Could you respond to the above. Also, what was the reason why both you and your husband wanted to see camera footage?

Camera footage can be very problematic and the Information Commissioners Office have issued guidance on this subject. Most importantly, any request for camera footage would need to be made by the debtor...and that would be your husband. If the footage included you...then that should be removed. If children are present, then the bailiff must ensure that any filming not include them. Did the council specifically state to the bailiff at the time of the visit that they would be happy to accept repayment of your account over a period of 6 months. It would be usual for councils to specify a period of time for repayments in their contracts between the council and bailiff company. Could this be what the council were referring to? The bailiff did not 'actually' take control of any items and neither did he list any items on a Controlled Goods Agreement. Instead, he unplugged a TV (which is a very common threat I's afraid). I am presuming that he indicated to you that he would take the Range Rover. If you had provided evidence that the vehicle was in your name, then I would be very surprised if he would have taken the vehicle into control.

Apologise for not responding sooner. Clearly, as you had defaulted on repayment of your court fine, a warrant had been issued and passed to Collectica to enforce. As such, you should have received a Notice of Enforcement from them outlining that they had received instructions from the court and requesting either full payment or proposal for a payment arrangement. At that stage, the bailiff fees would have been set at £75. Did you receive such a letter? However, before Collectica would have been instructed, the court should have sent you a Further Steps Notice. This is a legal document and would outline the 'further steps' that the court would be taking if you did not pay the amount required within a period of 10 working days. Did you receive this letter and if so, what date was it dated?

I have been posting on CAG for over 12 years and in each post, I try to provide advice not only to the person posting, but to anyone else that may have a similar enquiry and view the thread via Google searches. For this reason, please do not take my criticism personally. As I have outlined in my earlier post, if your husband had addressed this debt on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement, he would have been able to enter into a payment arrangement spread over a period of 6 month. Given your financial circumstances, this would have greatly assisted your family and most importantly, would have meant that you would not have had to also incur the 'enforcement fee' of £235. That additional fee would have been avoided. Lastly, I have posted many times that it is usually the 'threat' of goods being removed that usually leads to full payment being made. This is precisely what has happened in your case. If you still believe that you have grounds for complaint, then the correct route is for your complaint to be made to the local authority. If you are unhappy with their response.....then you may indeed request that CIVEA review the matter.

The problem here is that as the debt is in your husbands sole name, then any 'vulnerability' would need to apply to him and NOT to you. So many people use Google searches when faced with a bailiff visit and sadly, it appears that you have taken what you may have read on the internet as the gospel truth. It would be for your husband (as the debtor) to outline HIS vulnerability, and to explain HOW it affects HIM in DEALING with a bailiff visit. Secondly, you have mentioned about the bailiff failing to show you the 'warrant'. As this is a Liability Order, then there would not in fact be a 'paper' warrant. However, if a warrant had been issued, it would NOT be addressed to you. It would be addressed to THE BAILIFF and would permit HIM to enforce the debt. Another problem with google searches, it that you were wrongly of the opinion that a warrant would need to be signed. Any such requirement, was revoked by law many years ago.

I have copied some important comments from your post. It would appear that the amount that the bailiff had been requesting was approx £1,600 and that at the time of the visit, you were able to offer half the sum (of £800). Most importantly, you have stated that you had been aware that the council had passed the debt to Equita and that you had received previous letters from them but that you thought that you 'had time to deal with it'. I will address this point first: The initial notice that your husband would have received would have been called a Notice of Enforcement and outlined on this notice would have been the precise date AND TIME when either full payment OR A PAYMENT ARRANGEMENT must be set up. At this point, Equita would have been able to (and this is agreed by the council), set up a payment arrangement over a period of up to 6 months (which, is an unusual and extremely generous period of time). Clearly, you failed to approach Equita within the legal timeframe outlined on the Notice of Enforcement. Without a payment arrangement being in place, the bailiffs were under a legal obligation to make personal visit to the property. Most importantly, the visit is NOT in order to make a 'payment arrangement'. The purpose of the visit is to 'take control of goods' or accept full payment. You appear to be under the impression that the bailiff should have made a Controlled Goods Agreement once allowed into the property. This is not the case at all. In fact, such agreements are not at all common. As the debt had been around £1,600 and given auction values (which are approx 10% of the actual amount of the item), the bailiff would have needed to list items of around £10,000 (or more). Secondly, with the debt being in your husband's sole name, the bailiff would be tasked with attempting to establish which items are solely owned by him and which are joint. The choice on whether or not to enter into a Controlled Goods Agreement is with the bailiff himself at the time of the visit. You have also mentioned 'vulnerability'. Once again, this should have been brought to Equita's attention long ago (on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement). Furthermore, vulnerability would only apply to the debtor (your husband) and not other family members. He would need to provide some documentary evidence. You have mentioned that he is self employed so any 'vulnerability' would have been difficult to establish.

You mentioned in an earlier post that you had defaulted on the agreed payment arrangement and that on 28th October you received a 'letter from the court' dated 28th October. What was this letter about? What date was given on the letter? Can you just be a little clearer regarding your above comment concerning the 30th October. Did you receive a bailiff visit that day or a letter in the post?

Incorrect advice I'm afraid. In most cases, the forms are witnessed by a solicitor. A fee of £5 is charged.

At the time that the vehicle was seized, a warrant would have already been issued against your ex partner. Most significantly, the warrant 'binds' the goods (in this case, the car). In simple terms, this means that the vehicle cannot be either sold or transferred. If it is, (which is what has happened), then the vehicle CAN be seized. As your ex partner was the registered keeper at the time of the various contraventions, then sadly, he is the person responsible for paying the debts. As such, it would be for him...and not you....to submit Out of Time witness statements. He would be able to make such applications on the basis that he had not received any of the statutory notices. In doing so, he would need to outline the reason WHY he would not have received any notices. As I understand it, there were five separate parking contraventions. Therefore, there would have been a total of 15 letters from the council (Notice to Owner (NtO), Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery). In his Out of Time application, your ex partner really should have elaborated on the reason WHY he had not received these notices. Instead, he has simply stated this: 'No Notice to Owner was ever received by myself, I WORK AWAY AND HAVE A 'COA' ONLY. Your ex should have provided far more detail as to WHY he did not receive the notices. For example, was he working abroad? How long was he working away for? Did the person in charge of the 'care of' address notify him of correspondence? How often did he return to that address? Taking the above into consideration, I would be surprised if his applications were to be accepted. It normally takes approx. 4-6 weeks to receive notification of the decision. Did your ex provide the 'care of' address in his application? If so, has he taken steps to ensure that correspondence reaches him?

Before considering a claim, you would need to obtain a quote for any damage.

Given the status of the company (application to strike off), I would not recommend that you take legal action as you are likely to be wasting your money.

The enforcement fee of £235 may only be charged AT THE TIME OF THE VISIT......not before. What you would need to do is to call the company and ask them why the fee has been added when supposedly, no visit has taken place. Please post back with any response.

The problem with using an 'unofficial' website is that it is very difficult to know which company you paid. Each of these 'unoffical' websites offer to accept payment for using the Dartford Crossing ( Merseyflow Toll and even Transport for London Congestion Charges) but crucially, each one charges an admin fee. In your case, the fee (of £3.50) was more than DOUBLE the Dartford crossing fee !! I do not want in any way to be critical of any paritcular one of these sites as each of them may well accept payment and pass it on to the OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT source..(in this case; Highways England) in a timely manner. As the payment reference in your case mentioned 'Bristol', I have selected the following website: https://paydartfordcharge.co.uk/about.php As you can see, the choice of domain name (paydartfordcharge.co.uk) ensures that it would be picked by motorists seeking to make payment for using the Dartford Crossing. The Disclaimer page is of interest: If it is the case that you had made payment to this website, then I would suggest that you view the following webpage: http://paydartfordcharge.co.uk/refund.php Then there is this separate website. Notice that the domain name is almost the same but with a dot com instead of dot.co.uk https://paydartfordcharge.com/terms-and-conditions.php In this case, the website is owned by a DIFFERENT organisation calling themselves: Dartcharge 34 New House 67-68 Hatton Garden London EC1N 8JY. PS: The company does not even trade as a Limited Company. For anyone reading this thread, PLEASE make sure that when using the Dartford Crossing that payments are made using the OFFICIAL government website: https://www.gov.uk/pay-dartford-crossing-charge The following webpage from Saga (the insurance company) is worthy of reading !!! https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/motoring/cars/using/three-online-scams-targeting-drivers

I had mentioned in an earlier post that I was concerned that you may have made payment to an 'unofficial' website. Have you at any time spoken to Dart Charge (on 0300 300 0120) to ask them whether or not they had received your payment? I say this because: at least once a month, I receive enquiries regarding payments made for Dartford Crossing fees and where the payment is not recorded with Highways England. In each case, the payment made for a single crossing had been £6 (as opposed to the CORRECT crossing fee of £2.50) or £12 for a return crossing (which should only be £5). In each of the cases, the bank statement shows the following: DartfordCrossingCharge Bristol 000 I look forward to your response.

Can I just make clear that my above comment is in no way meant to be critical of you. This forum is a very popular one indeed, and my post is intended for future visitors who may have received correspondence from an enforcement company and wish to know whether or not they should allow a bailiff (or High Court Enforcement Officer) entry into their home.

Unfortunately, I did not see your initial post until just now. I do apologise. I will respond in more detail later on when I finish work. In the meantime, I would like to make two points: As payment was made 6 months ago, I would be very surprised indeed if the bank would entertain a 'charge back' application from your son in law. Secondly, on the important subject of GDPR, can I suggest that the moderators REMOVE some information that YOU have publicly disclosed regarding your son. In your initial post you refer to a problem that your son had in his early 20's. Secondly, you have provided the name of the company who obtained a County Court Judgment against him. PS: Your post has once again highlighted WHY individuals who are not the debtors should NOT allow a bailiff (or High Court Enforcement Officer) into their homes.

I would hate to say that this letter is 'standard' because it isn't....but it is common. Can I please assure you that you will NOT be subject to an application to the Magistrates Court. JBW are returning the case back to their client. That may take a week or so. It would be wise call the council in around 10 days time. Please keep the forum updated with their response.

The complaint to the credit card company should be made today. Also, today a well worded complaint should be sent to the enforcment company. Why on earth would you be wanting to LIE by withholding the fact that the payment had been made to a bailiff company (or to be precise, an Enforcement Agency)?

Normally, I am not in favour of advising a Charge Back against a credit card provided BUT, after reading through your post a few times, I would not hesitate in contacting the credit card provider. The couple need to ensure that they make contact with the credit card provider as soon as possible. They should make sure that they advise the card company that they had even contacted the police for assistance. Secondly......and this important, they MUST contact the enforcement company to state that they wish to make a formal complaint regarding the events that day. They should inform the company that they have contacted their bank and they wish to put the enforcement company 'on notice' that they should NOT pass the payment onto the creditor (enforcement companies must retain payments for 21 days so time is of the essence). Thirdly, they should make a request for a copy of the Body Worn camera footage.

You received a letter from the council on 7th January to request payment in full (you have not mentioned the actual amount). What have you done in the 9 month period since receiving the letter? Did you contact the council? Did you make a payment arrangement with the council? If so, how much have you paid towards clearing the debt?

As the council have confirmed, an adjustment for council tax was made after you moved. The law provides that demand notices should be sent to the last known address (which in this case was 93 Euston Road). A Liability Order was obtained against that address. From what you have said, I do not see any reason why you would have needed to provide the council with a forwarding address. It is not clear from your above post whether the council were aware of your new address or whether they were only aware that you had moved. Please do let us know what response you receive from the council. On 12th June, JBW confirmed that they had identified a new address for you and that two days later (on 14th June) a bailiff visited that property. He should not have done so. What should have happened was that as a new address had been identified, a new Notice of Enforcement should have been issued to that particular address (in this case; your current address). At that stage, only a Compliance Fee of £75 can be added to the debt. The 'enforcement fee' of £235 should have been removed. It is JBW's responsibility to now provide you with a fresh Notice of Enforcement. As you had the door open, the bailiff was able to gain peaceful entry into your home. There was nothing wrong in this at all. What appeared to have happened is that you refused to accept the letter that he was trying to give to you. You have said yourself that maybe you should not have insisted on giving the letter back. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Almost all bailiffs wear body worn cameras and JBW (and I suspect the council), will view the footage before responding to your complaint. If you are unhappy with their response, you are perfectly entitled to request a copy of the recording. You have commented above that you have now seen evidence that this type of behaviour is common with JBW. Can I please assure you that you are not correct in this assumption. I have personally been advising the public on bailiff enquiries on this forum and elsewhere for almost 14 years. Bailiff enforcement was completely overhauled in 2014 and thankfully; the new regulations have significantly improved the way in which bailiffs (from all companies) enforce debts. Another reason for less complaints is that thankfully, Given the type of nature of the business, common sense will tell you that it would not be possible for there not to be complaints about bailiff behaviour. A further reason for less complaints is that thankfully, since 2014, there is far better advice on websites about bailiff enforcement. Significantly, almost all websites run by Freeman on the Land activists have disappeared since 2014. Unfortunately, their silly videos continue to be available to view on YouTube. Most, if not all, should be ignored.

Once a Judgment creditor has taken steps to transfer his judgment up to the High Court for enforcement, in my opinion, it is rarely straightforward to have the judgment varied. For example, in cases of emergency, it is possible to attend the High Court in person with a completed N244 application and to have a short hearing before a Master in chambers. A short (14 day) 'Stay' order may be granted conditional on the debtor making an application (by way of an N244) to the County Court (Northampton for example). Once again, in my opinion, when making the application to the County Court, a Draft Order should also be included outlining the order that you would like the County court to make. The court will insist on an N245 also being provided. I usually suggest that a copy of the N244 and Draft Order be submitted to the claimant with a short letter outlining the reason for the application and to request that they provide evidence by return (either an email or a short letter) confirming that they agree to the wording on the Draft Order and agree to the repayment proposal outlined. PS: If the creditor is represented by a solicitor, it is usual for them to insist on additional clauses being added to the Draft Order (for example, if the defendant failed to pay in accordance with the Order etc etc. PS: It can take up to 4 weeks to receive a Sealed Order from Northampton.

I am assuming that the email was received after the visit from the High Court Officer? If so, it would have been useful to have included a copy with your N245 Application as evidence of the creditors willingness to vary the terms of the Judgment debt. By doing so, the application should proceed without a hearing or any unnecessary delay.

A payment arrangement can be set up during what is referred to as the 'compliance stage'. That is the date provided on the Notice of Enforcement. It would appear that your son contacted you on receipt of a further letter. You mention in a further post that a telephone number should have been provided to enable you to call Rossendales. The number must by law be provided on the Notice of Enforcement and I would be very surprised indeed if the number was not displayed on the 2nd letter as well. Were you aware that the council had obtained a Liability Order against you? Did you contact the council on receipt of the notification to set up a payment arrangement?

I am assuming that the letter that you received was called a Notice of Enforcement. Perhaps you could confirm? The fees at that stage would have only been £75. If so, under the section where it outlines how to make payment, it must also state the precise date and time by when a payment arrangement MUST BE AGREED. What date is provided?