Well while you can go to your MP, you cannot go straight to the LBO. You have to write to the CEO of the Council or the actual council leader. THE LGO should refer you back to the council to allow them to deal with it. If at that point the resolution isnt to your satisfaction, then you can take the matter further

Lewte, what seems wrong except the dates?

Well first thing I would say is, er excuse me but how have you passed my account to Bailiffs in March when you didnt get the Liability order until the 15th April? Are they psychic. ALSO, by law, they have to inform you 14 days before they refer the matter to bailiffs.

The MP seemed keen to follow this through and he had made a special trip to see me so he must have had a plan in his mind.

What an interesting morning :) I had arranged to meet my councillor today as this was his first surgery. Prior to going, I emailed him all the relevant law, factual points and finally my complaint. When I arrived I was greeted by 2 coucillors and my MP. Apparently, my councillor had spoked to the MP last night about my case and he had agreed to come and see me. He has left with all my points and he is writing to the Chief Exec of the council. He even offered that if he got lip service, we would go to the LGO. Deep joy

Never paid him a thing. In fact I told him to close the gate on the way out and shut the door on him.

My fault I should have been clearer, it is council tax. Thanks

Right, I am now going for this full barrels. I read where people say that they cant change for multiple charging orders on one visit and Quote Leeds Throssel. Can anyone provide a link to the wording of the judgement please. Also, People say you cant charge a van fee and the levy fee on the first visit. Why. Can someone point me where in law it says this. The reason I ask is because I am filing a dossier and going to the police about it. The detective I spoke to is VERY keen but needs help with the law side of it, as do I. I beleive a few things happen. 1. I dont believe everyone that attends IS a bailiff. I believe that some come with made up cards (Ones I have seen are poor at best) with a certified bailiffs name on. I say this because I had a visit from one and asked for his card and he handed it me. I looked like something my 9 year old had done. I then asked him for his driving licence or something with his name on, debit card etc. He asked why and I said to verify you are this person. He snatched the card and said I will just put down you wont talk to me. 2. I believe the bailiff companies may have a policy to charge as much as poss and see what they get away with. This is nothing short of fraud. How many people are unaware of the law? Its easy, charge 100 people 100 can fee and if 8 complain, weve still made £9200. ANY law help will be great. Thanks

To be fair, Im in the process of letting him dig a bigger and bigger hole for himself.

Ok, Im here again. Same bailiffs again. Long story short.. Complained that again they were charging fees that they were not allowed (Visits on more than one warrant being charged) and also that on one of the claimed visits, I was out and have witness statement of people who I was with. Now I received the following email from the Bailiff liason officer I have now had the opportunity to read all the e-mails and reports in this matter and would reply as follows: Rossendales Complaints Officer has reported that the same First Call Bailiff visited on 8/10/10, 19/04/11 and 21/04/11.You spoke to him and subsequently a different van bailiff. The First Call Bailiff has a duty to try and make a levy on goods and if, for whatever reason, he is unsuccessful on his first visit he has to try again, hence the second visit. His notes say that you said that you would refuse to deal with Rossendales, not that you would not talk to the bailiffs. Whether you refuse to deal with Rossendales or not they have to continue with attempts to make collection until instructed otherwise by the Council and as yet no such instruction has been given. The visit costs incurred have already been fully explained in earlier e-mails addressed to you. The levy was made by the Van Bailiff, not the First Call Bailiff, on 13/06/11 on a vehicle (a) which he had reason to believe belonged to you. This is something he is entitled to do and because the levy had been made the van attendance fee was charged. On the matter of the levy I am puzzled by your reference in your e-mail dated 20/06/11 to a car because as far as I can see the exact subject of the levy had not been mentioned previously. You claim not to own a vehicle and in normal circumstances Rossendales would require you to provide evidence of ownership or make a sworn affidavit to the effect that the vehicle does not belong to you, on receipt of which the levy and van fees would be cancelled. The visit by the First Call Bailiff on 21/04/11 is listed as being at 11.40am. I have looked at the figures on the notice left by the Van Bailiff on 13/06/11 but am unable to say how they have been calculated. I am awaiting an explanation from the Van Bailiff but until that is to hand I can only assume that he has included fees that could have become due in error instead of listing them separately. As far as I can see the amounts required to close the matter on 14/06/11 were £308.33 and £211.92. Your e-mail dated 29/01/10 was responded to at the time indicating that the fees raised were in accordance with the ruling in the Throssel case. The National Standards for Enforcement Agents have yet to be fully implemented but the Council’s Code of Practice for Bailiffs is broadly in line with the recommended standards for identifying vulnerable persons. The Code of Practice refers to severe disability and I would not put depression in the same category as a severe physical disability. The Code also identifies the benefits in payment which would indicate financial difficulties and you do not appear to be in receipt of those benefits or incapacity benefit. However as you do not appear to have sufficient goods on which to make a further levy I am instructing Rossendales to return the cases unexecuted for committal proceedings. Your overall outstanding Council Tax under reference ******** currently totals around £3800 and I have been unable to trace receipt of your Council Tax Benefit application which you told Miss Pearson would be handed in over a week ago. Please let the Council have your application as soon as possible so that your 2011/12 charges can be re-calculated. I note you have not made any payment since April 2011 and therefore the minimum monthly payment I am able to accept is £100.00, starting in July 2011. Any thoughts, I do have my own.

If they did include links I appologies. I was asked to post some terms up and the links must have constituted the terms.

Did you Sister not receive a request for the money or even a Letter Before Action? Have they just gone BANG, straight to court.

Sorry Im a bot more confused, you say 27 isnt relating to a deed of assignment so can she pass on the debt. Sorry for being thick

teaboy To be honest, I dont need advice on the bet part of thing, I need the advice on being able to transfer the debt. While it is in the terms, is it a Fair Term as there is undoubted biased towards the retailer? Similar to bank charges. If theres a law from 1925 that allows you to transfer a debt, then my point is how can someone write in, no you cant? Thanks

Please read 32.2 of the Terms and Conditions. Also, look at Forum non conveniens

I can but its 20 pages long. Shall I try and just get the relevant parts?

Without confusing the issue, it isnt a relevant point. It is a palpable error that they are claiming but it isnt so she wants to pursue the difference.

Fair comment Basically it is a bookmakers site who have refused to pay out on a bet. The person who has had the bet is going back packing and I said I would buy the bet off her and pursue the bookmaker myself for the money. In a nutshell then, it is an online bookmaker that I want to buy the balance off of the account holder. Thanks

A friend of mine is owed money by a company but she is going backpacking for 8 months. In their Terms it says the following We reserve the right to transfer, assign, sublicense or pledge the Terms of Use, in whole or in part, to any person (but without Your consent) without notice, provided that any such assignment will be on the same terms or terms that are no less advantageous to You. You may not assign, sublicense or otherwise transfer in any manner whatsoever any of Your rights or obligations under the Terms of Use. Is this actually legal. 1. They say they can be she cant 2. You can assign the right to a debt to anyone cant you under a deed of assignment which is statue law so supersedes their Terms and Conditions? Thanks for any great advice.

As I recall, the building DID USED to be the coop, then Ridings appeared.

Many thanks for your time Like I said, I will sit and wait for their next move. By the way, I am not trying to not pay this obviously, just when the house is sold as I am now 5.5k of my own money tied up in this.

Ive decided, for the time being, to just sit and do anything. I can see these digging a big hole for themselves so I dont want to forwarn them of any knowledge I might have. Did you find out the real mail address ? Thanks

Sorry S&W Riding Funerals LTD At the bottom of the contract where any terms are it says You, as the person arranging the funeral, are responsible for all charges. If someone else has agreed to pay the funeral expenses, the executers for example, please provide their details below. Please note, we will have to ask you for payment if the person(s) named above are unable to secure our account when it comes due. I confirm that I have the authority to arrange the funeral of the deceased. I understand that by signing this form I am accepting responsibility for payment of the account. There is then my signature BUT no name or address of the signatory.

Many thanks SP. Look forward to your findings

There accounts are interesting. Nothing lol Just says 100 shares. No details of revenue in or out.