A SIX year old disabled boy from Swindon is receiving letters from the courts and the threat of bailiffs – for not paying a penalty charge notice. Brandon Blades, is autistic and can’t cope with crowds, public transport or unfamiliar spaces – he has been provided with a car as part of his disability allowance to help him get around. The car is registered in his name and displays a blue disabled badge which exempts his family from needing a permit to park outside their home. http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/14506018.Courts_chase_Swindon_six_year_old_in_parking_ticket_fiasco/

For a very long time I have raised concerns on here about inaccurate information regarding the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines. The reason for my concern is because, unlike any other debts, (penalty charge notices, liability orders etc) the enforcement officer has the right under the warrant to 'force entry'. Yesterday, the Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice; Shaliest Vara, clarified the position regarding enforcement agents fees....the 'pro rata' distribution of payments.... and most importantly, how courts deal with direct payments (after a warrant has been past to the enforcement agency. A copy of his statement features in my second post. By way of background, the following is a copy of a post that I made earlier this month: In the past couple of weeks I have received reports of six cases where a locksmith had been used to enforce a debt for magistrate court fines after a debtor had relied upon misinformation on the internet and believed that paying the amount only of the court fine (minus bailiff fees) to the court (as opposed to the enforcement company) would mean that the warrant had been satisfied. In four cases, payment had been made to the court on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (when bailiff fees of just £75 had been added). In the remaining two cases, payment had been made following an enforcement agent agent visit (fee of £235 had been applied) In each case, the person had relied upon the following statements featured on social media sites (with close links to the Freeman on the Land movement). The warrant for court fines only enables the enforcement of the "Sum Adjudged". Section 76 of the Magistrates courts Act 1980. Pay the fine online. That extinguishes the power to control of goods. The warrant only gives a power to take control of goods for the "sum adjudged". In each debtors case, after making payment to the Magistrates Court they had received notification from the court that their payment had been forwarded to the enforcement company so that the company could properly deduct their Compliance fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation. By following the inaccurate advice, each debtor had incurred substantial additional fees. In four cases, an enforcement fee of £235 had been added and in each case locksmith fee had also been applied.

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bailiffs-visit-leads-three-hour-7906246 Police were called out after a man allegedly brandished a knife during a row with a bailiff about a car. Police said the three-hour siege began just after noon after a bailiff was sent to an address in the road to recover a car. As the situation escalated armed officers were called, the street was blocked with police vehicles and the police helicopter hovered overhead, reports A police spokesman said: “Merseyside Police has been in attendance following an armed containment at a house in St Helens this afternoon. “At around 12.05pm, a civil enforcement officer attended an address on Litherland Crescent to remove a car from the location. “Following an argument with a man at the house, patrols were called to assist and the man was seen to approach officers in possession of a knife. "As a result, the area was contained by armed officers to ensure safety of the public"

Hi folks. Complicated situation. Myself and the other half have now spilt up with me staying in the house and them leaving. Some of their mail is still delivered here and I have strong belief that one letter concerns a visit by County Court bailiffs. If they are not living here how do I go about proving it and prevent them from giving me grief should(when) they turn up. Please don't ask what the debt is for because I have no idea. Thought we had got them all sorted but it seems an Ostrich won't stop burying its head. Thanks

Yesterday, a most extraordinary report was given on a social media site regarding a hearing at Luton Crown Court that concluded yesterday with both defendants being cleared of theft and false representation. The report itself (written by a McKenzie Friend) is utterly astonishing and frankly; resembles a poorly written fairy story. As regular posters on here will know, I am passionate about providing accurate information and with this in mind (and in response to the many messages that I have received since yesterday), I will give accurate facts on the background to this case (which sadly, yet again demonstrates appalling bad behaviour by a debtor attempting to evade payment of a penalty charge notice).

Every day, without fail, I receive an enquiry about an enforcement agent charging 'multiple fees' and in fact yesterday, two enquiries were received on this forum on the same subject. Clearly there is a need to provide guidance on this subject. In 2014, the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 (and other supporting legislation) came into effect and introduced significant changes to previous bailiff enforcement. The situation now is that when the enforcement agent receives instructions from the creditor (commonly; the Magistrates Court (in the case of court fines) or local authority (in the case of council tax arrears) the enforcement company are under a legal obligation to send to the debtor a Notice of Enforcement. This notice must identity the debt and invite the debtor to submit a payment proposal by the date set out in the Notice. This period of time is referred to in the regulations as being the 'Compliance Stage'. It is important to note that when the Notice of Enforcement is sent, a statutory 'Compliance fee' of £75 will be added to the debt. If full payment is not made, or a payment arrangement set up by the date given, the account will then be referred to an enforcement agent. He is then able to make a personal visit to the debtors property for the purpose of 'taking control of goods'. Once the account reaches this stage....it is much more difficulty to get a payment arrangement set up. It is only at this stage of enforcement that the important subject of 'multiple fees' comes into effect. Prior to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 being introduced, it was sadly the case that the previous regulations allowed bailiffs to charge 'multiple' fees when enforcing more than one debt at the same time.This led to dreadful instances of injustice and in particular, with debtors who had one or more penalty charge notices. To avoid these situations being repeated, the government imposed a condition that 'multiple fees' cannot be applied....in certain circumstances. The actual legislation can be found under Item 11 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/regulation/11/made?view=plain However, particular attention needs to be given to Item 11(b) as this is where most of the confusion about 'multiple charges' arises.

Good morning All, Birmingham city council bailiff came to my door on Monday morning after clamping a car outside. AS of the end of March this year I owe £35 council tax balance from last year and have not even received the bill the new financial year yet. I pay my council tax on monthly basis by internet transfer. I have had contact with Equitax for a few years now and have spoken to them on number of occasions and explained that I really don’t owe the council anything. They usually stop contacting me for months and then start again. Basically, the bailiff said that the count was handed over to them ones in 2014 and 2015 and that I should have being paying them and not the council so now he want over £700 in their charges. I have lived in this house since 2000 and have always paid my council tax be it with some straggle but I do pay it, so I don't understand how the council can hand my account over to equitax when I have being paying. I went to the citizen advice service yesterday and they told me to write a complaint to the council. I have also read few forums posts to figure out what to do but I am at lost at the moment. I'll be calling the council this morning to try to find out how this happened. Any advice will be much appreciated. Thank you

Approx two years ago the Local Government Ombudsman changed the way in which they record decisions. Previously, when a final decision was made, copies would be sent to the relevant local authority and the complainant. The significance of the change was that all decisions are now made public on the LGO website three months after the decision. There have been quite a few recent decisions made to the Local Government Ombudsman concerning successful Out of Time witness statements to the Traffic Enforcement Centre and the position regarding 'bailiff fees'. Up until this decision, most local authorities when notified of a successful Out of Time witness statement will refund some or all of the amount of the PCN...and will then advise the individual that they must contact the bailiff company for a refund. Out of Time witness statements and the Traffic Enforcement Centre are subjects that I am passionate about and this is why I am DELIGHTED to read this very recent decision (made public on 23rd March 2016) from the LGO regarding London Borough of Haringey. The LGO advised LB of Haringey that they should refund Miss X the following amounts: Charge certificate surcharge of £65 TEC court fee of £7 Bailiff fees of £310. Analysis: Item 17: As detailed at Paragraph 15, the TEC’s decision to accept Miss X’s late witness statement ordered that recovery action be taken back to the original PCN. While the Council says it has discretion over whether to refund fees in this situation as the TEC’s decision makes no direction on this point, the TEC’s decision clearly directs the revocation of the order for recovery and the cancellation of the charge certificate. These documents form the basis of the Council’s action from December 2013, as well as the further fees added to Miss X’s debt. Item 18. The Ombudsman considers in this situation that as the TEC has withdrawn the basis for the fees, the Council cannot legitimately refuse to refund them. Had the TEC’s decision not intended to result in this action it would be meaningless as it would have no effect. I therefore consider that the Council’s refusal to refund the fees resulting from steps in the process which the TEC has ordered are cancelled, is fault. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-...ties/15-000-612

I have seen this question come up on several forums. The bailiff can enforce and take control of goods belonging to anyone on the liability order. The council tax regulation state that a summons for a liability hearing may be addressed to two or more joint taxpayers in joint names. The TCE permits enforcement of more than one individual on a single enforcement power. So it is a matter of looking to see who the summons is addressed to, or alternatively whose name the bill is in. DB

With bailiff enforcement, goods belonging to the debtor become 'bound' from a certain date (more on this later). In simple terms, this means that unless the person who acquired the goods did so in 'good faith' .....for 'valuable consideration' and most importantly; 'without knowing about a warrant' then the transfer or sale will not be considered valid and accordingly, the goods (mainly a motor vehicle) can be seized by the enforcement agent. It is becoming a very common situation indeed for debtors to attempt to 'sell' (or transfer) a car to a friend, partner of relative after receiving correspondence or a visit from an enforcement company and given the frequency that this is happening, enforcement companies are naturally requiring 'evidence' of the 'sale'. By way of an example, the following is an ongoing case that was posted on a very large social media site on 5th February: Background: Mother found guilty of obstructing a High Court Enforcement Officer...told by Judge to expect to be sent to prison. - Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry - General discussions - Consumer Action Group The poster stated that she had received a visit from a bailiff representing Marston Group in relation to one penalty charge notice. She confirmed that she knew of the debt. She refused to speak with the enforcement agent and as a consequence, her vehicle was clamped. Given that the vehicle cannot be removed unless a period of two hours has passed, the enforcement agent left the property. She was encouraged to deflate the tyre on her car and remove the wheel clamp. She did so. Stunningly, she then posted on the site to ask whether it was true that if she took the clamp to the police station, that she would not be prosecuted !!! It would seem that she was another person who believed JasonDWB's (The Guru's) inaccurate theory. She was told to move her car and keep it hidden. The following day, (February 6th) she posted that the enforcement agent had located her car. It was removed to the vehicle pound and the debt has significantly increased by way of the sale stage fee of £110 and she is now also being charged storage fees.

Got a PCN from Derby CC in 2013. Moved and was unaware they had not accepted my appeal nor given me any official notification that they had so bailiff left me handwritten note in June 2014 saying what was owed and his mobile number, NOT a Notice of Enforcement. According to CAB website bailiff MUST send the notice 7 days before any action can be taken. Due to my sate of mind at the time I just paid it to get the matter off my back. Was the bailiff at fault for not sending the notice? What action can I take against the council? The council never officially told me they would not accept my appeal and they also did NOT formally advise me of the right to an independent appeal which I believe is the law. Many thanks.

As an enquirers thread was being diverted I have kicked off this thread to discuss CCTV and BWC. As E Munch has highlighted ICO concerns and DPA on this thread at post# 8 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?457929-Bristow-and-Sutor-%28Council-Tax%29-threatened-ARREST-if-not-pay-NOW...%282-Viewing%29-nbspdress happens to be right number wrong street I will kick off with the other side of the coin as in an aggressive EA is captured on a debtor's doorstep CCTV trying to intimidate a 14 year old daughter who looks 18, with no other adult present. DPA issues? and as it is a private house EA cannot demand footage destroyed and apparently no DPA issue especially if warning that CCTV is recording all visitors being displayed. Compare and contrast with DPA implications for BWC on EA capturing the same incident. Discuss

Does anyone know if a bailiff can levy goods when the original debt has been paid? The debt was paid to the council in full, and now the council and bailiff company are saying tough, you need to pay the fees of £310 which is more than the debt was for. I know the usual advice of not letting them in and stuff but i can't find a definitive answer on whether they can levy if it's only their fees owing. As far as I am concerned, I paid the Liability Order in full.

A motor vehicle has always been a most attractive item for a bailiff/enforcement agent to seize and in particular; because of its value and the fact that in many cases, the vehicle is located on the debtors driveway thereby easing the removal process. In 2014 significant changes were made to bailiff enforcement under the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 but unfortunately with motor vehicles, the regulations may result in reduced protection for many people and in particular, business debtors. A short while ago I wrote a new STICKY for the forum entitled Bailiff enforcement: A Simple Guide to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013. To ensure that the forum does not get clogged up with too many stickies I included with that STICKY a separate Guidance regarding bailiff enforcement and motor vehicle. Given the importance of this subject I thought that it may be useful to post a copy of the guidance (on motor vehicles) on the main forum as well (see copy in the next post). A link to the Guidance is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453292-Bailiff-enforcement-A-Simple-Guide-to-the-Taking-Control-of-Goods-Regulations&p=4800997&viewfull=1#post4800997

Over the past 2-3 years I have reported on this forum about the risks that debtors face when taking 'legal advice' from the internet and in being encouraged by the relevant sites to issue proceedings against a bailiff company/and or a local authority. In order to warn debtors of the dangers involved I have provided details of the cases together with copies of the Judgments (when available). I cannot stress the importance of this information given that debtors need to be fully aware that if a claim is instigated against either the company (either by way of an Interpleader, Injunction or Small Claims action) or against the individual bailiff (by way of an EAC2 Complaint) that the enforcement company will always ensure that they provide a solicitor (and many times a Barrister) to represent them at a hearing. So far, that have been no reported cases of a debtor winning a court action. Instead, there are many cases where significant cost order have been imposed against debtors. Unfortunately, yesterday it was being reported that yet ANOTHER two legal legal cases had failed in court and in both cases, the individuals (a lady and a gentleman) had been encouraged to pursue hopeless legal cases by a highly unqualified individual with an utterly appalling history of court failures.

I have seen conflicting posts on this site, so I thought I would ask for some clarification. One person in a thread said "you are advised not let bailiffs into your home" Another talked about there being an offence of obstruction to peaceable entry. My understanding is that you are best to never let them in because once you let them in they can come in whenever they want. I also understand that they are no longer allowed to make entry via an open window but can via an open door, including pushing a door you have opened. Can someone clarify whether I can simply not engage them, not open the door, not talk to them etc. I gather that they can take a car they think I own, I drive a 20 year old car registered in Belgium, so unlikely they could prove was mine.

Hi there I am hoping someone can help. I got in from work on Tuesday evening, after going to the gym and found a letter on my door matt from a bailiff company threatening to seize my goods for non payment of council tax. It was an enforcement notice and referred to a liability order. This was the first I knew that my direct debit payments to the council had not gone through (i've checked now and they were returned). I did not receive any letters or liability orders in the post either. Surely I should receive some kind of notification before the council involve bailiffs!? For the two months missed payments it amounts to about £350.00. The bailiff company have added on a further £300 in fees/ attendance charges. Is there anything i can do, these charges seem punitive and i'm more than happy to pay the council tax arrears but not these excessive fees.

On Friday I was extremely concerned about a thread on one of the ‘Beat the Bailiffs’ facebook sites that eventually led to the debtor being removed from his car and with many police in attendance. Background: The debtor (Tony) did not seek advice on the site. Instead, his brother Paul sought advice from the Social Media Site on his behalf. It would seem that ‘Tony’ had not paid a penalty charge notice and accordingly, a warrant of control was issued and passed to Marston Group to enforce. The bailiff attended the property early last Friday and after a short period of time, clamped his car. In ‘Paul’s’ initial post he called for ‘Boots on the Ground’ to attend the address (in Oldham, Lancashire). As is usual with the site, the full address and postcode were provided. One poster (John) spoke with Tony a number of times and reported back that he had advised him that: The warrant was not a legal document as it was not signed. Tony should stay in the car as his vehicle could not be removed while he is inside. and that: He should tell the bailiffs and police that "Wesley is just getting ready with a crew". (Wesley posted himself to confirm that he would be attending). Further alarming posts were made that indicated that the bailiffs would be attacked (for example: “law doesn’t matter, lets all go out and lynch the fxxxing bailiffs”). The situation esclated very quickly indeed and from reading the posts the indication was that many people were on their way to the address (in Oldham) with Wesley himself posting that ‘we have a Mexican standoff’. Further posts reported that about six police officer had arrived together with more bailiffs. In all, almost 400 posts were made on the site and yet....not one person bothered to ask any background information such as: Did he receive all the notices from the local authority? Did he appeal the penalty charge notice? Did he receive the Notice of Enforcement from Marston Group? Did he respond to outline a payment proposal? Instead, as is always the case with these sites, the suggestion made was to ....submit an Out of Time statutory declaration to the Traffic Enforcement Centre. One person exhibited a copy of the warrant of control and it was plain to see that the warrant was a legal document. Naturally, it did not require a court seal or a 'wet ink signature'. Telephone calls were made to the bailiff by an admin member of the Social Media Site (a lady with supposedly 30 years of legal experience) asking that the vehicle remain clamped until the Out of Time statutory declaration had been processed. Naturally, with the expectation of many more ‘supporters’ shortly arriving, the enforcement agent took the decision to remove the vehicle (by this time it had been clamped for over two hours). A tow truck was in attendance. The debtor was removed from the vehicle. Fortunately, for the bailiffs, the police and the debtor the 'Boots on the Ground' stunt was a complete failure.

Here on the discussion section of the forum there have been various threads that have touched upon the matter of 'in house' bailiff enforcement. For those unfamiliar with this term....this is where local authorities are setting up their own 'in house' bailiff operations. The decision to do so is mainly a financial one spurred on by the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 which provides that enforcement companies may charge a 'Compliance fee' of £75 when sending a statutory Notice of Enforcement to the debtor. If payment (or a payment proposal) is not made within the 'compliance stage, an enforcement agent may make a personal visit. An enforcement fee of £235 is chargeable. To assist with discussions on this subject, it may help to read the view of 'in house' bailiff enforcement from the perspective of the enforcement industry (who are naturally opposed to local authorities taking bailiff enforcement 'in house'). The following is a word copy of an article that featured in a trade magazine a few months ago.

I sold my car on may 14 2014, the person who bought it said they only had half the money so an agreement was to pay the rest over the next 5 months. After five months i realised that the person had no intention of paying the to me and i had already spent the deposit he gave me. anyhow, he eventually stated that when U give him back his deposit he will give me back the vehicle. I paid the guy his money in August 2015. In November 2015 I left my house to go to work only to see my vehicle clamped. I called the number on the paper that was on the window and he said that the car will be removed unless full payment for a PCN was paid in full. This pcn was issued while the car was owned by the guy I sold it to. V5 form was filled and during the time he had the vehicle it was registered to him. I felt that i had to pay the PCN to prevent even more charges so i did in November 2015. My question is can i get a full refund? £547 I would appreciate any advice.

Hi. I'm sorry if this subject is in wrong section! I have received a letter from a bailiff company with regards to a debt which is currently in a repayment plan. The issue is, on the reverse of the letter is a letter to another of their debtors, including names, address and details of the debt they owe. Do I ignore it? Should I contact the people on the letter? Do I make a formal complaint to the bailff company? My worry is that if I have received someone else's details, then they could have received mine. Is this a breach of confidentiality? DPA? Thanks in advance for any responses

Just 3 months ago I started a new thread on here to highlight the problems that debtors face when taking advice from the internet to issue court claims against bailiff companies or local authorities. In that thread (a copy of which is below) I highlighted the outcome of yet another court failure where the debtor once again lost his case in court and was ordered to pay the local authorities (London Borough of Southwark) legal costs of £4,399. In the above case it was revealed that the debtor was charged £2060 in fees by this highly unqualified McKenze Friend who has an appalling history of court failures behind him. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?452784-More-legal-cases-against-bailiff-companies-lost-in-court-after-taking-legal-advice-from-the-internet-!! It would seem that during December he has been involved in two further court failures. Interestingly in the very latest one, he claims to have represented the debtor at the Magistrates Court hearing in relation to a criminal complaint. It would seem that the Magistrate refused to allow him to either address the court or to 'cross examine the witnesses'!!! According to the written report from the McKenzie Friend the Magistrate was extremely critical of the defendant and considered that he was lying to the court and that consequently, the McKenzie friend: "executed the procedure to force the trial to be aborted and be re-listed for a new trial" and that: "Im due to Mackenzie again for him, but if I'm declined a second time, then I have a solicitor ready to be pulled from a hat there and then and execute the defence structured on a crown court appeal" What is particularly alarming about this is that with very limited exception, the use of a McKenzie Friend is restricted to County Court proceedings !!!

Hello Everyone. I'm new here. After days of being frustrated, I have finally joined the forum to share with you all, my recent experience with Newlyn, with regard to parking tickets, to seek advice. Please help. I recently corresponded with Newlyn plc., who were pursuing a payment from me last March. I was unsure why; I’ve subsequently been explained by them that the vehicle, the ownership of which I transferred to now an unknown man with the mobile number of ............ on 12/04/2013, had contravened a parking regulation and received PCNs (11 of them!) issued by Tower Hamlet Council on 02/05/2013 (and presumably later dates for subsequent PCNs). I had not received any of these PCNs or Notice to Owner because shortly after the sale of the vehicle, I moved to a different address before the tickets were issued (proof of which I have in the way of credit card bills etc.). At the time of transfer of ownership of the said vehicle, I had lost the V5C document and was not in possession of the document and hence I advised the man who had purchased the vehicle that he would have to complete V62 in order to complete the transfer of ownership and that it was his responsibility to re-register the vehicle under his name . Although it turned out that he had not done so, DVLA’s Sensitive Case department carefully considered the case, they agreed to amend the records to show that I was no longer the keeper of the vehicle from 12 April 2013 (the exact wording is "I have amended our records to show that you are no longer recorded as the keeper of this vehicle from 12 April 2013"). I sent this letter to Tower Hamlet Council, London and Newlyn. The council told me that the matters are now in Newlyn's hands. Newlyn rejected the letter from DVLA, because of the ambiguous wording. Last Friday, an enforcement agent working for Newlyn called me at work, asking for around £4500 or else. I nearly passed out when I heard this. I called Newlyn to put a hold on this and they temporarily put a 28-day hold on it/ Now it's been more than a year since the original tickets have been issued. So from reading various posts on this forum, I understand it's too late for making any appeals to the council and that I would have to fill in Witness Statement forms TE9 & TE7 and email TEC, in order to at least stop the recovery warrant/procedure. And if that's successful, I have only the original PCNs to deal with, am I right in thinking that? Please advise me anyway you can and ask me any questions to clarify the situation further if needs be. I am very distressed. What can I do?! Thanks in advance.

Earlier today I completed the last STICKY on the very important subject of vulnerability. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456344-Bailiff-enforcement-All-about-Vulnerability(1-Viewing)-nbsp If any regular posters have any comments that they would like to raise about the thread they would be most welcome. A copy of the thread can be read in the following post.

If a person is considered vulnerable, the enforcement regulations provide some protection from bailiff action. However, such protection is only possible if the bailiff/enforcement company are aware of the vulnerability at the earliest possible stage. Vulnerability for ‘enforcement’ purposes is very difficult to define and being disabled does not necessarily mean that a person will be excluded from bailiff enforcement. For example; some people may be constantly vulnerable (due to permanent lack of mental capacity or very severe disability etc), but others only temporarily vulnerable (for example, through suffering mental illness for a short period of time, recently bereaved, pregnancy, unemployment etc). Each case is unique and will be looked at individually by the enforcement company or bailiff. By and large, when it comes to bailiff enforcement, vulnerability is usually reserved for extreme cases. An example could be where the individual is unable to manage his or her own affairs etc or where the medical condition of the vulnerable person could worsen if a bailiff were to visit. The Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 Although the National Standards are not legally binding, they are nonetheless a very helpful tool for the enforcement industry and creditors. On the difficult subject of vulnerability, the National Standards provide that the following groups might be considered vulnerable: The elderly People with a disability The seriously ill The recently bereaved Single parent families Pregnant women Unemployed people Those who have difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English Motor vehicles and vulnerability The statutory regulations provide that a vehicle that is used for transportation needs of a disabled person will be exempt from being taken into control as long as it is displaying a valid blue disability badge. Bailiff fees and vulnerability Further protection for vulnerable debtors is provided under Regulation 12 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 and states that if the enforcement agent visits the property and identifies the person owing the debt as being vulnerable, that he should not remove goods. Instead, he must give the debtor a chance to seek advice from a debt advice agency/charity etc. If he fails to do so, the enforcement fee of £235 is not recoverable. Do I have to provide any evidence that I may be vulnerable? Usually evidence is required. In the first instance, it is vitally important to contact the enforcement agency at the earliest opportunity (on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement) as this could avoid the need for a personal visit being made. Initial contact should be made by telephone and a brief outline of your personal circumstances should be given to the operator who will usually advise what documentary evidence they require. Very often a letter from a doctor or specialist is required or a copy of a letter from the DWP confirming an award of Disability Living Allowance/ PIP/Carers Allowance etc. Bailiff enforcement and vulnerable households. Unfortunately, there are a number of internet sites that encourage people to send a letter to the enforcement agent to claim that they are from a vulnerable household in the mistaken belief that the enforcement agent will return the debt back to the council or court. These letters are mass produced and accordingly, have become popular on many of the Freeman on the Land/debt avoidance websites. Given the serious misrepresentation of the regulations in the letter, it is hardly surprising that the majority of enforcement companies do not take the letter seriously. If there is serious disability in the family (for instance, where the parent or partner is the registered carer for a son, daughter or spouse) whilst this does not exclude the bailiff from taking enforcement action against the debtor, it is nonetheless vitally important to bring such instances to the attention of the enforcement agency at the earliest possible stage as it may affect the approach made by the enforcement agent and possibly lead to the debt being managed in-house by the enforcement company’s Welfare Department as opposed to it being passed to an individual enforcement agent. Will my debt be returned to the council/court? Only in exceptional cases. This is because, since the regulations were overhauled in April 2014, most enforcement companies now have in-house Welfare Departments and what usually happens, is that once vulnerability has been identified, an affordable payment arrangement is set up and the account managed in-house by the trained Welfare Team. Note: If any visitors to the forum consider that they may be vulnerable and are having difficulty getting the enforcement agent to accept their explanation or evidence, then please ask a question on the forum. We are all here to provide help and assistance. Bailiff enforcement All about Vulnerability.pdf Before Printing the PDF TIP If you DO NOT wish to print Page 1 (Cover Page) of the PDF, please ensure to do the following: Ensure you go to your Printer Settings and set it to 'Print from Page 2' (this way Page 1 (Cover Page) should not print out). Note: This will save you Ink & Paper