Help marstons charged £403

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

From a letter sent to MP's in 2007

"When the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act was going through Parliament, the Government did not make clear the magnitude of the change it was making to English law. The power of forced entry was a last minute amendment to a Bill that had nothing to do with bailiffs and the Minister responsible told MPs that it was to close a loophole in the law. As there was no consultation, the advice agencies and bailiff associations didn’t know what was happening and so couldn’t point out that the change was breaching two fundamental principles of English law.

Government has created so many new fines and penalties that it has warped our sense of what is ‘criminal’. When Ministers defend the need to force entry to homes on the basis that the defaulter has been found guilty of a crime, many will in fact have had only fixed penalty notices"

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

It was smuggled through by claiming that it was "a minor amendment" to close a loophole or two.

The law should have been denied Royal Consent, as it violated the terms of Magna Carta.

And the moral of the story is, "Never allow a PR man to be Prime Minister." You never know if what he is saying is truth or bull$hit.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

it violated the terms of Magna Carta.

Was that not signed under duress also?

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The Forced Entry provisions under section 4A the Domestic Violence Crimes and Victims Act 2004 should never ever have been allowed to have been implemented. Serious questions should have been raised in Parliament at the time.

It was smuggled through by claiming that it was "a minor amendment" to close a loophole or two.

The law should have been denied Royal Consent, as it violated the terms of Magna Carta.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

It was a dreadful law. Mind you, last year a question was raised in parliament asking whether the present governmnent would remove the right to forced entry. The response was a surprise with the J Minister saying that it is the threat of forced entry that gets the debt paid and that the regulations will not be amended. Not surprising really when we keep hearing that gov has no money.

That says it all really doesn't it. We try to fight to get clarification on fees etc.... yet the government really are not interested. Their sole concern is getting the money and if that involves hammering down someone's front door and traumatising whoever may be in the house - which of course my not include the debtor at all - they don't care. An admission that they are happy to use threats against the very people they are elected to serve is dispicable. This is a government that professes to care - disgusting!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100616w0002.htm

http://lordlucas.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/bailiff-powers-of-forced-entry.html

[Milo]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

It was a dreadful law. Mind you, last year a question was raised in parliament asking whether the present governmnet would remove the right to forced entry. The response was a surprise with the J Minister saying that it is the threat of forced entry that gets the debt paid and that the regulations will not be amended. Not surprising really when we keep hearing that gov has no money.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Good post Labman.

The Forced Entry provisions under section 4A the Domestic Violence Crimes and Victims Act 2004 should never ever have been allowed to have been implemented. Serious questions should have been raised in Parliament at the time.


The first questions that spring to mind are:

Why was forced entry necessary?
What was the purpose of being allowed to have forced entry?
Was forced entry required in order to search a property for a "fine defaulter" ?

For unpaid court fines, a bailiff cannot of course force entry to remove household goods. No way. Instead, he can only levy upon them. So why then was it necessary to have the right to force entry?

The mind boggles.

You will find the more you look at a law, and its implications on interpretation, you will see that the law of unintended consequences dictate the opposite effect to the one intended when framing the legislation results from it.

Either that or it was a bad law to begin with and makes the situation it was designed to solve even worse,

[Milo]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Good post Labman.

The Forced Entry provisions under section 4A the Domestic Violence Crimes and Victims Act 2004 should never ever have been allowed to have been implemented. Serious questions should have been raised in Parliament at the time.


The first questions that spring to mind are:

Why was forced entry necessary?
What was the purpose of being allowed to have forced entry?
Was forced entry required in order to search a property for a "fine defaulter" ?

For unpaid court fines, a bailiff cannot of course force entry to remove household goods. No way. Instead, he can only levy upon them. So why then was it necessary to have the right to force entry?

The mind boggles.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Not requiring them to have the actual warrant in their possession is a major part of the problem as this gives wide scope for fraud and illegal forced entry. Requiring bailiffs enforcing fines for HMCTS to have a copy of the court warrant with them would, I suspect, blow the gaff on the issue of the fees they charge and the legality of their actions.

I suspect the reason why the bailiffs do not usually present the actual warrant is because people would see that the document did not contain the additional charges, and would ask questions about their validity.

As you say the system is a mess and wide open to abuse, nothing new there with bailiffs unfortunately , it's been going on for hundreds of years, lets hope the new regulation made under the TCE bill goes somewhere towards setting a transparent fee scale. We live in hope.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The problem is that the bailiff does not have to show the actual warrant at the visit, he does have to make arrangements for the debtor to view it if requested. The requirements for the paperwork he shows and leaves behind include,
Purpose of visit, proof of powers invested I him by contractor, sum owed and where the actual warrant may be viewed.
There may be a problem where bailiffs are printing off documents and alleging that they are the actual warrant when they are not, I suspect that if you challenged them on this they would just say that they never intended to give the impression and the warrant can be viewed at xyz.
Slippery I know but legal unfortunately.
Of course any paperwork must have the amount of costs correctly stated.

Not requiring them to have the actual warrant in their possession is a major part of the problem as this gives wide scope for fraud and illegal forced entry. Requiring bailiffs enforcing fines for HMCTS to have a copy of the court warrant with them would, I suspect, blow the gaff on the issue of the fees they charge and the legality of their actions.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

If the bailiff injures themselves due to a debtor, or third party with mental health issues clobbering the bailiff with a blunt instrument, or an agressive wheelchair user ramming them on the way in, the bailiff company could be done by the HSE summarily and with no defence to the charges under H & S for failure to carry out a risk assessment, imho. Wonder if marstons and the others who rely on DCVA realise their obligations and potential criminal liabilities under H & S?

You are correct about the statutory requirement in respect of Risk Assessments, bb. As for the action that could be taken against Marstons and their brain-dead bailiffs, responsibility for checking that a debtor still lives at an address would lie on both Marstons and HMCTS, as would liability for damage/injury caused by a Marston bailiff crashing in without proper and adequate checks having been previously carried out. TBH, allowing private sector employees to enforce court fines is a serious error of judgement on the part of the politicians and it does raise questions as to whether there is some hidden agenda at work.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The issue of forced entry is set in legislation. The warrant does carry the right of forced entry, but it is good practice to go back to the court before using this power as the risks of executing a warrant unilaterally is huge, as a certain bailiff found out recently.

The issue of fees is unlikely ever to be clarified short of a judicial review. I have spent a vast amount of time looking into the £300 fees (£85 and £215) recently, and have learned little that was not already known. It does seem clear there is a contractual right under Common Law to charge the fees. What is totally unclear is who should pay them. Until that is clarified, and I do not anticipate any FOI request or anything else resolving that in the immediate future, it would be irresponsible IMO to suggest debtors do anything other than pay the fees - others would disagree strongly with me.

I am aware of people recently who have been advised they are not liable for the fees as the fine itself has been cleared in full in the court. They have then found the bailiffs have forced entry in order to levy goods to secure their debt. The most recent of these was just yesterday.

The right of entry is given with the distress warrant from the Magistrates' Court, but there is a serious issue with at least Marstons where they print their own warrants and use these for entry. Often the figure owing on these differs from that on the original warrant from the court. The police, HM Courts and the Ministry of Justice appear not to care about this. I do!

The problem is that the bailiff does not have to show the actual warrant at the visit, he does have to make arrangements for the debtor to view it if requested. The requirements for the paperwork he shows and leaves behind include,
Purpose of visit, proof of powers invested I him by contractor, sum owed and where the actual warrant may be viewed.
There may be a problem where bailiffs are printing off documents and alleging that they are the actual warrant when they are not, I suspect that if you challenged them on this they would just say that they never intended to give the impression and the warrant can be viewed at xyz.
Slippery I know but legal unfortunately.
Of course any paperwork must have the amount of costs correctly stated.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The Plymouth incident resulted in the victim being left with serious injuries and it is likely they will never be able to walk properly again. As for HMCTS and Marstons, are we not forgetting both are subject to Section 3, Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 (Duty to Ensure Safety of the Public)? The MoJ can obfuscate and obstruct as much as they like, as regards to what their contracted agents can and cannot do, it does not relieve them, nor does the DVCVA provide them with any exemption at all from compliance with health and safety legislation. Ways and Means Act.

If the bailiff injures themselves due to a debtor, or third party with mental health issues clobbering the bailiff with a blunt instrument, or an agressive wheelchair user ramming them on the way in, the bailiff company could be done by the HSE summarily and with no defence to the charges under H & S for failure to carry out a risk assessment, imho. Wonder if marstons and the others who rely on DCVA realise their obligations and potential criminal liabilities under H & S?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The Plymouth incident resulted in the victim being left with serious injuries and it is likely they will never be able to walk properly again. As for HMCTS and Marstons, are we not forgetting both are subject to Section 3, Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 (Duty to Ensure Safety of the Public)? The MoJ can obfuscate and obstruct as much as they like, as regards to what their contracted agents can and cannot do, it does not relieve them, nor does the DVCVA provide them with any exemption at all from compliance with health and safety legislation. Ways and Means Act.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Yes very frustrating.
It is difficult to find out when these powers re actually used, the presumption is that the only reported cases are when the police become involved, more often than not the threat and mention that they have the powers is enough to gain entry, it's a bit of a grey area.
Of course not knowing the guidance that they are supposed to follow makes it difficult to see if they are playing by the rules, or even what the rules are.

Usual pack drill, mushroom syndrome, hide what is allowable, obfuscate, and bluff; one day it will trip them up, when marstons or another kills someone during a forced entry, possibly to the wrong house.