It may be a common practice in Lambeth then, wonder what tomtubby, ploddetom and hallow make of this one?

Only a court can demand a I &E form to be filled in, and generally bailiffs and debt collectors, are not entitled to them, also DLA is specifically for help with a disability and is not "cleared and available funds" that a bailiff can suggest is used to pay them They should send it back to the council without prevarication and delay as she is clearly in the vulnerable category. If you want to provide the information to the bailiff it's your call. "They also state that as they have already levied on items at the property (although these do not belong to my daughter or are her partners 'Tools of Trade') and that they can and will still take these items." A stat dec will sort that out, as the levy and any resultant fee will be illegal, and if they were then to actually take goods it would be woeful for them. others will be able to advise further

We have to be more devious in thought patterns than the predictable bailiffs, This one needs nipping in the bud, as if someone discharged their old liability before march 31 2010, the attempted enforcement by bailiffs of the new years liability WITHOUT going to court would be VERY NAUGHTY (Mr Plod in Noddy always speaks in capital letters) Surely Equita wouldn't be so stupid would they? I would imagine the justification would be that it allowed the debtor to only worry about one payment on account to cover all, but the danger is if there is no LO and the debt covered by that was paid off by say July, then any further enforcement on the new CTax would be then illegal, if they failed to get a new LO to cover 2011/12

Tingy, if you are thinking on the same lines as I am OP must ask to see the "NEW" LO which I would expect they cannot even attempt to apply to the court for until after April, when it cannot be produced escalate the complaint through CEO, Leader, councillor MP and eventually to Ombudsman. If this scenario of pre-empting legal process it is what they (Capita/Equita) are doing maybe tomtubby could look at it.

Just a thought on this, have Lambeth added the new bill to the running total on the old LO, with Equita I wonder, hoping to circumvent due process?, It seems maybe they have added the two together to consolidate it all into the one payment is this legal? as until they have a LO for 2011/12, I would have thought they couldn't pass it to bailiffs. If this is another Capita/Equita stitch up this would seem most likely. Whether it is legal others will know more

Far enough along to be vulnerable imho, and her vulnerability meads the Whole Family are vulnerable

I wonder if the parking scheme is compliant with the correct legislation then, in terms of signage, and how it is operated.

If the bailiff has not seen your car, park it away from your property, others will be along later with some advice.

letter to MP PDQ also, as this is a right cock-up, and may well be the status quo in the area for all we know, as not everyone who is fined will know about CAG

Agreed PT, there is a confusion here, and until we are sure which jurisdiction is involved the best way forward for jaqui_o will not be clear.

I can only agree with Dougal16T, as a Council has no power to add a Victims surcharge to a CIVIL parking penalty, in fact it would be illegal to do so.Just as it is dubious for a Private Parking Company to put a huge penalty where there is a consequential loss of pennies or nothing for overstaying in a supermarket car park. They are ultra vires (acting beyond and outside) their authority. Perhaps a FOI request as to how much they have spent on Common Purpose training is in order LOL. There is also the question of Marstons fees, ie how much are they actually allowed to charge, and how much is pure fabrication?

So you have contacted the WRONG court possibly, as this would never have been dealt with by magistrates. at the least the council should call off Marstons whilst this is sorted, however I'm not holding my breath as to whether they will.

But as these are obviously decriminalised parking enforcement they are fundamentally civil in their jurisprudence, ie legal standing, it follows therefore that 75 compensation 15 Victim service 65 costs 175 fine. total 330........... is wrong and SHOULD be challenged Complaint to Council CEO, Council Leader Parking Manager, councillor and MP marked Formal Complaint would be a reasonable course of action. You need to determine where Marstons have managed to add "CRIMINAL" penalties to a CIVIL PCN. there is NO means for a council to add a "Victims Surcharge" to a civil penalty imho. Others will know more

Hi xmedia, I think the bailiff is talking wombat doo doo , he is digging himself a deep hole, I hope you have a recording app on your phone, as this is extremely worrying and good evidence of a "bullying" bailiff in full flow. I'm sure tomtubby, ploddertom hallow and others will be equally horrified by this bailiffs actions. Move the car away, and ignore him is a good course of action as once the DRO is in place he will have to foxtrot oscar. If he attempted to seize the car after DRO he would be in the doggie doo imho

It is becoming even mor peculiar if you look at it in relation to post #10 by OP I thought Northampton bulk centre and TEC were for council PCN, so how have magistrates become involved, has OP phoned wrong court? Have Marstons enforced the wrong penalty on two similar names, the mind boggles with this one

Neither do I, how does a £15 victim surcharge get added to a decriminalised council PCN Are Marstons being naughty?

There is a summary of this case at this llink: http://www.acsnavigator.co.uk/acsctax/Committal_-_Case_Law.htm It would appear that pursuing the LO is OK according to this case, however as caselaw is open to interpretation both, judgment and in obiter, there may have been further developments

Escalate this to Council CEO, Council Leader Councillor and MP as a Formal Complaint, highlighting their behaviour, perhaps the content of your emails tidied up with the fact that as you are now on JSA, bailiff action is making the debt unrepayable by yourself as being on benefits makes you potentially vulnerable under the national Association of Enforcement Agents 2002 guidelines. Others like hallow and ploddertom will know more imho

The CEO, and Leader of the council, copied to her local councillor and MP point out that the Council is vicariously liable both joint and severally for the actions and any breaches, of legislation by their agents "The Bailiffs" as they would be for any employee, and also escalate to the Ombudsman, as if they have messed up and gained a Liability Order for monies not owed they are in the doo doo big time. They are likely being evasive as to provide you with the information you require may well drop them right in it if they have charged for periods where she was not liable for what they are chasing.

The £42 could be a ploy to revive a debt that could well be Statute Barred, tread carefully as they may have bought it for pennies.

A combination of tomtubby ansdfork-it's advice may be the best plan, TEC declaration to roll fines back to pre enforcement, and then provide evidence you had sold the vehicle prior to the tickets, and also do the Statutory declaration and send to Bailiffs and TEC. If bailiffs continue follow fork-it's further advice and try to trap the bailiff with a recorded call, or video their visit through a window. Do not open the door to them.

Thanks FP, it's about time this legalised theft was tackled.

I would have thought it would, as it would not have come to the correct postal address imho, others will know more

Perhaps if the police disagreed with the bailiff, who was breaching the peace, and was then attacked by the bailiff, they "may" start to regard it as criminal

Problem is until this is confirmed in the High Court, it will have little legal weight, but it is a good start