Thank you steampowered I will take your reply back to my friend and try to get some clarity on the points, particularly the aspect of a legally binding contract between mother and daughter. My current impression is that there was nothing written down as such (they were family after all) so we would need to rely on the statement of the mother and proof of previous payments if it came to asserting the claim. I understand (but will clarify) that the car is the only thing of value in the estate.

Hullo all I would appreciate any help and opinions you can give on the following: A lady friend of mine borrowed quite a lot of money (I believe in excess of £9000) in order to buy a car on behalf of her daughter. It was agreed between them that the daughter would repay by instalments and all went well until the daughter was discovered to have a terminal brain tumour. Sadly and inevitably she died leaving some £5,200 still to be paid to her mother. It then turned out that the daughter left the car in her will to her boyfriend. As there are no other assets in the estate my friend understandably wants the car to be sold in order to repay to her as much as possible (It is thought the car would get maybe £4K now). She has had a letter from the executor agreeing that she can have the car but the boyfriend has instructed a solicitor who has written insisting the car is legally the property of the boyfriend and demanding it be handed over. My friend currently has custody of the car in a secure place. I wonder if anybody can comment and in particular answer the following: 1. Am I right in believing the estate must settle creditors claims with whatever assets it has to hand, irrespective of individual bequests? 2. Is it the responsibility of the executor to ensure this happens? 3. Is my friend within her legal rights to now sell the car in order to recover what she can in light of the letter from the executor or is this strictly the responsibility of the executor? 4. Given the poor mental condition of the unfortunate daughter, can her will be challenged? I will get some wording of the various letters of the case put up here as soon as I can. Many thanks to all for reading and commenting.

*Sigh* Shows the value of keeping up to date on this site!

Hullo all Just posting an update. I received a video of the incident and it was clear enough that my brother had committed the offence and no argument was possible. Due to on going money situation I could not pay the bill and in the normal course of things it escalated by stages to £202 before being flicked out to Marstons who added another £11.20 of fees. Anyway I finally had the money to pay it and phoned them today to pay and they added another £1 as a debit card fee! I asked them how I could pay them without incurring the debit card fee and they said it was always added. I then asked them why they did not just add it to their fees and was told to write and complain if I wanted! (PS They started asking me a lot of questions including what my mobile number was. I asked them why they needed the data when all I was doing was paying the bill. They said it was data protection. Anyway I refused to give them my mobile number and said they had sufficient information to accept my payment. They took the money!). (Their payment automation line was not working when I called). Clearly they don't need all the things they are asking for so as a guide to others in the same situation I suggest once you have quoted their reference number and your vehicle details they have sufficient information and you should tell them so. So first of all thanks to all who contributed to this thread which from the point of view of dealing with the traffic offence I can now close. Secondly, anybody want to comment on the extra £1. Is there by any chance a fiddle being carried out by Marstons? I wonder if they have a contract with Transport for London with set fees which they have sneakily added a £1 to without telling anyone? Your comments welcome on this thread. Thank you all.

Hi all I have returned the Representation Form ticking the box to state that there was no contravention. I have added additional typewritten notes which say as follows: This vehicle was being driven by my brother at the time. When he entered the box junction the exit route was clear and he continued moving through the junction. However, he was forced to stop by pedestrians crossing in front of him. He did not stop until forced to do so by pedestrians who were not obstructing the exit at the time he entered the box junction. I therefore appeal the penalty. If you still wish to pursue the penalty please provide me with a copy of all evidence you wish to rely on and in particular the video evidence. The video or other evidence will need to clearly show that a. He entered the box junction without the exit being clear and b. that he could have SAFELY cleared the junction without striking any pedestrians and was therefore not forced to stop. It is paramount that pedestrians are not endangered by vehicles attempting to leave a box junction to avoid a penalty. Given his care in looking after pedestrians rather than speeding through the junction, and given the location of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention which although on the box is not obstructing traffic moving left to right across the box you may wish to give consideration as to whether pursuit of this alleged offence is fair and appropriate. Anybody wishing to view the notice and the positioning of the vehicle is welcome to look at the attached notice in PDF.

Thank you Michael sailor and Mean for your prompt responses. As I understand it then I am responsible for the actions of another driver. Does not sound very just to me but so be it. I do not know if the box is/was compliant or the exact circumstances surrounding the incident except to say I understand the exit was clear when my brother entered the junction and he was forced to stop because of pedestrians. Another vehicle had to do the same thing. I will post pics and details in a later post and formulate a reply to TFL for you all to have a comment on if you want. Thanks again and watch this space.

Hi all I lent my car to my brother who took it to London and whilst there was imaged entering/stopping a boxed junction. I have received the penalty charge notice which I intend to appeal. However, a technical issue exists on the form. It says I can make representations on any of the five grounds listed which summarised are; I was not the owner, the offence was not committed, the car was stolen, it was a hire car, the penalty amount is wrong. My personal defence is that I was not the driver but nowhere on the form is there an option to state that. As I am the registered keeper of the vehicle am I personally liable for the driving offences carried out by people using my vehicle? I somehow think not. I would be grateful for any advice and opinions on how to respond to this form. I guess at some point the offence may find its way back to the true defendant in the form of an amended notice in which case I guess I would continue the thread as my brother was forced to stop in the box by pedestrians obstructing his exit. Many thanks in advance PS According to the notice it is supposed to be possible to make representations online at www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers Feel free to have a look at that site. anyone able to tell me where exactly I can find the link to enable me to do this?

I would like to see at least one minor change to the charging order regime and that is that a loan, for example a credit card or something similar which will have started life as an unsecured loan with a correspondingly higher interest rate should not be allowed to be converted to in effect a secured loan. Charging orders should not be allowed on these types of transactions as the interest rate charged reflects the risk of default. Currently the lender is having his cake and eating it. Other kinds of debt such as trade debt etc might be a different matter, but not unsecured cash loans.

Thanks Tomtubby You deserve the back story so here it is. My brother bought a business in 2004 which had over two acres of land. The council were all over him like a rash the moment he got on the site and tried to wrap him up in planning issues. At first he tried to comply but then it turned out the council got their planning decision wrong and he was not required to do things to nearly the extent they said he did. The following years were spent in legal wrangle that led to a public enquiry where the main points about the development were won by our side at a cost of over £25,000 and the effective financial destruction of the business. At that point I wrote a long letter of complaint to the council covering around ten points in their conduct. As a coup de grace the valuation agency came on site and upped the business rates by twenty times! My brother was forced to throw in the towel and sold the site at a stonking loss. The council pursued the new and completely unaffordable rates. The first we knew of bailiff involvement was when they arrived at his house with two identical letters but for different amounts relating to two different tax years. These were the standard bailiff "second" letter I have come to know. I thought I would complain to the council as they had attempted to double charge for a single visit and were charging the second charge not the first charge and were thus incompetent as they had not come for the "first" visit. While I was at it I did a FOI request and asked them chapter and verse about their management of bailiffs. I got quite a lot of material back and it also turned out that the "first" visit had gone to the original business according to them. I struggle to believe it as the council were notified by me of my brother's home address at the time he left the business in case they wanted to make something of it. Additionally the council were well aware of the business collapse and the inability of my brother to pay the figure, even if he was willing which he is not. Therefore why they bothered with bailiffs is a mystery. This last visit, a third one, was somewhat unexpected by us as they normally try twice and go back to say they cant collect leaving the council to take alternative action. I think this third visit was an attempt by the council to do two visits at the same address or may simply be vindictive. Had the council been prepared to admit to their own planning errors at the start and work with my brother to build his business it would now be in a position to be employing twenty or more people, to pay local and national taxes and would be a nice and needed amenity to the local people. Anyway that is the story. We are fairly well clued up on what the bailiffs can and cant do with the excellent resources of this site to educate ourselves. The council will not be getting a penny as there is none, and no equity anywhere. Any fees the bailiffs or anyone else want to charge are therefore irrelevant to us so they can type what they like into their systems as it is their paper and their hard disks. The council may well take the next step of summoning my brother to court and threatening him with imprisonment. It is probably the only step they have left. If that happens and the story comes out it is unlikely a magistrate would imprison him. He has no money, no equity and a young family. But if it came to that a personal bankruptcy would solve the problem.

Renegadeimp, I thought about ramming him but although my car is old now it has been very good to me and intend to keep it until it literally falls apart. I am not prepared to impale my beautiful trashmobile on some dickwood bailiff's brand new mondeo-like, tempting though the idea fleatingly was. But it would have been an honourable death for the old girl!

I agree up to a point. But he only has our words for it to say who we are and for all he knew I was my brother taking away a seizable asset. Having said that my car is (very obviously) 13 years old and the bailiff himself said it would not make enough to nearly cover the debt.

It was Constant & Co in Bedfordshire. He was answered at the door by my brother who is the debtor. It was he who asked me to discuss the debt with the bailiff. The bailiff was therefore given permission to discuss it with me so I am comfortable no data protection breach was made. I handle this sort of thing for my brother as I have helped him in his business over the last few years and business being what it is I have become somewhat adept at these matters with the help of CAG of course!

Hi All Just a quick and mild incident but would be interested in comment and opinion. I was parked in a family member's drive when a bailiff called to collect unpaid business rates from another property which the council is not going to get as the business is bust (ironically by the same council). My brother opened the door and when he found out who it was he called me to the door to sort it out as I have a bit more confidence in these matters. I told the bailiff we would not sign anything, would not give him any money and would not be granting him legal entry. He was a bit unhappy but could not do much about it. As it happened I was leaving so I went out to my car. When I tried to move it he said he was seizing it to pay the debt. I told him it was mine and not my brothers and attempted to drive away. He reversed his car to block my path and said he was going to clamp it. I told him he could do so but I would take on his company for obstructing my lawful movement of my property. He said since I knew so much of the law I should know he has a right to seize the car. If I could prove it was mine he would let me go. I pointed out that the log book was elsewhere but that would not conclusively prove the car was mine, just that I was the keeper. In the end he pulled away and I was able to get on with things at a cost of no more than five minutes of time. Clearly the guy was bluffing. He was in a car so un-likley to be carrying a clamp and was going to have to stay there for quite a while if a clamper was being sent for. So other CAGers should note that. Clearly he did not want to hang around. My question is though, what rights does he have to detain my car and what rights do I have to stop him detaining the car? Also, do I have any claim against his firm? Has he committed any criminal offence by obstructing me? All comments, anecdotes, opinion and such like welcome.

Hullo all Many thanks for the many replies and here is an update: The council had written the following to me: The payments can be divided into 12, rather than 10, so if you just pay a twelfth i.e. £95.08 in April. Once this payment shows I will amend your instalments from May - March. So I guess I have established my right to pay by equal instalments. I think it is a pity this was not properly and openly offered in the first place. As I have achieved what I have set out to achieve I no longer seek any advice from other CAGers. However, I am very happy for this thread to be continued by anyone wanting to discuss the topic. Thanks again for all your input.

It is a great pity the case was lost. I believe these cases are recorded and it is possible to get the recording transcribed. Don't know what that would cost or whether it is worth it but reading the transcript could throw up some grounds for complaining about the judge. Having said that the OP is going bankrupt. In my opinion this is probably the best thing that could happen to them because they are very likley to be releived of the burden of their debts and will be out of it within a year. The OP will then be free to pursue their lives whilst RW will be left with nothing but a big legal bill. That will be a kind of justice.

Hi all I am in the North Herts District Council region and have just had my council tax bill. The total sum is £1140.97. They have calculated it in ten instalments with the first being £114.97 and the balance being another 9 at £114.00. So far so good. According to the new rules issued by the government I have the right to ask for this to be paid in 12 instalments. I therefore e-mailed the council as follows: Please re-issue my council tax bill to show repayments in twelve equal instalments and adjust your billing system to expect payments in twelve rather than ten payments. Today I received the following: Thank you for your email requesting 12 monthly instalments for your council tax. Once we have received your April instalment, I will amend your instalments from May - March and a revised bill will be issued. So on the face of it they are requiring one tenth of the figure to be paid first and I only want to pay one twelfth. Now it is only a small thing but if the government says I can pay equally over the year then I want to pay equally over the year. In short I want to pay £95 in April, not £115. I don’t want to give them £20 until I have to. I wrote this back to them: That is all very well but what am I supposed to pay in April? You seem to be wanting one tenth of the annual amount before spreading the other nine tenths over the remaining eleven months. Is that correct? As I understand it the new regulations allow for equal monthly payments over twelve months. Please clarify your position. Anybody else getting this sort of thing? Anybody got any comments?

Been following. Just to wish you all the very best for tomorow. CBJ

Hi I think you will find that if they sell the debt to Robinson Way they should give you the "goodbye" letter and Robinson Way should give you the "hullo" letter. However, if the debt is still owned by SADtander then Robinson Way will be acting on behlaf of them and no Deed of Assignment is needed. See what others say.

Hi This is truly appalling. I offer my help in composing your letters of complaint. Please post back if you want some sample letters. You should be complaining to the police, the council, the ministry of justice and your local MP. This stinks.

Been following this but not commenting up to now.........just to say woowhee and zippididoda! Congratulations and well done.

That is great. Many thanks

Would you mind posting a link to the "epic thread" thanks.

How is this for an orchestrated campaign. Why not organize a boycott of one of RLP's clients. We can post mass complaints on their Facebook account(s), twitter etc as well as not frequent that shop. It would take about five minutes for them to announce they were not doing business with RLP anymore and we can then move onto the next one. I have nothing against Boots as such but as they have been mentioned in this thread, why not start with Boots?

Proper, impartial and strict regulation of the industry is a must. The assertion that regulation will only impose red tape on businesses is nonsense in the case of the bailiff industry. In most industrial/commercial scenarios both parties contract with each other and it can be argued that to some degree they should be allowed to get on with it. But in this case the debtor has no choice in the matter. The bailiff has been given the upper hand by force of law. As such their actions MUST be regulated. They should not be treated as regular businesses, but as bodies contracted to carry out a difficult but necessary public service.

Hi all I have been on the wrong end of bailiffs for six years and a couple of points immediately spring to mind: 1. The assumption should be that the debtor is in financial stress. As such, and even though the bailiff industry is a business, it must not be organized in such a way as to be a cash cow as it is now. Bailiff firms should receive a reasonable return for carrying out the work and that is all. If they cannot or do not want to work within the fees limitation then don't do the work. 2. In the case of multiple warrants on a single visit the debtor should not be made to pay multiple times. This is just imposing additional hardship. For example if a bailiff has traveled forty miles and wants to charge a mileage fee charge it once, as he only came in one van. 3. I have seen attempts to charge a removal fee when no vehicle was ever hired. This is nothing less than fraud. It certainly never showed up and nothing was removed. Therefore it must be demonstrated that all third party costs have in fact been contracted for by production of the third party invoices and those services must be carried out or at least attend the property so that it can be seen that the cost was in fact incurred. This is a bit extreme but some of these bailiffs are criminal. 4. There should be a single central mediation body which a debtor can appeal to for a reasonable fee that will solely deal with matters of disputed bailiffs costs. If the decision is in the debtors favour the bailiff should pay the fee. However, if there was a statutory (simpler) laid down set of fees this ought not need to be referred to very often. 5. the whole thing is absolutely useless with out proper regulation with teeth. These people don't want to be regulated and I can understand why, which is exactly why they must be. 6. I am not at all sure why there needs to be a link between the amount of the debt and the amount charged. In other words why can they charge a percentage of the debt. It costs them the same to collect £10 as it does to collect £1000. The fees should be linked to the cost of the work done to recover the debt, not the value of the debt. 7. Finally, for the moment, are we falling into the trap of discussing modifications to a poor system rather than trying to come up with a better twenty first century solution.