Help marstons charged £403

[CleverClogs]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I wouldn't lol! Remember what my brother is.

A druid? msl:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

As I see it the only real issues here are .

And, as is customary, you are either mistaken or seeking to pretend that other matters are settled.

I've been using electronic conferences of one sort or another for over twenty years, so silly tricks like that won't work with me.

1 was the warrant presented compliant, in that A)was it either the one issued by the court or B)does it not matter any way as the court has confirmed that a warrant was issued.

Of course it matters!

2 Did the bailiff over step his authority by forcing entry just to recover the fees ie. did the power to force entry only apply when the full amount was due to be paid under the warrant .

Does a pig crap in a pig sty?

Locksmith are used all the time by bailiffs they are not effected by the conditions of the regulations because they do not have to know the information mentioned within the act,just the address.

I know that you tend to regard this forum as a WRITE ONLY MEDIUM, but it might be helpful if, once in a while, you could read - or have read to you by your carer - a document linked from here.

By the way, Peter, the word I have highlighted should be "affected" and the law was in the form of primary legislation - a statute - and not secondary legislation or "regulations" as you have it.

NOW READ SECTION 125C - LINK.

I have attached it as a PDF file, but I will post a verbatim copy to the forum if needs be. You will see - if you and/or your carer bother to read it - that :

“basic personal information” means a person’s name, date of birth or national insurance number or the address (or any of the addresses) of a person;

Persons and companies to which such data may lawfully be disclosed are defined in greater detail in sections 125A and 125B, but they are just civilian enforcement agents and not locksmiths or any other person(s) who might be employed by the enforcement agent(s) or called upon by the same to gain entry to premises.

I really do not know why bailiffs are even needed when there are other, more efficient methods of collecting debts or enforcing fines. Attaching earnings, benefits or a bank balance are all more efficient, as would be a charge or caution on property.

Fees are sanctioned by the MOJ so unless anyone wants to take a high court action against them this is not a viable argument.

Please state which legislation - either statute or statutory instrument - allows the Ministry of Justice to "sanction" such fees as an enforcement contractor has decided to ramp up, or which allows the Ministry of Justice to amend a distress warrant to include such charges - including charges for work not actually done and charges for work that was wholly unnecessary.

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

You're not far off there CC. A druid was viewed a priestly, and my brother seems to think he's God at times! In fact I think he looks down on God in his mind sometimes. I won't post what he does on open forum - it is on here if you search hard enough.

The capitulation argument holds more water with me than any confidentiality clauses, but again, I think we'd be hearing about them capitulating much more than we do. I think they're paid.

I don't think any of us are convinced the fees are payable. However, none of us seem to be able to prove they are not, and that is the problem. It needs the court case to set legal precedent. I can't see it happening. Purely my opinion.

For those who have not been 'Under Milk Wood' and heard or seen the dreams of the inhabitants of Llareggub, it's a great example of Dylan Thomas' wit. If you read the village name backwards it says it all!

[Guest]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Stand and deliver!
Can bailiffs get away with extortion? It's up to you!
Extortion for unnecessarily attending a front door does seem unbalanced <cough>
As I understand it, forcible entry can only be used for criminal fines.
You could try making a complaint to Marstons and the lower court, about the actions of the bailiff.
It's arguable no fees were payable to bailiff or locksmith, as no work was done.
Perhaps suing would be more likely to succeed after a successful complaint.
From MSE:
"...you can send your complaint to the County Court that issued the bailiff certificate. This can get an individual bailiffs certificate revoked as well as pursuing the company. Any claim for compensation would be made through the County Courts" - here.
From CAB:
Taking court action
"If you think that the bailiffs have acted incorrectly, you may be able to take the bailiffs to court. You may be able to:

• apply for the bailiffs certificate to be taken away. If the bailiffs' certificate is taken away by the court, the bailiffs won’t be able to do any more certificated work
• if the bailiffs have acted unlawfully, for example, if they take more goods than are needed to pay your debts or they take goods when they have no right to. If they didn’t follow the proper procedure. An example is if goods were taken lawfully but then they were sold at less than their second-hand value
• if the bailiffs don’t take care of your goods and the goods are damaged, you could take them to court for negligence
• if the bailiffs come into your home without following the rules, you could take them to court for trespass. You might have a case of discrimination if, for example, the bailiffs are racist, sexist or homophobic.

If your claim is successful, you might get compensation or the court may be able to order the bailiffs to do something, like return your goods.
You will need legal advice about taking the bailiffs to court, and legal aid may be available.
For more information about legal aid, see Help with legal costs.
If you think you have grounds to take legal action against the bailiffs, you should get advice from an experienced adviser, for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau. To search for your nearest CAB, including those that can give advice by e-mail, click on nearest CAB." - here

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your money or your (private) life!
Can courts bully people in their own homes? It's up to you!
Supposing the court didn't allow your complaint or award compensation.
I think this engages article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998: right to respect for private life and the home.

Also, I'm wondering about the origin of the term 'distress warrant'.
Does that mean the court are sanctioning the application of distress to extort payment?
That's quite a big disrespect.

What we have here may be a fundamental human rights issue.
You can take action against a court for violating your rights under s6 Human Rights Act 1998.
Actions taken by any individual, group or state must not aim to limit your human rights, under article 17.
Individual = Mr Kendall. Perhaps the police officers and locksmith, individually.
Group = Marstons and perhaps the police force.
State = County Court

I think this could be taken to a higher court.

Human rights issues are generally decided on the proportionality and legitimate aim test.
The legitimate aim could have been collection of some processing costs incurred by the bailiff (re unpaid fine, not visit).
A proportionate action would have been charging for those costs by letter at first attempt.
This action fails the test, so if necessary, challenge the court.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only doing our job, now pay up!
Can police back up bailiff highwaymen? It's up to you!
The police swear in their Oath of Office to uphold fundamental human rights.
From the Civil Rights Movement:
"Challenging the police if you feel they have not properly carried out their duties is a legal right for people living in Britain" - here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

And, as is customary, you are either mistaken or seeking to pretend that other matters are settled.

I've been using electronic conferences of one sort or another for over twenty years, so silly tricks like that won't work with me.


Of course it matters!


Does a pig crap in a pig sty?


I know that you tend to regard this forum as a WRITE ONLY MEDIUM, but it might be helpful if, once in a while, you could read - or have read to you by your carer - a document linked from here.

By the way, Peter, the word I have highlighted should be "affected" and the law was in the form of primary legislation - a statute - and not secondary legislation or "regulations" as you have it.

NOW READ SECTION 125C - LINK.

I have attached it as a PDF file, but I will post a verbatim copy to the forum if needs be. You will see - if you and/or your carer bother to read it - that :

Persons and companies to which such data may lawfully be disclosed are defined in greater detail in sections 125A and 125B, but they are just civilian enforcement agents and not locksmiths or any other person(s) who might be employed by the enforcement agent(s) or called upon by the same to gain entry to premises.

I really do not know why bailiffs are even needed when there are other, more efficient methods of collecting debts or enforcing fines. Attaching earnings, benefits or a bank balance are all more efficient, as would be a charge or caution on property.


Please state which legislation - either statute or statutory instrument - allows the Ministry of Justice to "sanction" such fees as an enforcement contractor has decided to ramp up, or which allows the Ministry of Justice to amend a distress warrant to include such charges - including charges for work not actually done and charges for work that was wholly unnecessary.

Few of these points merit reply, none help the OP so I will refrain, just to say that you are WRONG in all( or most of you conceptions here)

One minor point, if you think the MOJ don't sanction these fees, then by all means make complaint to them, see what they say. Obviously there is no legislation primary or secondary, this is why you could take them to court and contest the fees. if you thought it was a good idea that is.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The fee for the putative "locksmith" seems excessive, even if he does have a PhD from Llareggub University.

No not really, anyone who has ever had to call a locksmith will tell you that they can charge much more than this, but really this is a none issue, bailiff have always used locksmiths if they have to force force entry it is the least destructive method.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

No not really, anyone who has ever had to call a locksmith will tell you that they can charge much more than this, but really this is a none issue, bailiff have always used locksmiths if they have to force force entry it is the least destructive method.

A locksmith brought by the bailiff is a much better method of gaining entry, than having plod smash the door down with a ram. In reality these fees and their application, as in force entry for fees alone after the ORIGINAL fine/debt are discharged, and for whatever reason the debt has either prurposely, or by clerical error gone to bailiffs, subject to much conjecture, and really need testing in High Court.

None of this conjecture is helpful to Op at the moment.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

A locksmith brought by the bailiff is a much better method of gaining entry, than having plod smash the door down with a ram. In reality these fees and their application, as in force entry for fees alone after the ORIGINAL fine/debt are discharged, and for whatever reason the bebt has either prurposely, or by clerical error gone to bailiffs, subject to much conjecture, and really need testing in High Court.

None of this conjecture is helpful to Op at the moment.

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.)

[bizzybob]

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.)

As in fine paid only fees remain, does the payment of the fine, extinguish the warrant? Arguably it does, if the warrant is issued for the fine amount ONLY and the fees raised by the bailiff contractor, are a subject of a contract between HMCS and say Marstons, and are not part of the warrant, this is why it is imperative to see the warrant as issued, not as doctored on a bailiffs phone or pda.

Definitely needs testing in court. Adding fees to a fine may be an avenue for exploration under Human Rights as addition of fees may be seen as a breach of the Articles of the Convention, outside this thread, though as OP will be getting more confused by the hour.

[Guest]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

As in fine paid only fees remain, does the payment of the fine, extinguish the warrant? Arguably it does, if the warrant is issued for the fine amount ONLY and the fees raised by the bailiff contractor, are a subject of a contract between HMCS and say Marstons, and are not part of the warrant, this is why it is imperative to see the warrant as issued, not as doctored on a bailiffs phone or pda.

Definitely needs testing in court. Adding fees to a fine may be an avenue for exploration under Human Rights as addition of fees may be seen as a breach of the Articles of the Convention, outside this thread, though as OP will be getting more confused by the hour.

No, it doesn't extinguish the warrant - according to the court.
The fees are indeed part of the warrant as issued by the court, which you haven't read.

Yes, the OP could be confused - by your post.
You are going by what everyone might feel, except the court.

[bizzybob]

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

[Guest]

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...

[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.

[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

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.