I wouldn't worry the council speaks gobbledegook already, and they should understand ok LOL

It's where a bailiff attempts to sieze all goods on the premises without listing them all, as in enters building lists things in one room only and also puts something like "all other property belonging to XXX " or all other assets on the premises" This is not allowed as in a domestic situation there are things he cannot take.

no1mum You must follow tomtubby's advice here, you are by my reckoning in the vulnerable category, and Excel Enforcement should not even be dealing with you,, let alone imposing "arrangement fees" of dubious legality, on the back of unaffordable payments to a family, reliant on benefits. At the least the council should take this back and arrange payment by deduction from benefits at a low rate. I think this is the case regarding arrangement fees tomtubby was referring to http://www.lgo.org.uk/news/2010/feb/thurrock-council-charged-illegal-fee-council-tax-payment-plan/ There is a thread started by one of the regular contributors, hallowitch here regarding this very issue, and may be of help when trying to sort this out with the council http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?247699

Agreed, as per PT the most likely explanation.

Your welcome, even if it is lost on many here, it should at least give a light hearted relief and hope for those dealing with the vested interests and the bailiffs who drive the poor into more poverty with their Dickensian methods and attitudes.

The FMOL, and consent and contract argument is not mainstream yet, and until more people are aware of the power of the individual, and exercise their power the status quo will prevail If we accept that the UK is operating under bankruptcy, and utilising FIAT currency, you could have would the council up further by stamping your C Tax bill as Accepted For Value with your exemption ID ( your National insurance Number), and returning it with the accounting instructions to zero your account. Of course they would ignore this, gain a liability order and send bailiffs. At least then they would definitely be in dishonour. But again none of this helps the average punter looking for help here.

Presumably you are eligible and are getting Housing benefit (if you rent) and Council tax Benefit? Caggers help those less able to deal with these dodgy bailiffs and out of control councils, and DCAs, I don't think that the FMOL argument would help a great many of them solve their issues, at least not yet imho.

If they are indeed using barristers, on Form 4 issues it is of great concern as it undermines the whole ethos of the Form 4 Complaint, and could render bailiffs as untouchable imho.

Presumably you have actually contracted with the council, and are liable, or have you sworn the Affadavit and declared yourself in "Lawful Rebellion" as a Freeman On The Land? Unfortunately as the Council is a for profit organisation registered and visible on Dunn and Bradstreet as such, and they act under Maritime Law, you will get no redress from those organisations who abide by that and Statute Law, such as the Police and Councils..

Are bailiff fees subject to VAT? I don't think they are, and I think they are extracting the urine with their card transaction fee, as I don't think they are allowed to charge these. Other Caggers will be able to help further with this info

Agreed PT this aspect should be stressed in any complaint made regarding the officers behaviour and actions in support of the bailiff. Police should be properly trained in aspects of what bailiffs can and cannot do, when they attend as they are not there on behalf of the bailiff or the debtor, but to uphold the "Queens Peace" In the OP's situation it was indeed the bailiff who should have been arrested, as it was he, on the facts as presented who was "breaching the peace"

" What bailiffs can and can't do If the bailiffs come to your home, you don't have to let them in. They can't force their way in, but they can enter through an open window or an unlocked door. Forced entry includes pushing past you once you have opened the door to them, or leaving their foot in the door to prevent you closing it. Such action would make the whole process illegal. Bailiffs recovering unpaid magistrates' court fines, however, do have the power to force entry, but this is always a last resort. Bailiffs trying to recover money you owe to HMRC are allowed to break into your home, providing they have a magistrates' warrant - but this method is rare and only used as a last resort." Quoted from that very site, Officer Dibble, Dutti Babylon, Plod or whatever we call him was way out of order, as it was therefore forceable entry. the bailiff has committed a criminal offence imho, and should lose his certificate (in a perfect world he would)

I think you gave a good chance, as they have acted wrongfully, you would pursue both Southwark Council, and the bailiffs jointly as Southwark are vicariously liable for their contractors (the bailiffs) actions. At the least it would focus their tiny collective mind when pulling the same stunt in the future, a little press coverage would do them some harm also imho. This is my personal opinion only: if I was in the same situation I would go after them, but it is up to you, and if you decide to proceed, I'm sure there will be help from Caggers to ensure you gain redress.

Agreed PT, no justice for the hapless debtor to be had with them.

Re post #117 It means that Council tax administration and enforcement is a stitch up between Capita who run the front office for BCC, and the affiliate bailiff company Equita, so complaints need to be copied to local Councillors, the CEO of the Council and the Local MP. As the complaint basically stays in house between Capita and Equita with little or no BCC involvement, after all they will believe their contractors tale before that of a resident.

Thanks for this info TT, is there any campaign active, or would letters to MPs etc be the best way to help change this iniquity?

They could well turn up on a Saturday, up to 9 pm but not a Sunday or bank holiday. Others can be more precise.

You should pursue it to have the excessive and illegal charges quoshed .

Iwould agree with ploddertom, that it enhances your case if you can show you have tried every open avenue and followed the procedure, and have taken to litigation as a last resort.

Have you in the meantime been paying anything directly to the council? Jf so you could mention it that you are a won't pay just a can't pay your liability as well as exhorbitant and possibly fraudulent bailiff fees.

If you get no sense, and the bailiff still calls and is insistent even when the council say he has been called off, get anything to the effect the tickets are cancelled in writing then you can show them to the bailiff if he is a pest. Copy the whole sorry mess including "their cock -up" on the badges which means the whole sorry affair was their fault to the CEO of the Council, your Councillor and MP to highlight the inefficiencies in the administration of the Blue badges, and spurious charges resulting from mistakes down to them, reminding them that the council is liable jointly and severally for the actions of the bailiff and any consequential loss to yourself as a result of any wrongful levy by him to collect on the cancelled penalties Others can offer more precise advice though, regarding the actual challenge,

So OP's best hope is under head 5 the aggravation of the pre-existing condition, at least it is something for him to utilise.

It appears the bailiff is doing a good job of defrauding you for his excessive and most likely illegal charges.

Due to your wife being injured vis condition worsened, by the bailiffs actions i would agree with ploddertom, escalate this higher than the Sergeant, later possibly MP to focus attention on the way bailiffs operate in general.

Send your wife to the doctors and confirm that her condition has been made worse by the bailiffs physical actions against her (pushing the door), as this might be able to push the police to investigate ABH against the bailiff. It certainly wouldn't do the bailiffs case any good if this is proven.