Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

CT and Scott & co


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4385 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Just received this from Scott & Co this morning.Its for council tax


Account no Charge year Payments recieved Balance due


xxxxxxxxxx 2009 . 00 216. 46



We have been instructed to execute a CHARGE for PAYMENT and Funds Arrestment in respect of the debts above.

This means that you will not have access to funds held in your bank account,building society account or due to you by a third party.

It is essential that you contact us immediately on the above telephone number to prevent this action proceeding against you.


It then has a payment advice slip attached to it.


What does this mean ?

Can they arrest my funds ?

I am a disabled person (after serious accident in 2005) and unable to work and the only funds I have/get paid into my bankbuilding society account are my incapacity benefit and disability and income support payments.I have no other money coming in and that will never change.

As I understand (and correct me if I am wrong) the law states that a person needs xx ammount of money to live, this being my benefit payments.I am sure that they cannot even touch this money as its all benefit money.And of course this would cause undue hardship.

I allready have deductions taken from my benefit each week for a previous council tax bill paid directly to Aberdeenshire council.And as per deductions taken from benefit payments there can not be more than one deduction allowed per payment and it can't be more than a certain ammount.I think they are not allowed to take more than £5 per fortnight, which is roughly the ammount I pay.

Scott and CO have no record or any idea of which bank/building society my money is paid into and I have no intention of telling them.Also the council (Aberdeenshire Council) have no idea which bank building society I am with.

So basically can they find out which bank/building society my benefit money is paid into without me telling them and put a funds arrestment on to it?.

There is also a bit on the bottom of the letter stating ....if you have recently cleared the above arrears please ignore this letter.

Are Scott & Co just trying it on into scaremongering me into contacting them and try to get me to set up a payment scheme and of course they would then find out my bank details.

This has got me worried and it seems a bit severe for an account which is just overdue a few months.

As I allready pay the maximum allowed through deductions from benefit, I can't really afford to pay anymore.

Should I contact Scott & Co and offer them 50p per fortnight or just ignore their threats as without my bank/building society details there is not a lot they can do.

They also have no idea I am disabled and on benefits and if I did phone them I would definately lose my temper with them. To me they seem nothing more than bullies and will do or say anything to get their money.

Being disabled and on benefits would class me as vunerable and unable to pay.

I remember these muppets from years ago when I was married and my wife had run up arrears on a catalogue. I was working then.They had visited my house and at the time no one was in so they could not get into the house and never spoke to me or my wife.When we got home there was a note that had been put through my letterbox ,hand written on a blank piece of paper stating they were going to take away my stereo system and the tv and video recorder and how much they had valued them at and would be back next day to collect them.Because of this I did manage to scrape some money together.I had not a clue then about dcs and balliffs and what they could and couldn't do.

They had looked through my window, never even gaining entry and seen the items and then written out this note and I of course I fell for it.They did come back next day and my wife let them in and we landed up paying them.

I now know how underhand and intimidating these muppets can be, if only I had known back then my rights I would have told them where to stick their note and would never have let them in.

It just shows the underhand tactics some of these balliffs/sherriff officers resort to and back then I was completely ignorant about what they can and can't do.They just preyed on people not knowing their rights and still do today.

But thanks to the internet and of course sites like these we are all a lot wiser now and are fighting back against them.Without the CAG I would still not be any the wiser, so I wish to thank all the members/posters for all the invaluable information on here.Hopefully someone more versed in sherriff officers and Scott & Co can advise me of what to do next


Apologies to kermit/miss piggy and co for classing sherriffs officers and balliffs as equals to them.By and far the Muppets are far superior and are more respected.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try and find the link you require, and post it ;)


You are correct that Scott and Co cannot touch any benefit money and must return any money that you have paid if you have been on benefits.:mad:


You must also contact the council ASAP and i would also contact your local councillor by telephone and letter ;) they work for US remember:D


Do not speak to sheriff cowboys on the phone :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

They haven't taken any money from my account or tried to (yet)


As Scott & Co do not have any idea of where I do my banking would this not mean there is no way they could execute a funds arrestment or is there some way they could find out where I hold an account.?

Surely they wouldn't try to contact every bank there is in the hope of discovering where I do my banking or are they that stupid?


I have no direct debits or payments of any kind taken out of my account and it clearly states on my statements that every payment put in to my account is incapacity/disability payments.

I really think they are trying it on especially after reading the govan law centre link in the hope that I will contact them.

Not in a million years will I call them and if they do decide to visit my house they will be told exactly where to go.Seems they are just speaking out of their derriere.

If they could do this they would have allready done it.


Would it be worth contacting my account provider to inform them that Scott & co might try to arrest my money being paid into my account and this would be illegal as its benefit money.

I think I will just wait and see what dirty trick they try next.They should not be getting away with this.I will save a copy of DB's letter just in case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether they should do it and whether they can do it are very different, Foggie. - (Interesting username, by the way!)


They can do it, even when you haven't disclosed your banking details to anyone. They did it to me a few years back for Council Tax. They shouldn't have done it, but they did do it. I got it back, eventually.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.



Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)





Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether they should do it and whether they can do it are very different, Foggie. - (Interesting username, by the way!)


They can do it, even when you haven't disclosed your banking details to anyone. They did it to me a few years back for Council Tax. They shouldn't have done it, but they did do it. I got it back, eventually.



Erika,were you on benefits when the sheriff cowboys robbed your account :eek:


Foggie, best to get a letter off to sheriff cowboys and tell them you are only on benefits and amend delboys letter to suit,also contact the council

and explain the situation and also your local councillor.


Sheriff bully boys dont like complaints about them and on your letter ask them to reply within 7 days :D


Send your letters signed for and keep receipts


best line of defense is attack

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if I could email them,I shall have a look, It does state on the back of the letter that you can pay online various ways.As though I would give these lot my bank details, I am not that stupid.

The council allready take money direct from my benefit for a previous bill so there is really no way they should even be doing this.

Do I enter the account number from the letter I recieved from Scott & Co(n) as there is no way I am putting my bank details on it.And being that they do not know which bank I deal with this would give the game away.As they have not tried this yet I think that I will contact my bank first.


Not to sound stupid but I can't find the letter of appropiation

Edited by foggiepete
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find the letter of appropiation


Should find one in here.........








Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites



How did you get on with the COWBOYS have they responded to your letters yet ?


Also contact the councils LEGAL DEPARTMENT as well and inform them what is happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually didn't even bother with Scott & Co and contacted the council directly.I sent them the following email......


Account no xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Dear Sir/madam.

I have received a letter today from Scott & Co regarding an outstanding council tax bill for 2009.It states that .....

We have been instructed to Execute a CHARGE for PAYMENT and Funds Arrestment in respect of the debt above.This means that you will not have access to funds held in your bank account,building society account or due to you by a third party.It is essential that you contact us immediately on the above telephone number to prevent this action proceeding against you.

I find this very threatening and distressing.

I am a disabled person (registered severly disabled) after a bad accident 5 yrs ago which resulted in me being unable to work for the rest of my life.The only money I receive is benefit money ie, income support/incapacity/disability and this is all .As you are aware it is illegal to freeze an account that soley comprises of benefit money as this is exempt as per below............


Both the Scottish Law Commission and Scottish Executive concede that

social security benefits are exempt from arrestment in terms of section

187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (see Enforcement of

Civil Obligations in Scotland, Scottish Executive report, at paragraph

5.245). Section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 is an identical

provision to the said section 187 of the 1992 Act.


It is therefore trite law that tax credits and other such maintenance

0Aor social security benefits are exempt from arrestment. The case of

Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 SLT 1 Reports 499 is authority for

the proposition that where exempt monies are paid into a bank account

Those monies remain exempt from arrestment insofar as such monies can

be clearly identified within an account.


I clearly states on my account that any payments I receive are made up from social security benefits and to do this would cause undue hardship and I am also exempt as I would be recognised as a vunerable person. This is the only money I have to live on and as the law states ...a person needs xxx ammount of money to live on and this is all I receive.

I allready have deductions taken off of my income support for a previous council tax bill at the maximum allowed.

It is not that I am unwilling or unable to pay But I refuse to be bullied by Scott & Co and find their tactics very underhand and unnaceptable and do not want to deal in any way with this company.

If there is a way that I could come to an arrangement to pay £10 a month would this be acceptable ?.

Is there a card or pay in book I could be issued with enabling me to go to the post office and pay the arrears by this method ?.

I only have a Post Office account which does not allow direct debits and I would find it extremely difficult to travel to the nearest council tax offices due to my Disability.I also do not have a credit card or debit card.

As you can see by this email I am prepared to pay this bill but if this is not acceptable please let me know.

As I have said above I do not want any involvment with Scott & Co nor do I want any visits to my house, as I would refuse to speak to them and they will be asked to leave.Thus resulting in this bill still to be outstanding.Can you assure me that this Charge for Payment/Funds arrestment will not be attempted as IT is illegal and exempt from this happening.

I will keep a copy of this email as it will clearly show that I have contacted you in an atempt to offer a monthly payment which is all I can manage.



xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx


This clearly shows I have contacted them and offered them a monthly payment.To date I have not received a reply from the council, all they have emailed me back with is a confirmation stating that they received the email I sent and they are dealing with it, but if need be I will send Scott & Co roughly the same letter altered to suit.With what I have been reading on the various forums seemingly the next step that Scott & Co take is visiting home addresses to try and get you to set up a payment plan and pay them directly which I refuse to do.Do you think I should send them the (altered to suit) email as well ?.

I have also kept copies of anything I have sent/received.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also in form Sheriff Cowboys - then they will have no excuse to come to your house. Send the letter SIGNED FOR it costs 75p + postage.


did you send the email to the LEGAL DEPARTMENT .


Email is brill also ask for a response within 7 days - this way you are not

waiting for a reply also state that you will complain to your MP and council

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi foggie


as its less than 14 days since the charg of payment you can apply to the courts for a time to pay offer and as your on beneifts tis would allow you for the min to be paid


this link also applies to charges for payment




ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

They haven't actually done this yet,they are just trying to get me to contact them by telephone.I shall ammend the letter I sent to the council tax offices and send it to Scott & Co also stating to contact me in writing only.


First link not working 404

Link to post
Share on other sites

I 've altered the letter sent to the council and sent it by email to Scott & Co.Lets see what happens next and who will contact me first.I also told Scott & Co to contact me in writing only or by email and if they needed confirmation of me being on benefits to contact the council (as they know allready) or myself.

Email is great you can contact nearly anybody you want all in the comfort of your own home.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Scott & Co are the first to answer with the following..........





With reference to your e-mail dated 15th October 2009 we note the contents.


As xxxxxxxxxxxxx Council has passed the debt onto us for collection they would prefer if you make payments to us, we can set up your proposed offer of payment at £10.00 per month. In your e-mail you stated you wish to pay at the post office we would like to inform you that there will be an extra charge by them for paying this way. If you would like to give us a date that you will paying on every month we will set it up on our system to prevent further action taking place.


We look forward to hearing from you.





I have not had a reply from the council as yet.I will wait and see what they say as I do not want to deal with these cowboys if I can avoid it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right folks I have had a reply from Acc as below


Thank you for your enquiry, I can advise that the letter issued to you from

Scott & Co is simply informing you of the action that may be taken should

payment or contact not be received from you. This has been issued to you as you have not responded to any previous letters sent.


We advised you in writing on 16 June 2009 that a Summary Warrant had been granted and as you did not make any payment or contact us to discuss the matter as requested the debt was passed to our Sherriff Officer, Scott & Co.


I can advise that a charge for payment has not yet been served, once this

has been served it will authorise the Sherriff Officer to take further

diligence to collect the debt due, which may include a bank arrestment. I

must advise that this action may be taken as the source of income is not

disclosed by a bank.


I would be prepared to negotiate an agreement to repay the current year

arrears with you, however £10 per month would not clear the arrears in an

acceptable timescale, I would therefore ask that £30 per month is paid with the first payment to be received by 31st October 2009.


Payments can be made at a post office and I will arrange for a card to be

issued to you immediately.


The debt will remain with Scott & Co until I receive your acceptance and

first payment of this arrangement. Should you default in your payments the debt will be sent back to our Sherriff Officer immediately.

So an action of charge for payment MAY include a bank arrestment as source of income is not disclosed by the bank.

Despite me telling them that I am on benefits which they allready damn well know otherwise I would be charged the full ammount of CT.

Also as above...."I would therefore ask that £30 per month is paid"


Well I don't know about anyone else but the original debt was for £216.00 and when I went to school, 12 times £30 does NOT come to £216.00 it comes to £360.Even at £20 per month that is still over the original ammount coming in at £240.

Who does this person think they are ?.£10 per month is all I can afford.

Funnily enough Scott & Co were going to accept £10 a month.Should I just pay Scott & Co or contact this person and ask where they learned to count as there is no bloody way I am paying £30 per month.That is alot of money for someone who's sole income is benefits.

I am bloody outraged at this persons lack of understanding. :-x Seems to me all they want the debt paid as quick as possible.They are lucky I offered even £10 a month as if this went to court they would get damn less than £10 a month.

Link to post
Share on other sites



I'd pay Scott & Co, as the other numpties don't seem to understand simple maths :rolleyes:


I'm paying Scott & Co at the moment, I've always found them alright, I've had the wages arrestment ect, but as I had none, they've just had to except what I can afford.


Sometimes you just can't get through to folk, you can only pay what you can, simple as that, why it takes them so long to get the jist is beyond me.


Thats just my opinion, whether it's right or not's anybodys guess.


Good luck with whatever you decide.






Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep your right, some folks have no clue,but of course they are all law abiding citizens who pay all their taxes and bills and are never in this situation (NOT).I hope one day they land up like us then they will see what its really like.

I could just decide to pay them nothing if I so wished, then where would it get them, court with me ordered to pay maybe a £5 a month if they were lucky.

Link to post
Share on other sites



I would resend your letter to the council and ask them to explain


1. Why they are trying to take benefit money

2. Explain exactly why your agreement of £10 a month is not acceptable.


Now keep all e-mails print them off and this can be used as evidence later

for your complaint against them at a later date or if they try and take legal action.


I would really get your Member of Parliment involved to look into your case.


Forward all info to the council's legal department - they can also help you, if you deal with the TAX OFFICE DEPT they will not understand the legal position, so have some fun and contact the COUNCILS LEGAL DEPARTMENT and see what comes back- give them 7 days to reply.



I would also check that you are getting your full benefits due to you

Edited by RHOOD
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I was a bit dumbfounded myself when they said £10 a month was not acceptable.As for the deductions from my benefit. I asked them to do this for a previous bill that way I know its being paid and thats one thing less to worry about.

My local MP is none other than Alex Salmond , getting him involved would really put the cat in amongst the pigeons.As for getting the right benefits, I had another thread on here last year about when the DWP stopped my disability/mobility/income support after 4 yrs of getting the benefits.I got that sorted eventually(took 6 months) but I got all of them back and was awarded them for the rest of my life.So I know I get the correct benefits.

They want the CT bill paid as quick as possible as come next April the next CT bill will be sent out leaving me further in debt and unable to pay it.CT is the worst thing that was ever invented and is the cause of many households to be in debt, I bleedy hate it and I despise paying it.

Robbing the poor to pay the rich.

I wasn't even going to bother contacting the council again as Scott & Co will accept the £10 a month.I refuse to pay £30 a month and refuse to accept their arrangement.So come Monday I will contact Scott & Co and just pay them the £10 a month at least they know that its better to get a small payment than to get nothing at all and it shows I am prepared to pay something.

I will have a look for their legal department and contact them and also contact the council as to why they won't accept £10 a month.Maybe they want to haggle to get more than £10, they have no chance.

I have kept every email I have sent or received regarding this,but right enough I should print them off as once before my PC crashed and I lost every important email I had saved.I will also transfer them to a sd card or flashdrive once I figure out how to do it.I have managed to save movies /music on a flash drive before so it can't be that difficult.

I do like the way they state that....... "source of income is NOT disclosed by a bank", seems this is their way to deny knowing I receive benefits.Well they can't get away with that because I have informed them I only get benefits (as though they didn't know in the first place) also I informed Scott & Co and definately kept those emails.

As Scott & Co said at the top of the reply......we note the contents, so they cannot deny knowing I only receive benefits.


Gone are the days when they could tell you anything they wanted and you just had to believe them, thanks to the internet and sites like these , no longer will they be able to pull the wool over our eyes, we are slowly getting to know our rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I contacted Scott & Co who are sending me pay in slips at £10 per month as agreed, but the council have now sent me a payment card to pay them monthly. I did not agree to pay them or pay the £30 per month they said they wanted.So today I sent them yet another email asking them why £10 a month is not acceptable to them and why they even sent a payment card in the first place for something I have not agreed to..I have informed the council that due to the fact they wanted me to pay £30 a month, I have contacted Scott...& and they have accepted the £10 a month which I offered the council. So, stuff the council.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...