Help marstons charged £403

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Don't hold your breath, but it wouldn't surprise me if this coalition government is pandering more to the civil enforcement industry, the debt collection industry and the banksters than listening to consumer groups who want to see a major clampdown on certificated bailiffs and HCEOs.

You can guarantee a place at the trough they are.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I must confess to not having read the case, though I've had the link for several days. The brief summary is useful, thank you.

I am not sure this makes that much of a change, based purely on the summary. It was my understanding that a court judgment could already be challenged if the debtor found it unaffordable. Does a N245 not serve this exact purpose? Courts don't like judgments not being affordable, and are always willing, in my experience, to do a means test.

I agree that with bailiffs it can take some pushing for in a Magistrates' Court, but the procedure that has to be followed always results in it going back for means testing eventually if the bailiff is unsuccessful. We always advise they go to the court in person (ideally with a doctors note as it helps) day after day after day asking for a means test hearing, until they get one, as per the bailiff guide.

Courts already means test as a matter of course when passing judgment; if the debtor is not there, they have to apply for a variation so their means are tested and a variation to the order is made to take account of the person's financial situation.

As I haven't read it, how does this judgment change this situation?

In a nutshell, the courts system is in a mess. If the private sector become more involved in the administration of justice, the situation will become worse, not better. The C-word (Corruption) will creep in even more than it has already. The JR slams the HMCTS computer system and means form as "not fit for purpose". Back to the drawing board on those two points. Also, the question arises as to whether a defendant is being given sufficient time to pay fines before enforcement is considered. As threads on LB have shown, some courts are refusing means hearings which, strictly speaking, they should not do and neither should defendants have to repeatedly apply to the courts for such hearings.

On the face of it, HMCTS needs to sort out its computer system to enable it to keep track of fines, consolidate them and, if necessary, adjust the time a defendant is given to pay the fines in accordance with their means. This is clearly not happening. Defaulting to certificated bailiffs seems to be the norm rather than the last resort, which it should be.

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Thanks - that clarifies it. It's a good judgment if that's the case, as that was always how they were supposed to work. I was not aware that any hearing should be adjourned if the defendant didn't appear, hence them making judgments and us using the N245 to good effect for people.

Thanks for the clarification.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Thanks - that clarifies it. It's a good judgment if that's the case, as that was always how they were supposed to work. I was not aware that any hearing should be adjourned if the defendant didn't appear, hence them making judgments and us using the N245 to good effect for people.

Thanks for the clarification.

If the correct procedures are adhered to, on the first non-appearance, the hearing should be adjourned. If the defendant fails to appear a second time, then the court can issue a Bench Warrant for the police to arrest the defendant and bring them before the court. Fining a defendant in their absence and then having to have them swear SDs because the defendant was not notified of the date of the hearing or because someone has cocked-up and the hearing should never have taken place at all is becoming a regular occurrence. It is time to crack down on those who are behind it and remove them from the courts system. Personally, I am of the opinion that these so-called "Business Consultants" have had too much say and the politicians, like idiots, have followed every word of the bad advice these "consultants" hand out.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Wonder what would happen to Marstons if say a trucker was convicted on Talivan evidence by a half asleep magistrate, it went to appeal, tachograph evidence ignored by the magistrate compels the Judge to quosh the conviction. but inept court staff send the contested fine and conviction to Marstons, who try to enforce after appeal has quoshed the conviction for their non fees?

I would say they would be in the carp. I'm sure this scenario is highly probable if indeed it has already been played out, so bad is HMCS admin.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I would not be at all surprised if, in the light of the JR, HMCTS are forced to review cases where fines have been imposed. If the cock-ups have started to happen since the commercial sector got involved in the judicial process, this would tend to demonstrate that commercial interests should be kept well away from the administration of justice. And that includes taking private bailiff companies out of it altogether.

[shaz]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

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?

Hi I was told by the court manager and Mr Kendal that I was liable to pay these charges.

[shaz]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Just an update.
I have had a reply from the court who issued the warrant and they have confirmed..
The Marston's Group does NOT require any other waarant for FORCE ENTRY.
I had also requested a copy of the orginal court warrant from Marston's Group and they have emailed me a copy which just looks like a LETTER HEADED warrant,but I have emailed Marston's again asking them to send me the Orginal.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

To the best of my knowledge and belief, bailiff companies under contract to HMCTS need authorisation from the court before forcing entry as they have to justify forced entry. They do not have an unrestricted right or power of entry. Escalate this matter to the HMCTS Regional Contracts Manager who is more senior to the AEM and Court Manager. Ultimately, this matter would be referred to one of the Heads of Enforcement Operations at HMCTS who are the most senior officials within HMCTS as far as enforcement is concerned.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

To the best of my knowledge and belief, bailiff companies under contract to HMCTS need authorisation from the court before forcing entry as they have to justify forced entry. They do not have an unrestricted right or power of entry. Escalate this matter to the HMCTS Regional Contracts Manager who is more senior to the AEM and Court Manager. Ultimately, this matter would be referred to one of the Heads of Enforcement Operations at HMCTS who are the most senior officials within HMCTS as far as enforcement is concerned.

I think you will find that the warrant legally entitles them to force entry, this is, "authorisation from the court"

Most have procedures in place where they seek conformation from a more senior officer before using the option, but there is no other legal documentation required.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I think you will find that the warrant legally entitles them to force entry, this is, "authorisation from the court"

Most have procedures in place where they seek conformation from a more senior officer before using the option, but there is no other legal documentation required.

I have asked MoJ/HMCTS for up-to-date copies of their contractors' contracts and to clarify a number of matters relating to contracted bailiff companies working for them under an FOIA request. They have informed me they hope to have this with me by 18 March 2013.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I have asked MoJ/HMCTS for up-to-date copies of their contractors' contracts and to clarify a number of matters relating to contracted bailiff companies working for them under an FOIA request. They have informed me they hope to have this with me by 18 March 2013.

It isn't a matter of contractual obligation it is their legal prerogative under the warrant sadly.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Let's wait and see what HMCTS say, shall we, Gravytrain?

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Let's wait and see what HMCTS say, shall we, Gravytrain?

Sure although I am not exactly sure what it is you are expecting them to say that has any relevance here.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

It appears to me, Gravytrain, you are being your usual argumentative self - no matter what incarnation you wish to be addressed by - for the sheer sake of being argumentative. The FOIA request is to clarify a number of issues relating to private bailiff companies acting on behalf of HMCTS. End of.