Marstons Bailiffs

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Personnally there letter informing you of the barristor is just an attempt to scare you off, end of day they know they going to lose so its in there interest to scare you off, its not however in their interest to employ a barristor when its clear they have a case they are likely to lose, as they would have such costs to pay themselves as well as paying your own legal costs for you should you win.

Even if they did win in the county court, the rules on costs are such that they could only claim a fraction of what their barrister had charged them.

[teaboy2]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Even if they did win in the county court, the rules on costs are such that they could only claim a fraction of what their barrister had charged them.

Lol yeah thats true, so they stuffed either way

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Even if they did win in the county court, the rules on costs are such that they could only claim a fraction of what their barrister had charged them.

Lol yeah thats true, so they stuffed either way

As could be their solicitors, if copies of that remarkably quaint letter were to reach the Ministry of Justice, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the OFT and the SRA, one or more of whom may be able to persuade the plods that attempting to pervert the course of justice can be a criminal offence.

[dawney66]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Marstons solicitor has also informed me of this on the telephone as the court has not had a hearing and i have proved that Mr Bright is a bully and a liar yet the court has stated that as far as they are concerned Mr Bright is a fit and proper person to hold a certificate and I am appealing that decision, i have been to see a solicitor and he is under no doubt that the paperwork has not been looked at !!! as the proof that i have is all photographic I informed there solicitor that I am appealing and she said go ahead but will cost you a lot of money as we will hire a barrister and charge it to you !!

[dawney66]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Mr Bright has also disappeard off the bailiff register ?????
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Bailiff awarded costs against complainant

On the 4th February 2010 at Luton County Court, a form 4 "certification complaint" made against Marston Group was dismissed, with costs of £1175 awarded against the complainant.
It was highlighted that form 4 complaints had a serious implication for a bailiffs ability to earn a living and that if a Judge dismisses a complaint, the courts have jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances to award costs against the complainant.
Paul Caddy, Director of Group Operations commented: "Marston Group views all complaints seriously and we will not tolerate misconduct or a failure to meet the standards of behaviour that are set for our officers. This decision confirms the high standards of behaviour displayed by our officers and sends a clear message to those individuals who bring un-merited complaints in the County Court - costs will be awarded against you."
February 2010


This is also on Marston Group website

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

This is also on Marston Group website

As is a PDF file - link - which comprises their application forms for the post of bailiff or "Enforcement Agent".

One may be interested to learn that nowhere in the final four pages, which detail the qualities and job description of the post, is there any mention of truthfulness.

[teaboy2]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Mr Bright has also disappeard off the bailiff register ?????
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Bailiff awarded costs against complainant

On the 4th February 2010 at Luton County Court, a form 4 "certification complaint" made against Marston Group was dismissed, with costs of £1175 awarded against the complainant.
It was highlighted that form 4 complaints had a serious implication for a bailiffs ability to earn a living and that if a Judge dismisses a complaint, the courts have jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances to award costs against the complainant.
Paul Caddy, Director of Group Operations commented: "Marston Group views all complaints seriously and we will not tolerate misconduct or a failure to meet the standards of behaviour that are set for our officers. This decision confirms the high standards of behaviour displayed by our officers and sends a clear message to those individuals who bring un-merited complaints in the County Court - costs will be awarded against you."
February 2010


This is also on Marston Group website

I wouldn't let the case they mention (or more like do not mention but just give date off) stop you from claiming. Each case is different, and i see no reason why you would not be successful, after all they took your car when the debt had already been paid and they have treated you appalingly.

Truth is, as they have failed to state the name of the case in question, then no one knows what the claim that claimant was making against them was. It basically shows, yes they was supposedly a claim made against them that they defended, but whether they actually was a claim or not or what the circumstances of the claim were remain unclear. Basically Marston are simply boasting and using it as a way of discouraging people from making a claim against them.

[dawney66]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

My main question to the court has been how can you order someone to pay costs on a complaint it is not a court case the only reason you complain to the court is because they issue there license so they are responsible but surely you dont have to pay to make a complaint ???

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

I wouldn't let the case they mention (or more like do not mention but just give date off) stop you from claiming. Each case is different, and i see no reason why you would not be successful, after all they took your car when the debt had already been paid and they have treated you appalingly.

Truth is, as they have failed to state the name of the case in question, then no one knows what the claim that claimant was making against them was.

Nor would they even if the name of the claimant had been published, as County Court judgements are not reported. It is, therefore, about as useful as a page from the 1964 Perry Mason Annual.

It basically shows, yes they was supposedly a claim made against them that they defended, but whether they actually was a claim or not or what the circumstances of the claim were remain unclear. Basically Marston are simply boasting and using it as a way of discouraging people from making a claim against them.

As such, it may be worth a complaint in itself.

It does seem a pity, though, that it would not be possible for a judge to order Mr Bright to change his name to Mr Stupid.

[teaboy2]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

My main question to the court has been how can you order someone to pay costs on a complaint it is not a court case the only reason you complain to the court is because they issue there license so they are responsible but surely you dont have to pay to make a complaint ???

problem is that it is a court case, where you the claiment, and like in the majority of court cases, the winning party is awarded costs to cover their legal fees etc. Though as i said you do have a strong case, so i can not see you losing unless their was a huge case of misjustice.

Nor would they even if the name of the claimant had been published, as County Court judgements are not reported. It is, therefore, about as useful as a page from the 1964 Perry Mason Annual. Exactly lol


As such, it may be worth a complaint in itself.

It does seem a pity, though, that it would not be possible for a judge to order Mr Bright to change his name to Mr Stupid.

I agree, its certainly worth a complaint as they clearly using it to tell people "you make claim against us and you WILL pay our costs". Mr stupid Cartainly sounds better then Mr Bright (nice but dim) lol