BAILIFFS ARE HARRESSING ME!

[creepingfear]

There is. There is a paragraph somwhere within the Theft Act (I think it's that one not too sure) that defines obtaining monies/property by means of deception ect and what it considers an act of deception. Having trouble finding it though as my bb speed has just dropped quicker than eldrick woods trousers. I bet that little *bramston pickle* next door is playing online games again.......

[Xaccers]

What I meant is that Im pretty sure that bluffing/tricking/lying isnt allowed.

 

There's a difference between bluffing, tricking and lying.

Bluff and trick with "Why don't we sit down and have a cup of tea and sort this out?" or "Let me use your phone to call the office and I'm sure we can sort this out" is allowed, you don't have to let them in, they don't have to tell you the consiquences of letting them in, and they aren't forcing their way in.

"You can't refuse us entry" lying, not allowed.

It's like with the police, they can tell someone they plan to charge and have up in front of a judge that everything is going to be ok, the arrest is just a technicality and they're sure it will all be sorted out by the morning. They can bluff and make out they have evidence when actually they don't.

 

Theft (Amendment) Act 1996 does not apply, they're not even gaining entry by deception if they follow through their reason for requesting entry (ie sit down and talk the matter through, or indeed phone the office), and they're certainly not obtaining goods or monies by deception, they are real bailiffs with a real warrant to recover the debt.

[Stealthbomber]

Must admit, I really don't see why so many people are acting all shocked about this.

 

As Xaccers says, it's no more bluffing/tricking/lying than a cop who waits at the bottom of a hill to catch you speeding.

"It's not fair" isn't really a defence in law.

Same thing applies to bailiffs.

I'm sure everybody who's ever had dealings with bailiffs will tell you just how unfair the whole thing was but the fact is that they have a job to do and they know exactly what sort of tricks they can pull without actually breaking the rules.

 

Also, regarding all this stuff about the Theft Act, people seem to be overlooking the fact that it's NOT actually illegal for a bailiff to do his job.

They're not engaging in theft.

[MCXL]

I dunno, this idea of "I have been here once so therefore I am allowed FOREVER" Is pretty damn retarded. Can you imagine if that applied to normal people?

 

If you gave a co worker a ride to work once, then from then on they could just get into your car, whenever and wherever they wanted, legally.

 

Or if I had a house party then every person who came, no matter how well I knew them could come into my place whenever they wanted and just crash, or bother me, or what have you.

 

This concept basically takes your right to own a safe home away, completely. Even if it is limited to certian people, it just seems like some sort of "We own you forever" law.

 

It would be one thing if it was like if you let them in for the express purpose of colleeting items then they would be allowed again for the same reason, or if you had to sign something, but the impression I get is once they have touched their feet inside with your permission it becomes a public place to them, forever.

 

Again, I say: Retarded.

 

Also the idea that a unlocked window is an "invitation" is about as backward as it gets. I cant possibly imagine someone using that as a legal defense for trespassing or theft charges. Even if they didn't have to force their way in, if they are entering via a window, chances are they don't belong. Telling the officers that respond to the house alarm when you open that window or that door that, "It's ok officer. I don't live here, it was unlocked." Would not work.

[Xaccers]

I dunno, this idea of "I have been here once so therefore I am allowed FOREVER" Is pretty damn retarded.

 

Not when you realise it's not forever.

Its only in relation to carrying out their duty to reclaim the debt owed.

[MCXL]

Which could be forever.

 

No end term, other then mission complete.

[Stealthbomber]

You're still not accepting that it's all related to their work.

 

It's not legal for you to search another person but the guys working airport security can.

It's not legal for you to pull over another vehicle if they're driving badly but a cop can.

It's not legal for you to cut open a persons chest but a doctor can.

It's not legal for.... oh, you get the idea.

 

The USA has similarly dubious laws.

Do you suppose the bounty hunters employed by bail bondsmen in the USA simply ask fugitives to come back with them to appear in court?

Of course not.

They use a plethora of techniques ranging from lies to kidnapping.

Interestingly, a lot of that stuff IS still illegal but the US court system turns a blind eye to it as long as the fugitive ends up in front of a judge.

[Xaccers]

Which could be forever.

 

No end term, other then mission complete.

 

 

No, the warrant gets returned to the court, the council then have to take further legal action.

 

The thing is, before a council can get the bailiffs involved, the debtor is sent a summons to court. I know, I've got one on my desk right now which I've sorted out with the council last week.

The court decides if the debt is payable, and if so, issues a liability order.

On the summons, it doesn't matter if you name has the wrong spelling, as in if you're Mr Jones and it arrives for Mrs Janess. If it arrives for Mr Smith then it's not enforcable, likewise it cannot be addressed to "the occupier".

Each adult member of the household that the council is aware of would receive a summons.

The problem arises when there is a mistake and rather than deal with it in a calm and polite manner, people get all upperty and either ignore the summons if the name isn't quite right, or give the council a load of grief.

In my case, I'd missed a payment date as when I was between contracts I recieved council tax benefit (basically being out of work I called on the tax I've paid over the years to cover my rent, council tax and JSA, but that would be socialist and considered bad in some people's eyes on your side of the pond wouldn't it? ) and they didn't send out an updated payment schedule. So when I recieved a reminder to pay, I thought it was for the current month, not the previous, making me always a month behind. The summons has the final figure, plus £60 court costs for producing it. I'd paid all but £22.90 of it the week before the summons arrived, so just phoned up, was very polite, informed them I'd paid the outstanding £22.90 the night before online, set up a direct debit for this year's payments, and they cancelled the £60 charges - which they did not have to do.

 

[L473ncy]

It's not legal for you to search another person but the guys working airport security can.

It's not legal for you to pull over another vehicle if they're driving badly but a cop can.

It's not legal for you to cut open a persons chest but a doctor can.

 

I don't think you can really make that comparison. It's almost as if it were a strawman argument this is related to bailiffs not airport security, or rules of the road or medical procedures.

 

Yes the US as well as Canada have some pretty stupid laws but honestly, "I'm going to enter through an open window and it's perfectly legal"? Come on, if this were the states you'd probably get shot as it falls under castle doctrine. The person should have identified themselves and maybe not look suspicious like they were trying to break in (even if it was "legally"). If this was Canada, the local MP would be getting a letter as well as the liberal media and journalists getting a hold of this and running things on the government the MP's and anyone else involved and those people probably aren't going to get voted back in next time election time rolls around.

[Kyrian_Zenda]

Yes the US as well as Canada have some pretty stupid laws but honestly, "I'm going to enter through an open window and it's perfectly legal"? Come on, if this were the states you'd probably get shot as it falls under castle doctrine. The person should have identified themselves and maybe not look suspicious like they were trying to break in (even if it was "legally"). If this was Canada, the local MP would be getting a letter as well as the liberal media and journalists getting a hold of this and running things on the government the MP's and anyone else involved and those people probably aren't going to get voted back in next time election time rolls around.

This helps the OP how? She lives in the UK and was asking advice about how to deal with bailiffs, so all this ###### about how it wouldn't fly in the US is, frankly, pointless.

 

To be honest, I'm just waiting for Punky to let us know how things go, i think all this discussion about how it wouldn't happen in the US has pretty much already been done, so why don't you just leave it be, eh?

[Punkypink]

I'm not disputing that they have not followed the regulations in threatening to break in.

I'm disputing that their arriving at the same time the council closes was in anyway to their advantage.

They are allowed to bluff to try and get someone who owes money to pay up. They're not allowed to threaten anything illegal though, or harrass.

Think about it punky, using your logic they would have to gain something from arriving at that time. Now they know they can't force their way in, they know they're not going to come back and force their way in, they know it's a bluff. By saying "if you turn us away we'll come back with more people and gain entry" they're giving you the ability to tell them "fine, do that"

Even if you thought they were telling the truth, you've got nothing to lose turning them away and making them come back with more people.

So what are they gaining? If you don't owe them the money then you're not going to let them in no matter what they say, so it doesn't matter that you can't phone the council there and then.

If you did owe the money then you may give in and pay up, result, you've saved some money, the issue is resolved, they've got paid. If the council were open and you owed the money what are you going to do? Phone the council and be told "you owe us the money" so again it doesn't matter whether the council are open or not.

Perhaps it is very hard for you to understand the idea of making them come back later and inccuring a few extra hundred quids in "bailiff fees". You think making them come back with more people later can be done with no consequence? It is not "fine, do that". It is "fine, I'm taking a gamble on having to pay a few extra hundred £ at worst, or the hassle of a court wrangle at best".

 

NOTHING to lose? I suppose a few hundred quid and time is nothing to you. I do not have a lot of confidence in the legal system here, so while I might know that I am right, I'm not going to risk court action if it can be avoided. Thus, what to you might be nothing, is a significant something to me. Heck, even going to court and winning is still wasting my valuable time. That is NOT nothing. Neither is the psychological hassle of having to go to court. AND THEY KNOW THAT TOO. You're naive if you think they're just trying to be "helpful" or "efficient".

 

How HARD is it for you to get that?

 

To paraphrase you, pull the other one mate, it's got bells on it.

 

As for what they hoped to gain? Here is what I think. They told me to pay them first, and then claim the money back from the council. Given that it would involve the hassle of a small claims, and that there is always a small chance that I won't win my claim, they most certainly stand to earn some money. If I win the claim, they give the money back to Hackney Council. I had a look at the amount the bailiffs were demanding and the actual bill from the council itself. The amount does not tally. The question you should be asking is, what do they have to LOSE?

 

But I'm done debating with you. You just clearly do not see the point and dishonesty of their conduct. It's like shoddy builders cutting corners for the sake of "efficiency".

 

The building gets put up quicker... just like the bailiffs collect the debt quicker.

The building gets put up with less materials hence saving on cost.... just like the bailiffs saving on cost if they need to perform fewer visits.

The building.... you get the idea? Probably not.

 

Theres a reason why some things are, or ought to be, regulated.

 

As for you claims the OFT told you they were scammers, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

You're seriously trying to tell us that the OFT would prefer people not to be told that if they don't pay their debts quickly they'll incur further charges, and they consider bailiffs telling people that a scam, despite it being true, that you would indeed incur extra costs the longer you take to agree to pay?

The word "piffle" springs to mind.

I really don't need to give a *suitcase* what you think. I know what the person from OFT told me on the phone, so unless you're claiming that the OFT person was fibbing, I don't need YOUR stamp of "I believe you".

 

I won't bother telling you what word springs to mind after reading what you've posted. Like it or not, a complaint has been made, accepted and escalated. Would you perhaps like a case number if I get one? Or would that make you cry yourself to sleep at night at the "injustice" of how bailiffs are being treated?

[Xaccers]

YOU DON'T OWE THEM MONEY so why the hell would you give them any????

Seriously punky, take your lithium.

Now you're making out that you're worried about the additional costs by turning them away. To quote (it's not a paraphrase if you use all the words) what I said before, pull the other one it's got bells on it.

Someone who knows they owe no money will turn the bailiffs away, as you did, and as you say you know you owe no money.

Someone who believes they owe money and therefore would owe more money by turning bailiffs away, who then goes ahead and turns the bailiffs away is bloody stupid.

 

Incidently, none of what you posted addresses my point about there being no advantage to the time they arrived.

If you were able to sort it out with the council on the following Monday, the debt would be wiped out, so there would be no costs.

Exactly how would that differ from if you had been able to contact them on the Friday and sorted it out, thus wiping the debt out?

I take it if you had been able to speak to the council on Friday and they weren't able to sort it out, you'd have paid the bailiffs or let them in? Yeah?

Or would you have still told them to clear off and kept on at the council to get the debt wiped out as you don't owe anything?

 

 

If you'd read what I posted you'd know I'm disputing that the OFT's official line is that consumers should be kept in the dark about the additional charges they'll face by not paying the debt sooner rather than later, which is what you've told us they've said.

[Stealthbomber]

I don't think you can really make that comparison. It's almost as if it were a strawman argument this is related to bailiffs not airport security, or rules of the road or medical procedures.

Nope.

 

It's not a straw man argument.

I'm giving you examples of where people in specific professions are legally entitled to do things that a member of the general public isn't.

 

Here's another one...

Ever hear of those police sting operations where they send out letters to dozens of people with outstanding arrest warrants telling them they've won a lottery and they need to come to some office to collect their prize, only to find the police waiting for them when they get there?

 

That's a bluff and a lie.

 

Do you suppose the police are legally obliged to give them a prize or let them go because it was "unfair"?

[greg]

Do you suppose the bounty hunters employed by bail bondsmen in the USA simply ask fugitives to come back with them to appear in court?

I've seen 'Dog the bounty hunter'. That's all he ever seems to do.

 

 

Greg.

[MCXL]

Number one: Arrest is very different then collecting debits. We are not talking about a police action, we are talking about a court action. So your example of lottery stings is a bad one, and with it your traffic cop. these are not police actions, otherwise they would be handled by an agent of the police, not an agent of the local council or whatever it is. Plus there is such a thing as citizens arrest, but thats a big ol' crate of stupid stuff.

 

Number two: I have the right (at least here) to refuse an airport search, however its a condition of entering the private area of the commercial airport terminals, and of being a commercial passenger. Its a voluntary search, not one forced on me. If I don't like it, I can fly on a private plane. So again this is a poor example, as the same rule can apply anywhere. I could say, "I'm gonna search you to enter my house" and if they agree I search them. That's completely allowed, if somewhat anal. They have the right to refuse, (that same one as before) but then I don't have to let I'm in my house, or business, or what have you.

 

Number three: I can cut someones chest open. If all the proper paperwork is filed the only thing I am guilty of is practicing medicine without a license. (this is of course assuming he doesn't die, then I'm probably looking at reckless endangerment) however in other locales that all wouldn't apply. Either way it would be stupid of me to try and remove someones lung. Why don't we all just steer clear of any medicine debates.

 

DATA MISSING

 

Number six: The police are allowed to lie to a reasonable extent here in the united states (have NO IDEA what the standards are in the UK) but that only goes so far. Telling them they have won something is only to get them to a place. If however they promised them a release from their outstanding warrants and then arrested them it might not go as well for the police in court. The police are very careful about how they word things when doing 'stings' like this, otherwise they risk scrapping everything once they see a court. (also fun fact, police don't have to tell you they are a cop, its not entrapment, that is like the oldest urban legend ever. This is somewhat obvious as otherwise there would be no undercover work, ever.)

 

 

Honestly though, I don't feel like going 1,000 rounds over what means what or what have you. Lets just leave it at this: In the UK things are different, and when it comes to property rights, they seem less favorable for the individual then in the united states. What is ok there would never fly here.

 

Punky has gotten the advice she wanted, and the venting she wanted, it was a big win for everyone involved. I guess.

 

Mayhap this twine has traveled its trail?

[Punkypink]

YOU DON'T OWE THEM MONEY so why the hell would you give them any????

Seriously punky, take your lithium.

Because if the courts say so, and knowing how much hassle it is to fight courts, you have to pay even if you don't owe them? DUH?

 

Seriously punky, take your lithium.

Don't make bi-polar jokes. It's not nice.

 

Someone who knows they owe no money will turn the bailiffs away, as you did, and as you say you know you owe no money.

Someone who believes they owe money and therefore would owe more money by turning bailiffs away, who then goes ahead and turns the bailiffs away is bloody stupid.

You forget, somebody who doesn't owe money but is worried about the sort of bureaucratic court nonsense that result in that someone who will have to pay up anyway. If Hackney council can post us magistrate summons for someone who's moved out over a year ago, I'd rather not take any *fruitcage* chances and I have the right to be worried anyway. Seems like you're now telling me I cannot be worried about something going the other way even though I am in the right.

 

Incidently, none of what you posted addresses my point about there being no advantage to the time they arrived.

If you were able to sort it out with the council on the following Monday, the debt would be wiped out, so there would be no costs.

Exactly how would that differ from if you had been able to contact them on the Friday and sorted it out, thus wiping the debt out?

I take it if you had been able to speak to the council on Friday and they weren't able to sort it out, you'd have paid the bailiffs or let them in? Yeah?

The advantage is that they have me at a psychological advantage? I was tempted to pay them anyway and then sort it out with the council? Only problem being that, I don't actually have the amount of money they were asking for? Do you know how stressful it was until I checked to make sure they could NOT barge in? Jesus, not everyone is already that well versed in the law while standing on the doorstep dealing with the bailiff. Do you have ANY idea why people get scammed? BECAUSE THEY ARE PRESSURISED INTO MAKING A DECISION BEFORE THEY HAVE ALL THE FULL FACTS TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. Are you that bloody certain that contacting the council on the monday means I would get my money back? And don't you dare say its stupid to pay them when you don't owe anything. Given that I genuinely thought there WAS a chance they WOULD come back and take my stuff away, paying what I don't owe to prevent that was a considered option. At the point I was being ASKED to make that decision, I would NOT have known for sure that they do not have right of entry. The ONLY reason I took a gamble and told him to ###### off is due to 2 things:

 

1) Dude claims police do not need a warrent to gain entry, thus bailiffs also do not need a warrent to gain entry either. Having been raided, I know the former is false, so I had a FAINT HUNCH that the latter was false too.

 

2) I simply do not have the £500 quid they were asking.

 

You know what? You just want me to admit I'm stupid don't you? Alright. I was stupid because I genuinely considered paying them just so I wouldn't lose my stuff, even though I don't owe anything. I'm stupid that I have no trust in the legal system in protecting people from unfair claims and actions by big corporations. Yes I'm stupid because I didn't know the law and that I was prepared to pay were it not for 1) hinting that he might be lying about what he can actually do. I felt vulnurable, caught-out, and at a loss as to what to do. There you go. I'm weak, vulnurable and stupid. I'm sorry I'm not a big, cock-sure man like you who wouldn't be fazed if bailiffs come and knock on your door just after you've had a bath, am wrapped in a towel, and about to get ready to go out on a valentine's day cum chinese new year date with your partner.

 

That is what you want to hear isn't it? Congrats, you win, jerk.

[AceOfSkulls]

hine sight is 20-20

 

and Xaccers your basicly telling punky what she should of thought at the time, what reason would she have to lie about what the OFT told her?

 

Also as for the council offices being closed. If they say they are coming back to take her stuff in the evening and the council office is closed. there is no chance she could of cleared things up before the removal of property. Punky didnt know they couldnt break in and the Bailiff implied he would. So clearly it is an advantage to the bailiff to try and get paid before punky can phone the council to call off the dogs and know not to pay the bailiff.

 

Its good to hear that you had such an easy time with the Bailiff's and council, but it doesnt mean everyone else will have the exact same experience as YOU.

[Stealthbomber]

[stuff]

I wasn't suggesting that a bailiff has the same rights as a cop or security guard or doctor.

I was pointing out that people woriking if different professions have rights above and beyond that of a member of the public.

 

Nothing you said actually refutes that.

[creepingfear]

To get this topic slightly back on track - Punky, have you had any sucess with the council *rickroll* wads or any further ###### from the baillifs?

[Xaccers]

Because if the courts say so, and knowing how much hassle it is to fight courts, you have to pay even if you don't owe them? DUH?

 

 

Don't make bi-polar jokes. It's not nice.

 

 

You forget, somebody who doesn't owe money but is worried about the sort of bureaucratic court nonsense that result in that someone who will have to pay up anyway. If Hackney council can post us magistrate summons for someone who's moved out over a year ago, I'd rather not take any *fruitcage* chances and I have the right to be worried anyway. Seems like you're now telling me I cannot be worried about something going the other way even though I am in the right.

 

 

The advantage is that they have me at a psychological advantage? I was tempted to pay them anyway and then sort it out with the council? Only problem being that, I don't actually have the amount of money they were asking for? Do you know how stressful it was until I checked to make sure they could NOT barge in? Jesus, not everyone is already that well versed in the law while standing on the doorstep dealing with the bailiff. Do you have ANY idea why people get scammed? BECAUSE THEY ARE PRESSURISED INTO MAKING A DECISION BEFORE THEY HAVE ALL THE FULL FACTS TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. Are you that bloody certain that contacting the council on the monday means I would get my money back? And don't you dare say its stupid to pay them when you don't owe anything. Given that I genuinely thought there WAS a chance they WOULD come back and take my stuff away, paying what I don't owe to prevent that was a considered option. At the point I was being ASKED to make that decision, I would NOT have known for sure that they do not have right of entry. The ONLY reason I took a gamble and told him to ###### off is due to 2 things:

 

1) Dude claims police do not need a warrent to gain entry, thus bailiffs also do not need a warrent to gain entry either. Having been raided, I know the former is false, so I had a FAINT HUNCH that the latter was false too.

 

2) I simply do not have the £500 quid they were asking.

 

You know what? You just want me to admit I'm stupid don't you? Alright. I was stupid because I genuinely considered paying them just so I wouldn't lose my stuff, even though I don't owe anything. I'm stupid that I have no trust in the legal system in protecting people from unfair claims and actions by big corporations. Yes I'm stupid because I didn't know the law and that I was prepared to pay were it not for 1) hinting that he might be lying about what he can actually do. I felt vulnurable, caught-out, and at a loss as to what to do. There you go. I'm weak, vulnurable and stupid. I'm sorry I'm not a big, cock-sure man like you who wouldn't be fazed if bailiffs come and knock on your door just after you've had a bath, am wrapped in a towel, and about to get ready to go out on a valentine's day cum chinese new year date with your partner.

 

That is what you want to hear isn't it? Congrats, you win, jerk.

 

I've been there punk, with them at the door, oh and if I was making a manic depressive joke I'd have suggested fluoxetine.

You've got access to the internet.

You could have just told them to wait, and then checked it out online.

So what psychological advantage is there? They turn up and the coucnil is open, you ask them to wait and phone the council, they turn up and the council is closed, you ask them to wait and type "bailiffs rights" into google then tell them to jog on.

You are seriously being paranoid if you think they only have you to deal with, and they specifically timed it to arrive the moment the council closed. Why not come half an hour later if that was the case? Council would definitely be closed then wouldn't it? No chance of just catching someone before they head home.

[Habakure]

So then Punky, has this all been sorted out for you? Been following this thread and I am genuinely interested to see you get this sorted out (Hopefully with action being taken against the bailiffs, involved in this instance, for causing stress).

 

I have to say, not everyone is calm under pressure, so with that in mind, telling someone to google "your rights" when baillifs knock at your door, isn't really helping. Though I agree it is good advice, if, you are calm under pressure.

 

[Punkypink]

So then Punky, has this all been sorted out for you? Been following this thread and I am genuinely interested to see you get this sorted out (Hopefully with action being taken against the bailiffs, involved in this instance, for causing stress).

 

I have to say, not everyone is calm under pressure, so with that in mind, telling someone to google "your rights" when baillifs knock at your door, isn't really helping. Though I agree it is good advice, if, you are calm under pressure.

Good advice does not come from jerks. I'd like to see anyone say "wait there while I google my rights" after they've just stepped out of the shower when faced with something like this. Oh I suppose it'd help if I'm not 5 ft tall.

 

I suppose I didn't mention that the *bramston pickle* bailiff wasn't willing to wait either. Still, some people think they know better than the person who was actually there.

 

Anyways theres been nothing so far, except YET another magistrate summons for the person who moved out over a year ago for the council tax. How hard is it to get their departments to speak to each other? Bleah.

 

Urgh just rang them up. Seems they say that the dude who's moved out for over a year is liable for council tax because his name is on the contract renewal even though he isn't even legally allowed in the country at the moment. What a stupid rule. Why couldn't they have told him that when they acknowledged his email then. So now they say they're going to chase ME for the money HE owes for council tax even though he doesn't live here anymore. How convenient for the council, and how unethical.

[Stealthbomber]

I guess the lesson here is to do with sorting things out formally.

 

I suspect councils have a huge problem with making people accountable for council tax on student accomodation.

 

I can't help wondering if, for example, you've lived there for a year or more but never considered council tax "your problem" cos the agreement was in somebody elses name?

 

Have you actually looked at how long you've lived there and worked out what you SHOULD be paying?

Can't you talk to each of the residents and get them to accept their share of the charges and pay up?

 

Have you paid, or offered to pay what you DO owe?

I mean, you must owe something, right?

 

Or are all the other residents of the opinion that council tax is "somebody elses problem" as well?

 

I'm not having a go BTW.

I'm just trying to get an idea of what the situation really is.

 

Seems like it'd be far simpler for the council to make the landlord responsible for council tax and then he, in turn, could charge rent sufficient to cover it.

That way it wouldn't matter WHO was resident there and whether they scarper without paying.

It'd just be up to the residents to scrape together, say, £800 a month between them which'd include rent, utilities and tax, regardless of how many people live there.

[creepingfear]

Punky already stated in one of her first posts that she as a student is not liable for council tax, therefore they cannot legally pursue her for such monies. She has already stated that she has documentation from the council that as a student she is not liable for council tax and this debt.

 

Punky's only option is to take the matter to court and let the judge sort it out. Thats the only way it's going to get resolved.

[Stealthbomber]

TBH, I have no idea what the law is regarding students paying council tax.

It's been 20 years since I was in education and, even when I was, I didn't apply for or receive any kind of financial assistance.

 

If students don't have to pay council tax then surely all Punky and her mates need to do is get their college to provide proof that they have been a full-time student for the period when the council tax was due and that'll be the end of it?

 

I wonder if the house was rented by somebody who isn't/wasn't a student or if there are people who aren't full-time students living there right now?

I'm willing to bet that's the assumption the council is making.

 

If that IS the case then, frankly, Punky is up a creek without a paddle.