Help marstons charged £403

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The "scumbag bailiffs" as you put it, do not need to provide the exact copy of the warrant, in fact if you look at the guidance they must provide notice of fees and other information that would not be within the warrant, they must give information about where one can be viewed though, if asked.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

To re enforce the point this is from the guidance provided by the HMCS schedule 4

Stage 4: Procedure to be taken when contact is made with the Defaulter
1.7 When contact is made the Authorised Employee shall:-
•
Show the Defaulter his/her identity card and statement of authorisation issued by the Department.
•
If the warrant is in his/her possession, show it to the Defaulter or if it is not state where the warrant is and what arrangements may be made to allow the Defaulter to inspect it.
•
Provide the following information in writing:-
i.
The purpose of the visit;
ii.
The powers vested in the Contractor;
iii.
How the outstanding sum may be paid, including details in respect of part payment;
iv.
Where advice about the effect of the warrant and related matters may be obtained;
v.
The complaints procedure operated by the Contractor

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Read it again BB section 1(A)

(1)A warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies may be executed by any person entitled to execute it even though it is not in his possession at the time. .

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

On taking CCs advice and getting my carer to examine the legislation, i see that there was in fact no need for the bailiff to be in possession of the actual warrant


“125D Execution by person not in possession of warrant..


(1)A warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies may be executed by any person entitled to execute it even though it is not in his possession at the time. .
(2)A warrant to which this subsection applies (and which is not a warrant to which section 125A(1) above applies) may be executed by a constable even though it is not in his possession at the time. .
(3)Subsection (2) above applies to— .
(a)a warrant to arrest a person in connection with an offence; .
(b)a warrant under section 186(3) of the M1Army Act 1955, section 186(3) of the M2Air Force Act 1955, section 105(3) of the M3Naval Discipline Act 1957 or Schedule 2 to the M4Reserve Forces Act 1996 (desertion etc.); .
(c)a warrant under section 102 or 104 of the M5General Rate Act 1967 (insufficiency of distress); .
(d)a warrant under section 47(8) of the M6Family Law Act 1996 (failure to comply with occupation order or non-molestation order); .
(e)a warrant under paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the M7Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (unwilling witnesses); .
(f)a warrant under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 to [F1the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000] (offenders referred to court by youth offender panel); and .
(g)a warrant under section 55, 76, 93, 97 or 97A above. .
(4)Where by virtue of this section a warrant is executed by a person not in possession of it, it shall, on the demand of the person arrested, committed or detained or against whom distress is levied, be shown to him as soon as practicable.”

Guess pigs do "crap in the sty", but we knew that anyway(most of us)

Police officers do not need to have an arrest warrant in their possession and have not needed to do so as far as I can remember. If the warrant is a search warrant, then they do need to have it in their possession as the suspect/owner of the property being searched under the terms of the warrant must be provided with a copy. In certain circumstances, the warrant has to be read out to them as well as a copy being provided to them.

Nowhere in the text you have reproduced, GT, does it mention scumbag bailiffs under contract to HMCTS. This takes us back to my original point, the letterhead warrant isn't worth the paper it is printed on and if the original court warrant has no power to force entry endorsed thereon, forcible entry would be, under the circumstances, unlawful. In any case, a recent JR ruling has put the cat amongst the pigeons as regards the imposition and enforcement of fines where the defendant has not been means-tested as to their ability to pay. HMCTS came out of the JR stinking of manure.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The bailiff has a clear duty to inform Shaz where the warrant can be inspected. Shaz would need to ask though - has this happened?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Shaz needs to obtain a copy of the actual court warrant. The letterhead warrant the bailiff was waving about is, IMHO, unreliable and my gut-feeling is that such documents aren't worth the paper they are printed on. It is also known that HMCTS staff aren't always the sharpest knives in the drawer. I would not put any weight on or rely on anything court staff say. HMCTS Enforcement Managers and Contracts Managers tend to be more switched on. There is also misinterpretation of legislation by HMCTS, which is not beyond the realms of possibility. To cite an example of misinterpretation of legislation, I used to rent my home from the local authority, before it was transferred to an ALMO Housing Association. The local authority misinterpreted legislation regarding the testing of gas appliances and charged all tenants for conducting the tests. Then it was found. some two years later, that the local authority, as landlord, had no right or power in law to charge tenants for the tests. Each tenant received, on average, a £200 refund. It cost the local authority over £3 million.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

A register of all authorized employees should be held by the contracting bailiff.
According to guidelines the authorized employee should carry an identity card and make it known to the defaulter.

[mikerb]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Bailiff turns up with his mate, "he's the locksmith, you owe £85 +vat "

There is no national register of "approved" locksmiths. The police do not have a list of "approved" locksmiths.

You could ask here http://www.locksmiths.co.uk/ but the whole locksmith industry was 'deregulated' some years ago so anybody can call themselves a 'locksmith'

Ask Marstons for the 'locksmiths' credentials. At least that knocks £100 of the bill.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Persons who are authorial to execute warrants under section 125B (1)(2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, and any other person (other than a constable) who is authorized to execute a warrant under section 125 (2) of the 1980 Act are required to be listed in a register that should be open for inspection(2A), you should be able to examine the locksmiths credentials there, he would have to be authorized, CRB checked etc before registration as an authorized officer.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The £85 will stand as it was incurred when the letter was sent, the locksmith fee, may be challengeble, as did a locksmith turn up, was one ordered and had to be paid? i am not holding my breath however.

I referred to the person as a "putative locksmith", as a mere employee of a firm that supplies and fits locks is not really a locksmith. Drilling out the cylinder of a lock may be effective, but it is hardly the technique one would expect a genuine locksmith to use unless the cylinder was stuck, jammed or the key slot partly blocked. Instead, one would expect him to use a bump key, or a lock pick and a torsion bar.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Personally if you are trying to say that the fees are inappropriate and should be refunded , I think you will hit a brick wasll.
The initial fee of £85 will not be returned whatever IMO.

You may be able to get a refund of the fee for the locksmith in that the criteria for a forced entry was not met, I would be very surprised if you got the second fee returned , however there is nothing stopping you from asking.

There is some suggestion that the locksmith was putative on here, so you may want to require proof that it was an actual locksmith that attended, and that he appeared on their approved register.

The £85 will stand as it was incurred when the letter was sent, the locksmith fee, may be challengeble, as did a locksmith turn up, was one ordered and had to be paid? i am not holding my breath however.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Personally if you are trying to say that the fees are inappropriate and should be refunded , I think you will hit a brick wasll.
The initial fee of £85 will not be returned whatever IMO.

You may be able to get a refund of the fee for the locksmith in that the criteria for a forced entry was not met, I would be very surprised if you got the second fee returned , however there is nothing stopping you from asking.

There is some suggestion that the locksmith was putative on here, so you may want to require proof that it was an actual locksmith that attended, and that he appeared on their approved register.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Great.
I see the best possible outcome as being the one that entails no losses to anyone.
I think your own research is pretty good, as I said - extremely thorough...

[shaz]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

i think i could be on a mission here as there is lots of unanswered questions. From reading other forums its come to my understanding bailiffs would normally make a refund to avoid being taken to court. But perhaps if i have a chance now to expose their bullish and unlawful behaviour then i would certainly be taking that step But will require all advise from knowlegable people.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Thankyou for your persistence and investigatory prowess, shaz.
Feeling that bailiffs' rights and powers must be encoded in legislation - maybe.
Are you still just trying to get your money back, or taking on a mission?