HELP!! I have now had a response to my letter. Here are the contents: "The Attendance to Remove has only been applied to one warrant and is a valid charge in accordance with Schedule 6 of the regulations. These have been explained previously in our response. In answer to your specific points:- · Mr Bailiff refutes he stated he did not have to knock at the door. He maintains adamantly that he left a notice due to no response. · All out Agents attend premises in a van. This facility is available to remove small household items should the situation necessitate. Although you did contact Mr Bailiff and were given extra time to pay, you did not adhere to the arrangement put in place. Therefore your failure to adhere to the arrangement put in place meant that full enforcement procedures were carried out and the further charges applied. In regards to the Culligan case and the judges comments regarding the need for a gap between seizure and removal. The substantive issue in this case was whether clamping was part of seizure or removal, and the comments about the requirement of to provide an opportunity to pay before removal action was not the ratio or the main focus of the judgement. The substantive issue was whether a term in a contract stipulating a distinct fee for clamping was lawful within the RTA fee schedules. The relevant regulations, The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts order 1993 7(2) does not provide the debtor with an opportunity to be informed of any right or entitlement to halt the distraint process between seizure and removal. This matter was addressed in Wilson V South Kesteven District Council, where Simon Brown LJ concluded that a debtor could not halt the process other than before seizure or before sale. Wilson was not cited in the Culligan case, had it been it is unlikely that the District Judge would have made the comments he did in his judgement at paragraph 49 and 50. In Wilson, Simon Brown LJ rejected the idea – which the District Judge’s comments necessarily imply – that there is (or should be) a continuum of opportunity to halt the seizure and removal process." Where do I go from here? Their letter is incorrect when it says that as I did not stick to the arrangement further charges were applied. The charges for removal were already applied when he put the letter through the door. Do they have to take to court for the charges or can they just keep on harrassing me at home? Amwondering whether to continue complaining or whether to tell them to take me to court. Any help appreciated especially with regards to the point about the attendance for the first visit and the charging ofa removal fee at the same time. Many thanks

Thank you tomtubby. If they cant use the warrant to collect their fees how would they do it? Would they have to issue separate proceedings? Sounds like a good book to have! The Council have told Marstons to hold off while they investigate as I have now made a Stage One complaint so will see what comes back from that.

Hi Thanks again. I have already paid the fine, a letter fee and the attendance fee. I am now being threatened with further attendances to collect the £175 plus VAT attendance to remove fee! Am just drafting a long letter to the Council, not Marstons, advising that I am now making an official complaint and pointing out that they have charged me illegally and I'll be suing for the return of the levy fee on the other account. Will let you know how I get on. I am so mad about this I am prepared to go all the way to the Ombudsman and to the Court for assessment of the fees if necessary - whilst I accept that I should have paid this, I am not prepared to accept that Bailiff's think they can extort money out of people who do pay for work they dont do by use of bully boy tactics and threats. Phew - rant over!

Hi thanks for your reply. It may have been in road somewhere nearby although it has more HP on it than its value so he wouldnt have got far with it. His "Final Notice" clearly states that unless full payment is made he shall remove goods and that I must phone (which I did) - it doesnt say he was going to do it then.

Hi Just checking I am on the right lines here with fight I am in with Marstons. I had a PCN (and admit I didnt pay it due to financial pressures) - anyway one morning about 8.30am my son found a handwritten letter pushed through our door from Marstons stating that I now had to pay over £300 (original ticket £25) - there was no knock at the door prior to the letter being pushed through - it wasnt on the door mat 10 minutes earlier when I had passed the door and I have a dog who would have barked had the door been knocked. I phoned the Bailiff and he admitted on the phone he hadnt knocked - saying "I dont need to". I checked the regulations and as far as I could understand them I had to pay the fine, the court fee and possibly the levy fee of £28 as he had "attended". This I did and immediately wrote to the council and marstons complaining about the additional costs. Marstons have responded today stating they are entitled to charge the additional £175 plus VAT because the bailiff "had attended with a view to remove goods" - they also deny that he did not knock on the door. I am now threatened with further enforcement action for not paying up. The Bailiff clearly had no intention of removing goods that day - even if he did knock (which he didnt) - there was no van outside and the handwritten letter makes no mention of any removal being threatened. I have read the case of Culligan v Marstons and my understanding is that Judge there stated that levy and removal are 2 separate events - am I right? Any help appreciated. Many thanks

Hi We have been told by a "salesman" that Northern Rock Together Mortgages had PPI on them. Have had a cursory glance at our documents and am not sure. Can anyone confirm if this is the case? Many thanks

Hi Am just in the process of sitting down and taking our heads out of the sand! We have a number of various debts from loans, credit cards, overdrafts etc. The first thing to do as I read it is to clarify whether the debts are enforceable by obtaining the original agreements. I am confused as to whether I should be making a CCA request or a request under the CPR for Pre-Action disclosure? Can anyone help Many thanks

Hi Was wondering if anyone had any thoughts/experience on a way forward that my OH and I have come up with to try and get our lives back on track! Little bit of background - we have approximately £70,000 of unsecured debt most of which we ran up when running our own business which subsequently failed (it was personal debt not a ltd co). We have tried DMP but some of the debts are going to take us 18 years to pay off at the rate we can afford. Bankruptcy is not an option as at least one of us is likely to lose our jobs if we go down that route just making the position worse. We do not own our own home and the car is on hp (we also have 3 children) so we have no assets. Our thought was that we kind of do our own IVA on the basis that we write to the creditors and get them to reduce the debt by say 50% which would mean we would then be able to pay everyone the other 50% over a 5 year period on a pro rata basis. Has anyone any experience of this approach? Thanks in anticipation.

The original debt is now 2 years old. I didnt ring BC&W - they would have rung me. Would you believe I have had another letter from SEC today dated 11 March agreeing to my payment plan! What other information do you require?

Will get the rant over with first. Large electric bill from old address - couldnt pay as having financial difficulties. Early Jan this year rang BC&W and offered to pay £20 per month - refused advising me they would keep ringing and send someone round to my house to collect money. Paid £20 online anyway and advised them I would continue to do so. More letters and phone calls. Reiterated my offer to them - said they had spoken to Southern Electric who wouldnt accept offer unless I did income/expenditure in 48 hrs - did it there and then - refused offer saying i couldnt afford the payment. Rang me again same day asking same questions - advised they should take me off their call back list and considered this harrassment. Then called SEC direct and after being passed around and explaining situation they called me back and said they would accept £20 per month. Received 2 letters from SEC agreeing to offer and advising 1st payment would be taken from bank on 1st March. Last week calls again from BC&W - advised I had set up arrangement with SEC - they had not been told so would continue to chase. Rang SEC - they had wrong account number - took payment immediately. Today - more calls/letters from BC&W - they will not stop contacting me until SEC tell them to. Rang SEC - agreed payment had been made as per agreement - BUT were going to cancel DD as they arrangement was incorrect and shouldnt have been made - mistake by their staff - even though I have letters agreeing and I have stuck to it they dont want to anymore - want whole balance in 14 days. Am fuming - any advice appreciated.

Sorry hope you dont mind me butting in on this post. I am in a similar situation and am determined I am not letting Ross & Roberts through the door this time! You mention a template letter - where can I find that? Many thanks

Ok - I will write to them - might be good to reiterate my offer in writing in any event.

Hi All thanks for your advice and support which gave me the confidence to ring the council this morning. I spoke to a very helpful gentleman who has noted down all my complaints about the bailiff concerned and agreed that the new debt can just be added on and I can continue to pay at the agreed rate - he is going to contact the bailiff's immediately to instruct them not to attend again. A result as far as I am concerned. Thanks again

Thank you very much for your help. They havent issued and have written one letter and harrassed us on the phone - I will resist any attempts to recover the charges and let you know how I get on.

I assume as this was an electricity account there will be no agreement that they can add on charges? Where will I find out?