Marstons after bSkyb debt to Public House

[dt1979]

Hi all,

Excellent looking forum - where has it been all my life?

The problem here is maybe a bit awkward as I don't know every single fact, but is the problem of a very close friend who is now very worried and not able to do what I am doing here for him on a computer.

Seems as though he and his girlfriend of some years have done the usual and hoped a problem would go away.

They run a pub together and have owed a Sky bill for showing Sky when they shouldn't have. There is no proof that they have done so nor has any been produced and it has been mentioned that Sky offered to scupper any accusations if they took out a package with them. Which is very expensive and they haven't as they have struggled to make ends meet and stay above board, etc, etc.

Now Marsdons are involved and have walked in to the pub and my friend, who was present, signed the list of things that the bailiff can take (is it a levy)? He is not the named person who owes the debt though, his girlfriend the landlord is. I thought that a payment agreement has to be put in place for them to do such a thing no? There wasn't. They have listed things such as the tables and chairs which have been there since well before their time and stock (alcohol) within the fridges.

My friends are petrified as Marsdons have said they are to call back this week, they don't have the 'luxury' of not having to open the door. Doesn't sound right to me.

She runs the pub for an external organisation by the way.

What steps can they take? They presume that by the tactics used by Marsdons that they have to find the debt (£12000 originally and but upto £17000) now and in one hit, I beg to differ. Surely they can put in place a payment plan?

Help!

[ploddertom]

Re: Marstons after bSkyb debt to Public House

Is there a Court Order in place for this? If so did they originally receive the documentation?

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons after bSkyb debt to Public House

If the fixtures, fittings and other chattels (alcohol and furniture) belong to a third-party, the levy your friend signed is, in all probability, invalid and the bailiff/HCEO could find it difficult to explain this to a District Judge or High Court Master if the matter was formally challenged. Both bailiffs and HCEOs know very well they cannot levy on/seize third-party goods, but will try their best to con debtors into believing they can.

[dt1979]

Re: Marstons after bSkyb debt to Public House

Is there a Court Order in place for this? If so did they originally receive the documentation?

I have found out some more about the initial visit after seeing the letter from Marston.

The visit by their "officer who levied execution at your address under a High Court writ" happened just before Christmas and was what they call a "Walking possesion of the goods seized under the terms of the Walking Possesion Order left with you as authorised by The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004".

It wasn't a Baillif who called then?

Some bits below here that confuse me, although it does also state that they should contact them to discuss a payment plan. Would they accept £50-£100 per month?

It also states that the list of goods enclosed is a "copy of our brief inventory of the goods seized" and that they should note that "my inventory does not comprise any exhaustive list of the goods we may remove in the evnt that execution continues. A High Court execution is not confined only to those goods seized on a first visit". It goes on to ask them to inform them at once in the event of a bailiff attempting to levy on the goods they have seized and to also inform them of their involvement and contact details.

I have advised them that they should see a CAB debt specialist immediately or call them to arrange a payment plan but they need are worried that somebody is going to call whilst the pub is open and take the goods.


Thing is though, they believe that they have a case not to owe the money but the worry of a visit to seize goods is actually scaring them into just getting on and succombing to the order? Can they go about challenging the order?


Bluebottle - I actually thought that and suggested that they get the owner of the goods to write and sign a letter to clarify that they are the actual owners.


Thanks for your replies and thanks in advance for any firther advice.

[dt1979]

Re: Marstons after bSkyb debt to Public House

Is there a Court Order in place for this? If so did they originally receive the documentation?

I have found out some more about the initial visit after seeing the letter from Marston.

The visit by their "officer who levied execution at your address under a High Court writ" happened just before Christmas and was what they call a "Walking possesion of the goods seized under the terms of the Walking Possesion Order left with you as authorised by The High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004".

It wasn't a Baillif who called then?

Some bits below here that confuse me, although it does also state that they should contact them to discuss a payment plan. Would they accept £50-£100 per month?

It states that the list of goods enclosed is a "copy of our brief inventory of the goods seized" and that they should note that "my inventory does not comprise any exhaustive list of the goods we may remove in the event that execution continues. A High Court execution is not confined only to those goods seized on a first visit". It goes on to ask them to inform them at once in the event of a bailiff attempting to levy on the goods they have seized and to also inform them of their involvement and contact details.

I have advised them that they should see a CAB debt specialist immediately or call them to arrange a payment plan but they need are worried that somebody is going to call whilst the pub is open and take the goods.


Thing is though, they believe that they have a case not to owe the money but the worry of a visit to seize goods is actually scaring them into just getting on and succombing to the order? Can they go about challenging the order?


Bluebottle - I actually thought that and suggested that they get the owner of the goods to write and sign a letter to clarify that they are the actual owners.


Thanks for your replies and thanks in advance for any further advice.

[ploddertom]

Re: Marstons after bSkyb debt to Public House

Personally I think they have an uphill struggle if they have left it this long. The levy should have been challenged within 5 days as the HCEO can now assume there is no 3rd party claim to goods & could be removed prior to auction. Any claim made now will probably be subject to Interpleader proceedings which will stretch proceedings out, in the meantime enforcement will continue.

Without knowing much or the original Court Order it is difficult to comment, but sufficient to say that most business debts are classed as Forthwith Judgments meaning the whole amount is due at once. Some Judges are realistic in the present economic climate to allow instalment payments but given the size of the debt owing these could still be out of their league.

There is one application they should make immediately and that is for a Stay of Execution which if granted would halt all further enforcement action and charges. The grounds for applying could be:
1 - they cannot afford the fees demanded
2 - the HCEO is threatening to remove & sell goods seized, some of which may the property of a 3rd party
- there could be other grounds depending on the original Order

The application is made on Form N244 available from HMCTS website - cost £80

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons after bSkyb debt to Public House

What evidence have Sky offered to prove their claim? When are they alleging these breaches of copyright took place? Was the friend served with legal papers? It does sound very much that Sky have been less than complaint with the law and if they have lied to or mislead a court, that could be very serious indeed. If this does turn out to be the case, the HCEO will have to withdraw and bill Sky for wasting their time, which I wouldn't blame them if they did.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons after bSkyb debt to Public House

What evidence have Sky offered to prove their claim? When are they alleging these breaches of copyright took place? Was the friend served with legal papers? It does sound very much that Sky have been less than complaint with the law and if they have lied to or mislead a court, that could be very serious indeed. If this does turn out to be the case, the HCEO will have to withdraw and bill Sky for wasting their time, which I wouldn't blame them if they did.

Why shouldn't they lie to a court?

After all, didn't the Murdochs (spit) lie to Parliament?

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons after bSkyb debt to Public House

Why shouldn't they lie to a court?

After all, didn't the Murdochs (spit) lie to Parliament?

Very true, CC, very true.