If a bailiffs ccl has expired and not been renewed then they cannot carry on their previous duties. Hope that is correct?

Just as a side issue, and the fact OP is on a low income just something to check whilst those who know help out it may be worth checking entitlements to other benefits at Turn2us http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx There may even be an entitlement to council tax benefit, if so it may reduce liability. I hate bailiffs, they are part of the problem not the solution a 12th century method that is 900 years out of date. Adding charges is not the way forward

If the other person has the reciept, they can claim ownership and say gemma1982 is merely borrowing it, bailiff cannot then take it, Is that right hallowitch?

Thanks PT as this is the case is there scope for the likes of CAB to ground a super complaint and have this investigated, as this outsourcing is obviously detrimental to a debtors future financial situation. Good luck dgrg, you are in good hands here.

He had better be careful, as if the ex employers payment to them, assuming they pay up, doesn't cover their fees, they may come after him for the balance....

I think OP needs to find out if the council office is outsourced to Capita or Equita or another provider, as that could be useful down the line, and also, as that would explain the reluctance of the council to take the account back off the bailiffs, as per ploddertom in post # 12. If this is indeed the case all affected people where the front office is outsourced, should send complaints to the CEO of the respective council, the LGO and their MP, especially if the debtor is vulnerable, and enforcement action is pointless/repugnant to the law. It would also then ground with good evidence that these organisations are colluding to bend the law to the detriment of the council tax payers who have found themselves in difficulty.

They have only won a couple of UNDEFENDED cases by default, they may well run into difficulty if someone vigorously defended themselves, and they shock horror like several Private parking Companies who chanced their arm in court, lost, especially if it was a non crime with no police intervention and no goods were lost, therefore the consequential loss was pennies rather than the £135 + of their "Civil Penalty"

Just a thought, even if the person stopped is innocent due to faulty/not removed tag, and a correct receipt shown, if the shopper has signed something proffered by security at the time, as a "Well this clears it up sorry you have been troubled, sign this to close the matter" then the permission will likely be in the small print of what has been signed. Signing a banning order or anything else may also contain a permission to process.

If the bailiffs return, and try it on for phantom fees, come back and I'm sure the correct advice will be forthcoming.

Yes I'm sure the CRAs are kicking themselves after all they would likely love the opportunity to put such data on someone's credit file and charge extra for viewing it. This may mean people with clear Disclosure Scotland reports could find themselves without a job (potentially) if the employer, and some do as a matter of routine, used the services of a CRA to check on their employees.

That is the problem stored up for the future, as more retailers buy into their services, then their assumptions and opinions can have far reaching consequences for the innocent, on the no smoke without fire principle. If I personally found them processing my data, and the only way they could have it is through me signing in at the back door to deliver to a store, then I would pursue them and report them to the ICO.

There is the nub of the problem, they assume everyone is guilty, and we are all a potential criminal, that is how they base their business model. Suspect all, is their motto as there are multiple ways they can get data over and above referrals from store detectives such as couriers and delivery drivers signing in and out of some big store delivery bays. What is there to stop security passing driver details on, if they have a spat with the driver at the back door?

Do not answer the door or speak to them, as they cannot legally force their way in. I'm sure others will be along with some good advice soon, which will allow you to sort things out

Agreed buzby, that form is a real stinker, it will allow people to bury themselves without realising what they are doing. The other thing is the websites contact details are profit garnering phone numbers also, so you pay for the privelige of denying any liability. Although there is an alternative geographical number on say no to 0870, the whole site is thoughtfully designed to intimidate, and persuade someone that it is hopeless to fight just pay up or else. I would be interested to know if people who have not been sent an invoice are on the database through being referred from an incident like the scenario I posed?

That is what I would do citing the reciept as absolute proof, and if they tried the county court route would defend vigourously, and counterclaim for my time wasted.

looking at their modus operandi, defamation doesn't even appear on their radar. they are judge, and jury, they send out their demand EVEN IF there is no crime, or conviction as they rely on the 51/49 principle of civil liability. so they will send out their demand regardless imho. Time has been taken and must be paid for so they think, and the innocent who inadvertantly caused it to be spent must pay by their reckoning.

The problem is exactly that, and further to hightail's point, they will just see an incident as a licence to extract money, from the obviously innocent victim. they are not concerned that no crime was actually committed, just that they can invoice the innocent party apprehended in error, using undue duress to collect it, for the time that was spent by the store's security "investigating" the non-crime. RLP would likely argue on Watchdog, judging by their representatives interview on the BBC programme, that it is entirely reasonable to bully an innocent person in this manner and enter the details on the dishonesty database, because they wasted the stores time. This to me is the inherent weakness of this system criminalising the innocent, people will pay these companies to avoid the "shame" of suspicion.

The problem with civil recovery is when they might chase a non crime. I will pose a scenario: Elderly shopper pays for shopping, including a pack of razor blades, which are usually tagged to prevent theft. the checkout operator fails to remove the tag. Shopper pays, and screws the receipt into purse/pocket with the change. On leaving the store the tag causes the alarm to sound, security guards apprehend the shopper and go through the bags, find the offending razor blades, and without waiting for production of receipt escort shopper back into the store to their holding room, where they phone the police and question shopper. Police arrive and shopper after giving name and address and cooperating fully with security produces the receipt. Shopper is released with an apology. Two months later invoice for £135 and threat of inclusion on dishonesty database arrives at shoppers address for cost recovery for investigating the non crime. Far fetched? looking at the CAB report this is an extremely likely scenario with the likes of Retal Loss Prevention out to maximise profit. they would argue that not producing the receipt immiediately would be enough to ground their claim for damages, for the time wasted investigating.

Get down to the CAB, pronto. Are you listed as resident in the property? If not ?????, is the property somehow in your name? CAB PDQ seems best option, BTW councils are usually in hibernation until jan 4th,

I am on ESA, and the SLC had passed my account for a Pre 1998 loan last year to Thesis Servicing part of Link I think. My deferral was up in November, so I phoned SLC who still process deferments for an application, in October, this was not sent to me. In the meantime Thesis sent myschedule of payments and wanted a dd set up to collect the payments. I phoned them and explained that i was awaiting the form for deferral from SLC as I am still on benefits. they said SLC was in a mess and that it was unlikely that they would send me one, so they emailed me a pdf to print and send off. This I did getting the local jobcentre to stamp the form up, which was then sent off to SLC. This morning I got a letter dated 23/12/10 Notice to register defaults and a default notice dated 22/12/10, for the arrears that would be covered by the deferral. I phoned them, they said the usual call would be recorded guff, so I said that I was recording the call also. the call centre person said that they did not give permission to record the conversation, so i said that they do not have permission to record me either. the upshot is that SLC are shut until next week, so I cannot chase the deferral, not that SLC make that easy, and thesis said they WILL defer when the SLC processes the deferral, but I am concerned that they may register the default anyway, so as to make the entire loan payable and not able to be written off if i continue on benefits. the other point is if it takes 5 months for SLC to process, and thesis will only defer 3 months backdate, that leaves 2 motnhs arrears accruing. and an in for recovery action to commence.

They sent it to your employer because it was a payday loan, and want to embarrass you into paying them more. Do everything that has been suggested, and also tell your employer that these morons are acting [edit:unlawfully] by contacting them. I would also inform the police and tell TS and OFT and the other "regulatory bodies" that you have involved them.

Exactly, if the contractural loss is a portion of an hour say 50 pence, then a £75 penalty on private car parks is excessive.

Tell the managing agent they are jointly and severally liable for the misdeeds of their parking contractors if they act wrongfully or unlawfully. that should shake them up a bit

If they refer to it as a fine they are breaking the law

It's an invoice, they operate under the assuption you have a contract with them by accepting their invitations to treat, contained on the notices at the car park, which they say is the offer, your parking there is acceptance, and the parkig charge is the consideration. their case is based on breach of the implied contract formed when you parked. Their loss through your "breach" is infinitesimal, by comparison with their parking penalty charge. It is unlikely they will go to court so ignore them eventually they will go away.