Help marstons charged £403

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Lied about what, bluebottle?
The court letter clearly states a warrant for distress had been issued.
It also clearly states the bailiff can charge its fees after the fine is paid.

If by 'upfront' you mean 'under duress' - I agree.
I usually take 'upfront' to mean 'in advance'.
This was actually a very overdue payment.

I am not aware whether the bailiff needs to use the original warrant - but is that such a big point, really?
And does that constitute fraud? Is it a big enough issue to take action over, in court?

I don't think they do to be honest

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

No I don't think any acted beyond the law.

The bailiff are allowed to charge fees and pass on fees for locksmiths unfortunately.

The OP seeks redress for these charges because the fine had been settled, in essence these are enforcement fees made to recover the fine. So they should be returned, simple as that, in my view.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Unfortunately, the evidence clearly indicates the bailiff lied. They are not allowed to charge upfront fees. That is fraud, per se.

Lied about what, bluebottle?
The court letter clearly states a warrant for distress had been issued.
It also clearly states the bailiff can charge its fees after the payment has been made.

I usually take 'upfront' to mean 'in advance'.
This was actually a very overdue payment.
If by 'upfront' you mean 'under duress' - I agree.

I am not aware whether the bailiff needs to use the original warrant - but is that such a big point, really?
And does that constitute fraud? Is it a big enough issue to take action in fraud over, in court?

Deception of locksmith and police, maybe.

I think I'll leave the thread there.
I did my best for the OP in #109.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Oh dear.
Page 1 - post 24 - MARS 4

The court allows collection of fees after payment of fine. Period.
What is in doubt, is the method.

Whether the court can get away with allowing £300 is beyond me.
I refer to my post #109.
(I'm outta here!)

Unfortunately, the evidence clearly indicates the bailiff lied. They are not allowed to charge upfront fees. That is fraud, per se.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Oh dear.
Page 1 - post 24 - MARS 4

The court allows collection of fees after payment of fine. Period.
What is in doubt, is the method.

Whether the court can get away with allowing £300 is beyond me.
I refer to my post #109.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

It was minus the £85 already incurred for the letter, has that been paid in with the fine, then there would be no ground for further enforcement. In the circumstances, the actions of the court and Marstons may appear to be disproportionate and merely to garner extra fees for the bailiff, it all depends on how a court would view the status of the £85 letter fee, is it contractual between court and bailiff, or does the debtor have to pay a consideration for a contract they are not party to? This question has not yet been answered satisfactorily.

According to the contract, the £215 fee is only payable if the bailiff has to attend following the initial letter and they receive no response from the defendant. However, in this case, the OP paid both fine and admin fee direct to the court and the court informed Marstons of this. Under those circumstances, Marstons had no grounds for attending the OP's home. It is clearly evident that the bailiff who turned up with the police and a locksmith in tow lied through his teeth, evidenced by what the court subsequently told the OP. My gut-feeling is that the bailiff has committed a number of offences under the Fraud Act 2006 by his words and actions and turning up with the police and a locksmith may constitute an offence under Section 21, Theft Act 1968.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Personally I think the warrant would be legitimate as far as the OP is concerned. If they are seeking redress for the the fees then the only avenue open would be to say that the locksmith and all attempts to force entry under the stated legislation was not reasonable, in that it the costs were incurred in order to recover the fine and that this was already paid.

Just to clarify what you are saying GT, would I be correct in thinking you are saying that the OP believed the letterhead warrant the bailiff was waving about was genuine and paid on the grounds of that, even though the fine and admin fee had already been paid previously and the bailiff, therefore, had no lawful reason to attend her home? If this is what you are saying, the bailiff's words and actions indicate the bailiff acted ultra vires. If the OP is currently on this thread, could they please confirm if they were lead to believe they were liable to pay these additional fees, even though they had already paid the fines and admin fees some time previously?

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Personally I think the warrant would be legitimate as far as the OP is concerned. If they are seeking redress for the the fees then the only avenue open would be to say that the locksmith and all attempts to force entry under the stated legislation was not reasonable, in that it the costs were incurred in order to recover the fine and that this was already paid.

It was minus the £85 already incurred for the letter, has that been paid in with the fine, then there would be no ground for further enforcement. In the circumstances, the actions of the court and Marstons may appear to be disproportionate and merely to garner extra fees for the bailiff, it all depends on how a court would view the status of the £85 letter fee, is it contractual between court and bailiff, or does the debtor have to pay a consideration for a contract they are not party to? This question has not yet been answered satisfactorily.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Marstons' letterhead warrants bear no resemblance to what is actually written on court warrants. The only warrant that would have any legal bearing would be the court warrant. Unless the court warrant clearly states the defendant is liable to pay the bailiff's fees, then, in this case, the bailiff's actions, including hiring a locksmith and hoodwinking the police, may well prove to be ultra vires.

Someone needs to challenge the validity of a warrant with Marston's letterhead on it then, especially the +£85 scribbled on it for locksmith, as is this not defacement? and if they did this to an official court issued warrant they could be in a spot of bother?

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Personally I think the warrant would be legitimate as far as the OP is concerned. If they are seeking redress for the the fees then the only avenue open would be to say that the locksmith and all attempts to force entry under the stated legislation was not reasonable, in that it the costs were incurred in order to recover the fine and that this was already paid.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Bluebottle, could the inclusion of contractual payments, into a Warrant to collect a legally imposed fine be regarded as repugnant to the law, or a breach of due process by adding additional financial penalties not handed down at time of sentencing?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Agreed.

The issue is , was the bailiff entitled to call the services of anyone in order to force entry.

Or to put it another way was the forcing of entry either reasonable or legal under the terms of the warrant he presented.

To repeat IMO the issues are.

Can a warrant which only has the fees remaining as outstanding still entitle the bailiff to force entry.

Does the warrant presented have to be the actual warrant issued by the court as long as the information it contains is correct,( I suspect it does but would like to see the documented proof.)

Marstons' letterhead warrants bear no resemblance to what is actually written on court warrants. The only warrant that would have any legal bearing would be the court warrant. Unless the court warrant clearly states the defendant is liable to pay the bailiff's fees, then, in this case, the bailiff's actions, including hiring a locksmith and hoodwinking the police, may well prove to be ultra vires.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The warrant is on page 1, post 24 - no 2.

Sorry I was ambiguous I meant advising in general, where there is not sight of the warrant, not specifically this one, where all paperwork is available this is why i said I would withdraw to avoid confusion. So it would appear HMCS passed OPs payment, he made into the court December to Marstons along with raising the warrant. If OP had paid the £85 fee already added for the letter, with the fine, then arguably it would have ended at that point, as only the fine was paid, they have gone in for the kill for the full monty of fees they can charge.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I wish I could share your optimism. I'm not sure they are really being challenged, nor particularly that people are waking up to this. I agree they are more aware of their rights, but to force an issue like this needs money, and if you have bailiffs chasing you, it's unlikely you have much of that to spare.

I know exactly where you are coming from, and I believe that many of these ideas follow the reasoning of Brian Gerrish who can be watched on You Tube and who is very plausible, it certainly makes interesting viewing. Quite how far things will really go in reality is another thing in my opinion though.

I question also whether such drastic measures as a confidentiality agreement would be used for £300 worth of fees which, at the end of the day are clearly stated in a contract. What is not stated is that they should be paid by the debtor.

Brian Gerrish has the evidence to back up what he says. I think you will find what the MoJ would want to keep quiet is the fact that the £300 fees are a contractual matter, not backed by any legal provision. If that got out into the public domain, those who had paid such fees would be legally-entitled, in my opinion, to seek reimbursement of them. If that were to happen, MoJ could be hit by a tidal wave of claims.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Without sight of the warrant and what it contains, it is nigh on impossible to be objective, I will withdraw from posting on this forum to avoid confusion

The warrant is on page 1, post 24 - no 2.

Update: I see bluebottle feels the bailiff should have used the original court warrant, and this is on Marston-headed paper.
But is that such a big issue? The court clearly states in its own letter there is a warrant.
Unless the court letter were fraudulent.
I'm betting it isn't...