Help marstons charged £403

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

It said on the distress warrant....YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED FORTHWITH TO MAKE DISTRESS OF THE MONEY AND GOODS TO THE DEFENDANT AND TO THE "VALUE OF £150.00."TOGETHER WITH THE "REASONABLE COSTS AND CHARGES"OF THE MAKING AND KEEPING OF THE DISTRESS.
Now surley they had no need to force enter and "reasonable charges" i beleive is what i should have been charged.

The grammar and the wording is what you would expect from a primary school pupil, not a legal professional or court officer, as bluebottle has pointed out the wording on the Marstons fakeitkit instawarrant, is complete twaddle,

"MAKE DISTRESS OF THE MONEY AND GOODS TO THE DEFENDANT AND TO THE "VALUE OF £150.00.......... OF THE MAKING AND KEEPING OF THE DISTRESS" .nonsensical, complete carp and definitely not legalese, more like bovine escrementese of the making and of the distress, looks like what someone in a call centre in Mumbai might write if asked to draft a warrant. Surely they levy distress?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

It sounds more to me that Mr Kendal was trying to garner fees for himself and Marstons under the guise of the DIY warrant he had with him. The person who drew up that document needs it wrapping round a stick of dynamite with a short fuse and ramming into a certain bodily orifice. It would certainly give a completely new meaning to the word "rectum" when the dynamite exploded.

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the bailiffs have the right to force entry with the initial distress warrant. However, I'd be VERY surprised if Marstons Senior Management condoned the use of these powers purely to collect their fees.

BB, you say the fine was paid two months previously. It was, but the bailiff fees were not - this is the old chestnut again - the £85 +£215 fee increasing the bill by £300. This should be paid until such time as someone takes the issue to the High Court to get a definitive answer on the legality of this fee.

The bailiffs attended to collect the £300 fee owing. They brought along a locksmith in case they needed to force entry, and this is where we are now.

To my mind, there are two main issues here - the validity of the warrant just being on Martons headed paper, and the fact that I suspect they should have gone to the court to get a warrant for entry, even if they did not have to.

It is clearly something which needs further investigation. I would have thought a formal complaint to Marstons may be in order. The only way I see of the OP getting the charges back is if the warrant is deemed to be false. If this is the case and entry was forced unlawfully, then it is serious. The letter from the courts in December clearly states Marstons will continue to use the warrant to collect their fees. This would suggest the court considers the warrant valid.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Labman "I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the bailiffs have the right to force entry with the initial distress warrant. However, I'd be VERY surprised if Marstons Senior Management condoned the use of these powers purely to collect their fees."

No no one will argue on the legalities of that part, but as you say reliance on that initial warrant by concocting their own version, for their fees only needs testing in High Court

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I am afraid there are serious doubts as to the legality and validity of Marstons' DIY warrants, Gravytrain. With the greatest of respect, I wouldn't be too quick to say they are valid. Bailiffs are habitual liars and fraudsters.

Also with the greatest of respect i would be sure of my ground before i accused anyone of fraud, especially on an open forum like this.

If the warrant is not correctly issued that is another matter, but the issue here is that a warrant can enable the bailiff to enforce entry under the 2004 act in these circumstances, no additional permission is required.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Labman "I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the bailiffs have the right to force entry with the initial distress warrant. However, I'd be VERY surprised if Marstons Senior Management condoned the use of these powers purely to collect their fees."

No no one will argue on the legalities of that part, but as you say reliance on that initial warrant by concocting their own version, for their fees only needs testing in High Court

From a post earlier in this thread By BB, where I think this very point is being argued.

"He does need to obtain written authorisation from the court to force entry. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the Distress Warrant does not confer power of forced entry. He would have to show he had lawful reason for needing to force entry, HMCTS aren't complete bozzos."

What we are saying is that this is untrue.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I have spoken to an HMCTS ENforcement Manager about the use of forced entry by contracted bailiffs in the recent past. The answer I got was that contracted bailiffs are expected to use it sparingly and for those fine defaulters who are persistently avoiding paying their fines. They are required to seek authorisation from the court of issue before attempting to force entry.

The only warrant that has any legal bearing and authority is the Distress Warrant issued by the magistrates court. I have serious doubts as to the legality of the DIY warrants Marstons knock out on their letterheads as I wouldn't put it past Marstons to add or alter things to suit themselves. The rule on this practice is the same as it is for any warrant, that is, any alterations must be authorised by a court and if it is not, the warrant is invalid. The other matter is that if Marstons are only showing defaulters their DIY warrants and not the actual warrant issued by the court and the wording on the DIY warrant is substantially and significantly different to that on the warrant issued by the court, then I would submit the DIY warrant is a forgery and could be deemed An Article for Use In Connection With Fraud, especially if it refers to powers the bailiff does not have under the court warrant and figures not authorised by the court.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I have spoken to an HMCTS ENforcement Manager about the use of forced entry by contracted bailiffs in the recent past. The answer I got was that contracted bailiffs are expected to use it sparingly and for those fine defaulters who are persistently avoiding paying their fines. They are required to seek authorisation from the court of issue before attempting to force entry.

Could you give the name of your contact or the office number so we can confirm, and ask him for the authority for this statement, advice I have taken from informed sources states exactly the opposite as does the court itself it seems.

I am aware that the advice given in the document mentioned by me earlier recommends a, "light touch" with the powers of forced entry, but the decision to use it is left to the bailiff on the scene, at least as far as the legislation is concerned.
Individual companies may have their own arrangements of course, but this would not be actionable if breached as it is not enshrined in regulation.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

From a post earlier in this thread By BB, where I think this very point is being argued.

"He does need to obtain written authorisation from the court to force entry. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the Distress Warrant does not confer power of forced entry. He would have to show he had lawful reason for needing to force entry, HMCTS aren't complete bozzos."

What we are saying is that this is untrue.

Can you quote any legislation to substantiate this, Gravytrain?

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Any alteration of a Court Warrant is a serious matter, and Marstons should be brought to book for this practice that perverts and subverts due process.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Could you give the name of your contact or the office number so we can confirm, and ask him for the authority for this statement, advice I have taken from informed sources states exactly the opposite as does the court itself it seems.

I am aware that the advice given in the document mentioned by me earlier recommends a, "light touch" with the powers of forced entry, but the decision to use it is left to the bailiff on the scene, at least as far as the legislation is concerned.
Individual companies may have their own arrangements of course, but this would not be actionable if breached as it is not enshrined in regulation.

Could you please post up your bona fides and authority for making this comment, Gravytrain. Could you also please name your "informed sources".

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Also with the greatest of respect i would be sure of my ground before i accused anyone of fraud, especially on an open forum like this.

If the warrant is not correctly issued that is another matter, but the issue here is that a warrant can enable the bailiff to enforce entry under the 2004 act in these circumstances, no additional permission is required.

You obviously aren't aware of or don't have a clue how certificated bailiffs behave. You also appear to be defending the actions of the bailiff in this matter. Do you have any vested interest in this matter?

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Can you quote any legislation to substantiate this, Gravytrain?

Certainly it is in the Domestic Violence crime and victims act 2004, this is widely acknowledged ?

There is nothing here that says an authorized officer must seek additional permission before execution his warrant under this act unfortunately.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Agreed, the power does exist under the legislation you mention, but there will normally be safeguards in place to prevent abuse, hence the response I had from an HMCTS Enforcement Manager.

[ploddertom]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

"Entry to levy distress
3
(1)An authorised officer may enter and search any premises for the purpose of executing a warrant of distress issued under section 76 of this Act for default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction. The fine had already been paid, it is the Bailiff that has misrepresented himself by saying it had not and had been returned unpaid.

(2)The power may be exercised only to the extent that it is reasonably required for that purpose. Bailiff/Marstons need to justify the reason why this was required - was the "offender" one that had a history of non-payment and had a long list of fines requiring payment - I think not. As said above the fine had already been paid.”

The question has to be why was it reasonable & necessary in this instance.