Offshoot from Sali's thread

[sali1023]

Sail 1023.

I will address the matter of the 'warrant' in a further post.

Worryingly, I have just received a PM to advise me that you have posted this identical question on another forum. I have now read your post and the replies from the owner of that forum.

Firstly, the poster answering you is well know to me and to this forum and other forums as well.

Sadly, this particular subject (bailiffs supposedly not being allowed to charge fees and allegations of 'fake' or 'bogus' warrants) is one that that forum owner has been arguing about since at least 2009 !!! The arguments have lead to people being banned from forums or posts being moderated. For a long time I have posted compelling evidence that the person is wrong and to do so again now will frankly be a waste of my time.

Furthermore, as you will have seen this morning, the forum owner has noticed that you have posted on this forum and he has posted the usual comment ( which has been posted by him many times) warning you of the dangers of replying to private messages and other very serious allegations (all of which are completely untrue). If you wish to take note of the rubbish written please do do. All that I would say to you is the following:

You have made clear on both forums that the court fine and bailiff fees were paid by you in March 2013. The new bailiff regulations came into effect 13 months afterwards in April 2014. The advice that you are being either relates to Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 or the Taking Control of Goods Regulations....both which came into effect on 6th April this year. Accordingly, they will be of no use to you at all.

Astonishingly, you are also being advised that you can make a formal complaint to the County Court for the judge to consider removing the bailiffs certificate from him.

The usual 'advice' about asking the court to refund the money to you is being given and the usual nonsense about escalating the complaint to the Secretary of State is also be advised. Before considering this course of action request evidence of previous successful cases. Be prepared for excuses.

Astonishingly you have been advised that you can have the Parliamentary Ombudsman return the money. This is completely an utter nonsense!!! Also, members of the public cannot approach the Parliamentary Ombudsman themselves. Instead, you have to ask your local MP to intervene on your behalf. So far, there is no evidence whatsoever of the Parliamentary Ombudsman dealing with such an enquiry and no evidence either of the Parliamentary Ombudsman returning any money'.None.

Finally, I see that the forum owner has stated that 'your partner still needs to pay the fine'. Given that you have stated very clearly that the fine and bailiff fees were paid in March 2013 this is a very odd comment indeed.

Thank you you for your reply. To be honest with you, I wants solids facts backed with evidence to see if there is a case to redress. When I googled about bailiffs, that was the first website that came up numerously in the first few matches and hence I posted in there. Later I realised that the advise given is not legal advise so I hope that someone in here with legal expertise can clarify.

My issue lies with the fact that if the correct procedure was not followed, what are my options? I am unsure about what the pre-regulations were and would like clarification in the matter.

[Milo]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Thank you you for your reply. To be honest with you, I wants solids facts backed with evidence to see if there is a case to redress. When I googled about bailiffs, that was the first website that came up numerously in the first few matches and hence I posted in there. Later I realised that the advise given is not legal advise so I hope that someone in here with legal expertise can clarify.

My issue lies with the fact that if the correct procedure was not followed, what are my options? I am unsure about what the pre-regulations were and would like clarification in the matter.

Thank you for your speedy response. If you are OK to wait I will respond later on (probably early evening) and will deal also with the 'misunderstanding' regarding the warrant. For the avoidance of doubt, the warrant is not 'bogus' and neither is it 'fake'.

[Wombats]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Thank you you for your reply. To be honest with you, I wants solids facts backed with evidence to see if there is a case to redress. When I googled about bailiffs, that was the first website that came up numerously in the first few matches and hence I posted in there. Later I realised that the advise given is not legal advise so I hope that someone in here with legal expertise can clarify.

My issue lies with the fact that if the correct procedure was not followed, what are my options? I am unsure about what the pre-regulations were and would like clarification in the matter.

To be honest, you are unlikely to get 'legal advice' as in advice from a solicitor on any forum. However, solicitors are often not the best placed people to give advice on enforcement issues. The advice you're receiving here is from a highly experienced person who is very highly regarded in the enforcement industry by enforcement companies and right up to the Ministry of Justice. Because they are so knowlegeable, it suits other forums to try to discredit them with ridiculous, false allegations.

I assure you there are very few people in the country better placed to give impartial, expert help than you are getting here. To be given it free of charge is a bonus.

I freely admit to be biased, but that is for a good reason. I know the huge number of cases Milo has resolved successfully. Ask for solid evidence of success elsewhere before acting on any advice given - you will see posts discrediting me as well probably appear now. That, in itself, speaks volumes.

[pepsie]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

To be honest, you are unlikely to get 'legal advice' as in advice from a solicitor on any forum. However, solicitors are often not the best placed people to give advice on enforcement issues. The advice you're receiving here is from a highly experienced person who is very highly regarded in the enforcement industry by enforcement companies and right up to the Ministry of Justice. Because they are so knowlegeable, it suits other forums to try to discredit them with ridiculous, false allegations.

I assure you there are very few people in the country better placed to give impartial, expert help than you are getting here. To be given it free of charge is a bonus.

I freely admit to be biased, but that is for a good reason. I know the huge number of cases Milo has resolved successfully. Ask for solid evidence of success elsewhere before acting on any advice given - you will see posts discrediting me as well probably appear now. That, in itself, speaks volumes.

I second every aspect of the above post and I expect the OP has already drawn their own conclusions to the 'advice' or lack of it, they have received from the site in question.

It would seem the quality of the advice given by Milo is a thorn in the side for some, therefore being unable to challenge her advice they have taken matters to the next level and look to attack her personally.

[Guest]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

I second every aspect of the above post and I expect the OP has already drawn their own conclusions to the 'advice' or lack of it, they have received from the site in question.

It would seem the quality of the advice given by Milo is a thorn in the side for some, therefore being unable to challenge her advice they have taken matters to the next level and look to attack her personally.

Yes it is true and anyone else who happens to agree with her apparently, unfortunately to not agree would mean getting the information wrong.

[ploddertom]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

I second every aspect of the above post and I expect the OP has already drawn their own conclusions to the 'advice' or lack of it, they have received from the site in question.

It would seem the quality of the advice given by Milo is a thorn in the side for some, therefore being unable to challenge her advice they have taken matters to the next level and look to attack her personally.

Sorry that this is off topic and I very rarely make any comment made elsewhere but in this case I don't know who they think you are Pepsie or where you live but having known your husband through business matters for more years than I care to mention it comes as a great surprise to see someone says you have moved twice recently. It must therefore have been your doppelganger that greeted me a couple of weeks ago either that or your OH keeps a harem of doubles. Someone has got their wires seriously crossed. Or have you secretly won the Lottery and bought property all over the place.

[pepsie]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Sorry that this is off topic and I very rarely make any comment made elsewhere but in this case I don't know who they think you are Pepsie or where you live but having known your husband through business matters for more years than I care to mention it comes as a great surprise to see someone says you have moved twice recently. It must therefore have been your doppelganger that greeted me a couple of weeks ago either that or your OH keeps a harem of doubles. Someone has got their wires seriously crossed. Or have you secretly won the Lottery and bought property all over the place.

Its ok PT, no dopplegangers, no harem of doubles and sadly no lottery win but I know who I am and where I live (and have lived for the last 25years) but if Jason wants Northumberland to be 'down' country and If he is so confident his 'research/tracing shows me to be a 'Sue Bristow in Sussex' then he is welcome to pop around for coffee and cake anytime he likes. that I am not 'Sue Bristow' or indeed living in Sussex is by the by but hey, let the plonker talk his way out of that one!!!

[Wombats]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Wombats said:

You will see posts discrediting me as well probably appear now. That, in itself, speaks volumes.

As predicted nearly a day ago, this has now come true.

Another site owner wrote:

You will see from Marstons own company warrant, it is not remotely compliant with these rules. Also rule 52.8.2(b) applies in connection with production of that warrant.

Another site's member wrote:

I have no idea why he is citing legislation about warrants with errors.

I think given the site owner's comments, the reason for me citing the legislation is self evident.

The same site's member wrote:

You can see by his big red writing that he likes to seek attention

Actually it was more to do with highlighting relevant sections which had not been mentioned, but which are clearly relevant. If they wish to use my post to try to discredit me as predicted, that is, of course, their prerogative. I hope you found it helpful.

[Guest]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

That is something new and something I was not aware of so I would be interested in the legislation. Being in a relationship does not give me the authority or responsiblity for a third party (although I agree there may be some exceptions where there would need to be prior agreement/ documented evidence e,g power of attorney etc).

The question is that the debt has nothing to do with me. I was not named on the warrant. The bailiffs pressurised me into paying the debt. If this is not the correct procedure, what would be the course of a redress?

Thanks

Perhaps m that case it does not give you"authority" to query the account either, as far as the court will be concerned if the order and fees where correct, it was the debtors address and the funds were paid on behalf of the debtor, then there is no cause for complaint.

The fact regarding the warrant are not an issue as said, even if there were technical problems with it does not invalidate it in any way, this is also in the legislation.

or are you saying that the funds were extorted out of your personal account and were not anything to do with the debtor ?

[Guest]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Did you mean this part:

Who may enter into a controlled goods agreement

14.
—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a controlled goods agreement, as defined by paragraph 13(4)

of Schedule 12, may only be entered into by an enforcement agent and—

(a) a debtor who is not a child;
(b) a person, aged 18 or over, authorised by the debtor to enter into a controlled goods
agreement on the debtor’s behalf; or
(c) a person in apparent authority who is on the premises, where those premises are used
(whether wholly or partl) to carry on a trade or business

There was no authorisation. The debtor was not present & could not be contacted by phone. And also it was the bailiffs first visit.

Part c would not apply as it was not a business.

Sorry where does it say that the debtor must be present, presumably the preceding letter of attendance was sent by the EA, the the debtor would have been aware of them coming ?

[Milo]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Thank you for the information. I will look into it tomorrow.

Going back to the main question for now, the debt belonged to my partner - it was in his name alone. He was not present at any time when the bailiffs came to the door. The bailiffs were aware of this. Yet, I was made to pay. Is this something that can be redressed and if so, to whom?

Thanks

Sali,

I will provide a final reply for you in a moment but one point that needs to be mentioned concerns your above comment.

It is no secret that I have a website and a commercial business providing bailiff advice (which I do not advertise on any forum). Over the past 8 years I cannot tell you how many people have told me that they received a bailiff visit for a court fine and that their mother/father/girlfriend/partner etc and had told the bailiff that the debtor was not at home when in fact....the debtor really was present.

Consequently, bailiffs are known not to take as 'gospel' an explanation from the person answering the door that the debtor was not at the property . Also, in your case you say that the bailiffs visited 'in the evening' in March 2013 (when it was obvioulsy dark) and possibly the bailiffs did not believe you.

Just because you called you partner on his mobile and he failed to answer does not I'm afraid prove that he was not hiding in the kitchen or lounge.

I just wanted to make this point clear.

[Wombats]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

One slight correction Milo, I don't believe it has to be the debtors own MP, though of course it is most likely to be. It can be any MP technically speaking. I only mention it to avoid it being picked up on elsewhere.

[Wombats]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Sali,

Also please note another important point. You are being advised by someone (keen to keep a copy of Milo's advice lest she delete it) to complain to the council as they are responsible.

This is a Magistrates' Court fine, so I am unsure what it has to do with the council. You seem pretty on the ball from your comments, so I suspect you had already noticed this further error.

I would also go a step further and say if you are receiving private messages encouraging you to take a particular course of action from anyone here you hit the exclamation mark (bottom left of each post) and alert the site team here to the fact. They would not be at all happy I suspect.

[Milo]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Think these are the ones you pointed to.

Amethyst.

I have responded to the OP's queries on this thread and should therefore not need to make any further posts.

On the matter of warrants and whether or not they can be 'fake' or 'bogus' you will have seen that have started a new thread regarding Distress Warrant and I have copyied an Official response from HMCTS on the subject.

Would it be possible for you to copy the three attached 'warrants' (from your post number 20) onto the new thread and I can respond accordingly. That way the threads are kept separate and will leead to less confusion.

[Guest]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Sali,

This is a Magistrates' Court fine, so I am unsure what it has to do with the council. You seem pretty on the ball from your comments, so I suspect you had already noticed this further error.

LOL yes I was going to bring that up but it appears I have been banned again, I wonder which of their rules I broke this time ? Probably the one about pushing the usual flawed advice.

The OP should also consider why people who dissagree are banned in this way it does not happen on any other legitimate consumer website, (and I post on them all) if they are mistaken isn't it easier to just quote the legislature and point it out, of course when they have no coherent argument(or knowledge) it is the only way to stop a reasonable voice being heard.

Something to keep in mind before seriously considering any advice offered over there.