Thanks for all your help chaps but I think we've gotten away from the issue a bit! Our main issue is that our money was accepted to pay the fine and double checked when we called them to say we had paid it via the telephone but they keep refunding the cheque and insisting we have to pay Marstons. We've now written to the Fines Officer to get him to agree that they accepted the payment and waiting to hear from our MP, anything else people can think of? Emma

Thanks debby, but I believe that it is different when the fine is issued by the Magistrates Court, in that instance bailiffs can force their way in.

Thanks Debbie, but I believe that because its a Magistrates fine they can actually break in and take the goods as opposed to other CCJ's and liability orders such as council tax.

What can I say but that you lot are stars! I will get the statutory declaration done tomorrow or tonight if the solicitors are open and take it to the court tomorrow. It will have to be tweaked though as we have never seen the Distress Warrant. All the letter said was that: he hadnt paid an outstanding magistrates fine and an officer attended to arrange removal of goods. Further notice prior to removal of goods is not legally required In certain circumstances there is power to enter propert using reasonable force to execute a Magistrates Court Warrant. And the face that the fine and fees is now £533, up from the original fine of £255 And it was undated I will also write a letter to the Enforcement Office telling them they have no statutory power to refund a payment in order to allow bailiff action to continue. I will also write to Marstons telling them the same, we have already written to them telling them as far as we are concerned the matter is closed but they've taken no notice! Edited to say that the letter from the Accounts and Enforcement Unit states that Marstons are working on behalf of them and all enquiries are to be made to them

Thanks guys NOA? Is that Notice Of Action or the like? From Marstons? We havent had any letters entitled that, the first one just said that he now had to pay them as the distress warrant had been passed to them. HMCS insist they now have nothing to do with it and Marston say they are unable to contact HMCS and talk to them. Always amusing when they say this on the phone and then you get a letter saying 'we have been in contact with', or 'we have been informed that' Perhaps I'll try our MP as well!

Evening Caggers! Hoping some of you lovely people can help as you have in the past and I'll try and keep it as short as possible. Last year partner got fine of £30 after being stopped with no seat belt. Silly idiot did nt pay it. Got some re-directed mail earlier this year from the Magistrates Court outlining that the amount he had to pay was now £255. He then received a letter from Marstons saying he now had to pay them. He then went on to the website as listed on the Court Order, he logged in, the Court saying he owed this amount so he paid online. He phoned Marstons and explained that he had already paid them, Marstons asked him to prove this so he sent them copies of his bank statement proving this. A few weeks later a cheque was sent back from the Court for the amount he paid. After talking to the court they said he had to pay Marstons and thats why the cheque was sent back. He immediately returned the cheque stating that he had paid and it had been accepted and that was the end of the matter, copying Marstons in to it. Once more a cheque has been returned with a letter asking him to write to the Finance Officer of the court if he disputes what is happening. The people who now live in the house the mail has been redirected from have now received a letter saying a bailiff had visited (He hadnt knocked on the door!) and he now had to pay Marstons £500! So what to do next? We still have the second cheque which hasnt been cashed and we have no intention of doing so but will send it back. We intend writing to the Finance Officer and Marstons, but what to put in it? We also feel extremely justified that we should not have to pay any of Marstons costs being as, as far as we are concerned having paid the fine off! Any clues? Thanks chaps!

Your son should be entitled to LHA as he is on JSA, however its impossible to say for his friend as you dont say what he earns, any savings over £6k will also affect the amount.

YOu have to find out whether your house is classed as a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO), which if it is a student house is likely. If it is then your LL is indeed liable. As you have no liability then you wont be able to claim CTB, you cant claim for something you dont have to pay! Most LL who have HMO's factor it into rent amounts. If it isnt a HMO then the occupant(s) are liable, however as your flatmate is a student he has no liability either, it would be down to you to pay it. I think the next port of call is the Private Sector Housing team at your local council who will let you know what kind of 'house' you live in and work it out from there. The COuncil Tax peoples are not going to give you CTB if they dont consider you liable for the bill!

Information for owners, managing agents and housing associations Take a look at the link, if it is a HMO (link also defines HMO) then the LL is liable, not the tenants.

Apologies, the pc at work was obviously having a funny five minutes! Not unusual I have to say!

Perhaps it is easier to say that it is not the condition that qualifies you for DLA, but how that condition affects your mobility and care needs, so its not possible for JCP to hold a list of conditions that will qualify you or qualify you. For example you have 2 people who have epilepsy, one may qualify for DLA on the grounds that they have frequent seizures with no onset warning who therefore need more supervision to keep themselves safe. Then you have the person who very rarely has seizures, has warning so is able to get themselves to a place of safety, etc. The first may qualify, the second wont, so effects of the condition rather than the condition itself is what counts. Deafness by its self cannot usually qualify someone for DLA Mobility, it is usually taken into account with a degree of loss of vision.It can be taken into account for DLA Care, basically you must require attention or supervision with bodily functions. Communication is now seen as a bodily function, i.e hearing. But that it has to be looked at what attention is needed from another person to help with that function. An example given is 'if you are profoundly deaf you may need an interpreter because you cannot hear spoken language' But this has to be for a 'significant portion of the day'So if he can satisfy the above, he may well get it, but each case is individual. ( As Erika has already pointed out!) When it comes to WTC there is a disability test 'Schedule 1 Regulation 9 (1) to the Working Tax Credit Entitlement and Maximim Rate) Regulations 2002' then there are other conditions to add, one of those is the receipt of DLA but it does not state which Element or Rate. For the Severe Disability Element he has to be getting the highest rate of the care component, so if he only got mobility he wouldnt get it.A lot of this is reiterating what Erika and others have already said but just to back them up!

Definately dont give up yet, the fact that they have admitted an official error will go some way in your favour at Tribunal. Are you receiving any extra advice on this? I would contact any organisation you can such as CAb or ring your local council and ask if they have any Welfare Benefits advisor, these will be people used to representing people at Tribunals and will help you massively.

Hi cobweviy Hopefully you should see the Senior Advisor soon and they will tell you there is nothing to worry about. Claiming HB is dependent on having a liability to pay rent, which you obviously do, the fact that the liability has already been met in advance should not stop you claiming. As long as you have a proper commercial tenancy and satisfy all the other grounds for claiming HB, i.e income,etc, theres nothing to stop you claiming or receiving it!

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Provision of rent books 4. Provision of rent books. — (1) Where a tenant has a right to occupy premises as a residence in consideration of a rent payable weekly, the landlord shall provide a rent book or other similar document for use in respect of the premises. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to premises if the rent includes a payment in respect of board and the value of that board to the tenant forms a substantial proportion of the whole rent.

If you see my post it continues links that say if rent is paid weekly then a rent book must be provided, most specifically the Shelter link.