinion on the above.

The Credit Today Awards 2016 was held two days ago and the Best Vulnerable Customer Strategy Award was given to Marston Group. The Credit Today Awards is the largest awards ceremony in the industry. Marston Group received the award for a range of vulnerability initiatives established throughout its business, in support of customers that are potentially in need.

A few days ago I was sent a text by a resident nearby relating to a PCN issued and not challenged and that there were 2 EA's in the home. They were looking to take control of goods to pay for the debt which was made more difficult to deal with due to the severe disability of the named debtor. The background is as follows... The debtor has a Motability car and is the registered name on the V5. But, the registered keeper is unable to drive due to their condition and Motability have allowed a family member to be the named driver. This is normal practise to have a contract to allow a 3rd party to drive for the hirer. The issues that have come to light is that the driver has had many PCN's over a few months. This is completely separate to the one that I had dealt with recently and for a different debtor. Most of the outstanding PCN's have been made subject to a repayment plan but 2 have already gone to enforcement. The issues for me are that as the registered keeper the debtor is responsible for the outstanding balance of these two debts. Unfortunately for this debtor the driver has intercepted the letters from the LA and chose to ignore them totally. Hence a WoC being issued by the TEC in Northampton. My issues are that the family were at home just as the EA's arrived and thinking that they were family left the door ajar for them to gain peaceful entry. The EA's had already walked and had started to talk to a person in apparent control of the premises. Unfortunately the name debtor was in bed resting in a bedroom in the next room. At no time did either of these EA's attempt to speak to the named person but did so freely to a family member. The debtor was just 15ft away from the EA's in the next room (bedroom) The issue is several fold. These are listed below and in no particular order. 1. Peaceful entry gained 2. Discussing the debt with a 3rd party without a signed or agreed DPA release form or authority to discuss. 3. Taking a family member to the kitchen and trying to arrange payment. 4. Heated discussion between 3rd party and forceful EA (at times) 5. EA attempting to take control of goods when goods in the property would not cover the debt and fees. 6. Using BWV and in the presence of a minor under 6 7. Trying to take goods needed for the care of the debtor 8. EA trying to take goods that are exempt under the guidelines 9. Debtor being subject to a consideration of mental capacity and awaiting an appointment for this. At some point the resident text me and asked for my help. I had already printed off a copy of the guidelines and had highlighted several important points to help stop the enforcement and give the agents time to seek further advice from their office and or the OC. I was asked who I was and then handed the EA's a signed DPA release allowing me to assist the debtor. This was accepted and then it was my turn to make a few points that needed to be said the EA's. At this point we the EA's and I retired to the hall to talk about what was going on. This is where they acted better and took more notice. With this I then gathered some documents that showed just how serious the medical situation was for this debtor. This included a care plan issued by the LA. Copies of the DLA awards and EA award. Medical letters and appointment cards as well. More than enough information to satisfy both agents. After about 10 minutes of talking both agents agreed to retire from the situation to seek advice from the offices and OC... So far there has already been a letter to the LA with evidence of severe vulnerability and I am about to draft a letter to ask the LA to take this back in house due to the complex issues regarding this particular debtor.. More to folow Sorry for the long post but it is very complex...

Today the Judiciary released their long awaited Consultation on McKenzie Friends. Most importantly, the consultation proposes a ban on fee-charging McKenzie friends in order to protect ‘vulnerable litigants’ from unregulated, uninsured and unqualified individuals. The article from the Law Gazette website outlines the Consultation in detail (and the online comments make interesting reading !!!). http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/judiciary-proposes-ban-on-fee-charging-mckenzie-friends/5053851.article

Earlier today I completed the last STICKY on the very important subject of vulnerability. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456344-Bailiff-enforcement-All-about-Vulnerability(1-Viewing)-nbsp If any regular posters have any comments that they would like to raise about the thread they would be most welcome. A copy of the thread can be read in the following post.

What are vulnerable persons/groups? This is indeed a very good question. By the way even the DWP has its own contradictions' on this subject as you will see later on... So sorry for the long read but you can cut it short by reading the section in DMG 35060 -35135. This has been the topic of several heated debates recently, with this in mind a regular poster was going to start a thread about this but yet I have not yet seen this. So with this in mind I will start one to get the ball rolling. As we all are very much aware there are many types of what is classed as a vulnerable person/group, whether or not you can claim this if the EA is enforcing against you. Well an answer to this has been provided by the Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) this October. The link to it is below. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470852/dmgch35.pdf This is correct as of this October 2015. Although this is in fact nothing to do with enforcement it does go a very long way in explaining the many types of what we call "a vulnerable person" if the DWP has made this as part of their decision making then perhaps the MoJ could do the same or similar? What is a vulnerable group for hardship purposes 35055 Vulnerable group is the term used in this guidance to describe people who are more likely to suffer hardship if JSA is not paid without a waiting period, i.e. those people who are defined as "persons in hardship" in JSA legislation1. Claimants in a defined vulnerable group are entitled to hardship payments in circumstances where other claimants are not2. Note 1: The test of hardship is not a test of ‘vulnerability’ but a test of the lack of the basic essential necessities of life, e.g. accommodation, food, water, heating and hygiene (see DMG 35155). Note 2: The term vulnerable group for hardship purposes is not the same as the DWP wider definition of ‘vulnerability’, or ‘vulnerable groups’ for any other purposes and applies exclusively to those defined in JSA regulations as "persons in hardship"1. 1 JSA Regs, regs 140(1) & 146A(1); 2 regs 141 & 146C(1) 35056 The date from which entitlement to hardship payments starts also depends on whether the claimant is in a defined vulnerable group for hardship purposes1. 1 JSA Regs, regs 141, 142, 146C & 146D People who are members of a vulnerable group 35057 The DM must treat claimants or partners who are pregnant women or lone parents responsible for a young person or members of couples or polygamous marriages responsible for children or young people or people who qualify for DP or certain people with long-term medical conditions or certain people who provide care for disabled people or certain people aged 16 or 17 or certain people under the age of 21 as "persons in hardship", (members of a vulnerable group for hardship purposes1 i.e. those who can have access to hardship without a waiting period). Vol 6 Amendment 44 October 2015 Note 1: Further guidance on these categories is given in DMG 35060 -35135. Some of these people may satisfy the conditions of entitlement for IS or ESA(IR). If a claimant or partner satisfies an IS or ESA(IR) condition of entitlement the claimant cannot be a person in hardship (see DMG 35013). Note 2: DMs should not interpret those with language difficulties, long term mental health conditions, or drug/alcohol dependencies as being in a vulnerable group for the purposes of JSA hardship unless the condition causes limitations in functional capacity because of a physical impairment2 (see further guidance on physical and mental health conditions at DMG 35070 et seq and 35095). 1 JSA Regs, reg 140(1); 2 reg 140(1)(g) As you can see clearly this could be the start of being able to define this group of people. Now what could be very interesting is if the MoJ could produce a document similar to this when dealing with the EA may assist many people in the long run.... Sorry for using Google to acquire this information but it may help when discussing this type of group...

Hi, My uncle is about to retire from a skilled manual job. He's been in this job for 50 years but his intended retirement date in October has had to be brought forward due to ill health. My uncle had a stroke and a heart attack just over a month ago. He's worked all his life has never spent anything other than basics. He hasn't done any repairs on his house (he doesn't even have heating) other than the bare essentials (when my mother moved in for a few months about 7 years ago and made him do it to stop the place falling down). So he's very ill, living in an unheated damp house. (The smell of damp hits you as you walk in, there is no wallpaper and barely plaster in places. The plaster is falling off the walls and there are huge cracks. Persuading him to do anything is difficult. Enter the financial adviser. This guy has persuaded him to put one pension into investments. He has another one due and this man is coming over to see him next week. My mother got his name and telephone number and begged him to delay but the man told her that this was urgent. She explained that the situation had changed, that my uncle was sick and undergoing treatment. Representatives from the council told him that the house was uninhabitable and he must move and my mother told this man. Last week my mother and I visited my uncle (we live over 400 miles away.) Mum had been there after he got ill. She's managed to get the council and other relatives living nearer to keep an eye on him and do some essential work. A valuer has visited and given him and us an idea of the possible auction value of the house and an idea of what it could be worth if it was done up. He has options but won't make a decision (he has always looked to authority figures to tell him what to do). So we explained that he could either sell the house and get somewhere smaller or do it up and hope he gets more. Either way he will have to move. He can't do it up himself he will have to pay someone. Meanwhile he does not have any idea where this man has invested his money, he has no list of investments or outcomes. He has little paperwork at all apart from a glossy folder. I have looked this man up and he doesn't have a website. His business name is different from the name on the glossy folder. Uncle tells us that the man told him it was all rather complicated and he would deal. Last week some forms arrived. As we weren't there the adviser's wife came round and collected the forms. We don't know what they were. Of course the adviser won't and can't discuss it with us without my uncle's permission. I get that. Mum has got CAB's pensionwise to try to intervene but my uncle won't deal with them. He trusts this guy. Frankly, I don't but without his permission I seem to hit a brick wall. The red flags are screaming at me; The absence of a list of investments The haste to get this next pension invested The refusal to delay the next meeting The fact that after a lifetime of thrift my uncle has only a small amount in his account (he showed my mother his bank book) The "it's all too complicated for you, I'll deal" that he seems to be saying. My uncle hates change, he doesn't travel, has never even had a passport. As I said he fixates on authority figures (real or perceived) and is really in a vulnerable situation with his illness. As an example he will get the bus to a big supermarket rather than shop locally as he knows where everything is. I think he will convince himself that he can update this house as selling it would upset him but for that he needs savings that he can access. If anyone can advise on anything I can do from a distance bearing in mind he'll not agree to intervention?

My relative is vulnerable and has mental health Moorcroft have put a hand delivered letter through the letter box on behalf of a catalogue. It states that a field operative called to discuss the account is there a templateicon letter I can send to tell Moorcroft or any other debt collectoricon not to make personal visits to my relative

Thousands of cars are at risk of electronic hacking, according to computer scientists whose research was suppressed for two years by a court injunction for fear it would help thieves steal vehicles to order. It highlights a weakness in the Megamos Crypto system, a piece of technology used by big manufacturers such as Audi, Fiat, Honda, Volvo and Volkswagen. It is supposed to prevent a car engine being started without the presence of a keyfob containing the correct radio frequency identification chip. However, researchers at Birmingham University and Radbound University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, were able to intercept signals sent between the chip and the car. Listening in twice allowed them to use a process of reverse engineering – using a commercially available computer programmer - to identify the secret codes used to start the car. "This is a serious flaw and it's not very easy to quickly correct," Tim Watson, Director of Cyber Security at the University of Warwick, told Bloomberg. "It isn't a theoretical weakness, it's an actual one and it doesn't cost theoretical dollars to fix, it costs actual dollars."

can someone please help me. Rossendales want to collect on unpaid parking fines, totally about 600. I am more than willing to pay them but it needs to be affordable amount for me, there are several issues I have: 1)I am willing to pay them but the demands they have set are beyond my budget and unreasonable. I have made payments on them but not to the amount they want. 2)I have tried to negioate but they have replied in an email (I will not talk them via phone) that they will not reply to any more messages from me 3) I have mental health issues and have sent in letters from gps etc to validate my claims. I am in a very vulnerable domestic situation with 2 children. I will not say what this situation is but please read between the lines. I have told Rossendales and they refuse to work with me. due to this I my mental health has hit crisis and I ended up harming myself. I am working with mental health crisis team. 4) they told me they would hold off sending a bailiff pending medical documentation but the next day they sent a bailiff to the wrong address and are now trying to charge me for there error to the cost of £375. I have disputed this and they have not responded 5) I submitted a complaint to Rossendales over week ago and have not heard 6)I contact my LA and asked them to stop the bailiffs but they are no help and wont. I know they appoint Rossendales and can do this. How do I get them to do this? any advice is greatly appreciated. I am in utter crisis, Im not sleeping, crying all the time and I am terrified to be in my own home. thankyou

I haven't had time to read this yet, but think it's of relevance to this forum and nolegion's sterling work. http://www.cqc.org.uk/content/using-hidden-cameras-monitor-care HB

Relative debt of which I have tried to help with. Original debt £5012 when Cabot took over in 2004 with what I think is a flimsy Assignment, debt now at at £11,216. Cabot were paid each and every month at £25 up until last year when a SARS request was sent to them (not to be confused with a cca request which has never been requested of them) . They responded to the SARS, they were then sent a further letter asking if all that was contained in the SARS was all that they had and nothing more. They responded saying yes it was....Which then clearly demonstrated that Cabot are quite good at constructing documents as some of the letters from them enclosed in the SARS were not the letters sent by them of which the relative has the hard copies of. A request was made to Cabot to remove all interest payments added by them but they responded saying that they had reviewed the account and it was clear that there was a poor payment record with them and they referred to a letter they sent a few years earlier warning interest was to be added. They also stated that under the terms of the original agreement they were entitled to add interest...No agreement at that point had been sent and was not included in the SARS . We reminded them that no agreement between Cabot and my relative existed. At the same time as this we also pointed out that they'd actually sent letters agreeing to continue the payments being made and that no interest was being applied...In all in over and with 60 possible payments to cabot and just prior to SARS request 59 payments had been made, no gaps. No request has ever been made to Cabot for a copy of the original credit agreement but then on June 3rd 2011 they sent a copy of what they are saying is an original credit agreement, along with a copy of what looks like the CCA 1974 (card taken out in 96) and also the terms and condtions of the card... Upon a closer look at the alleged 'agreement' it gives the relatives details at the time (job/income) and what looks like their signature but it only says 'Priority Request Form Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer credit Act 1974 To the left of the details it says 'How to request your card . To accept our invitation please complete the Priorty Request Form Cabot also enclosed a letter headed Information under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and saying 'Further to your request please find all of the relevant information following your request for information under section 77-78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They also state a paragraph down that 'As we have now complied with your request for information we are able to enforce the credit agreement' Am I right to assume that this does not represent a credit agreement? The page where my relatives signature is has no relevant interest or terms/details etc. At the same time as this Cabot have also enclosed a statement of sorts re the debt since they took over (also contained in the SARS and updated ..on one hand they're saying they've now complied with a request for a cca (never made) but on the other hand they've continued adding interest..which if they considered the account to be in dispute since the the supposed CCA request then they shouldn't be adding interest? ? Go figure...we did point out in oprevious correspondence that no credit agreement request has ever been made to them...which they disregarded obviously. Throughout all of this Cabot were made aware in big bold writing that they person they're attempting to collect a debt from is considered 'vulnerable' and is both registered disabled and had a full time carer...Cabot wanted letters from Doctors but why should we given they quite obviously cannot be trusted with information (false letters in SARs to name but one anomaly) so no documentation from a doctor will be sent to them. There is a letter available from a doctor who wrote 2 years ago to somebody else on behalf of the relative which very clearly outlined his opinion on the vulnerability of the relative...we could have sent them that but I do not trust Cabot with that sort of information. They want to enforce the debt, I dont want to hasten any fires but so far it is my opinion they've acted wholly irresponsibly and possibly illegally where this debt is concerned.. I would SARS MBNA but I dont see what would be gained from it. What if anything should we write to Cabot? They dont seem able to do anything but issue random threats, add stupid amounts of interest to an account that we dont know if it's ever been given a default notice from MBNA and we dont know on what terms they add the interest and right now it appears they've fabricated other information on the account. Lastly, in the terms of the account they've just sent it gives the relatives address that is now....printed in a box....but this address is NOT the one on the Priority Request form and was only added to the account with Cabot 18 months ago...is this illegal for them to do as quite clearly the credit agreement they've sent (after the first prioroty request form) is not consistent with information at the time the agreement would have been taken out and is only a year since it's been added...if you understand that? This to me seems as if Cabot or fabricating agreements....or at least adding an address within it that didn't exist when the agreement was first made in the 90's (repeating myself I know) There is no name on the details added, just the address and the one added 18mths ago.....can they do this? is it legal relevant? or does it help further a claim against Cabot for deliberate meddling and sending out false documentation?

Hello I have an outstanding high court debt. A bailiff was sent to my address by High Court Enforcement in Wales. I answered the door and explained to him I was registered both blind and deaf and that there was nobody else in the house and please could he go away as I couldnt help him. The response I got was "You answered the door therefore you are not vulnerable". I told him I wouldnt let him in. He said "Thats your right, but if I find a window or door open anytime I can get in". Apart from that being a threat to a disabled person, I thought that they could only come through a door now, and that forcible enrty was restricted to criminal fines and associated with good they had already taken possession of. Has he the right to tell me I am not vulnerable because I answered the door? His medical training must have come in useful there. I am worried about his return. Does anybody have any advice for me please?

Hiya all, My wife has a debt with the Sheriffs Office in which we are currently liaising with them - total debt is £6200 She suffers from severe anxiety following a violent attack for which she is receiving currently police referred counselling and we have a police reference for. We have provided details of both of these to the Sheriffs Office but have just got an email back to say that despite this we cannot have the 28 days we have asked for to pay this in full and that enforcement will commence immediately Is there anything we can do? If people turn up it is going to lead to her to have anxiety attacks and miss work I was under the impression- probably wrongly- that the new guidelines indicated that vulnerable people would be dealt with in other ways Is there a template letter we can send them?

Hi and thankyou for this information i have a few questions if you don't mind assisting me. 1: Can Collectica use a distress warrant to collect their fees if the amount of the original court fine has been paid? 2: I read for the collectica bailiff to use forced entry he must suspect the named person on the warrant to be in the premises, if the bailiff knew for certain that person left the property in front of them and then tried to force entry by way of forcing the door open against the tenant after said tenant had shown their tenancy agreement with only said tenant name on it did that collctica bailiff break the law? 3: if the answer to both is yes where do i go to report this as the police say its a civil matter even though i was injured during this ordeal Look forward to hearing from you regards Craig Ps fine is for non payment of fine for no tv licence. Original fine was £127.00 i have paid over £160.00 to date and should only owe £90.50 though the bailiff has now just upped it to £329.50 even though regular payments of £11.00 per week agreed with collectica were up to date. This all seems to have happened because i missed one weeks payment then caught it by paying double the following week, also made the payment the week following again. I am not a non payer but feel i am been extorted and the law appears to be on their side collectica are the miscreants sad world we live in