Help marstons charged £403

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

"They extorted money for the wholly unnecessary presence of a putative "locksmith" and also an undisclosed sum in profit on those alleged costs."
That is the unwholesome truth, they will add what they know they can get away with.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

As you are aware, this account was imposed on 7th September 2012 when you were ordered to pay £195.00 by 28th September 2012. As you failed to pay as ordered a 'Further Steps Notice' was issued on 5th October 2012, which gave you a further 10 days to pay or respond to the notice. As you failed to do either, a distress warrant was issued to Marstons bailiffs. Your £195.00 payment was received on 17th December 2012 and Marstons were informed of this. Marstons reduced the outstanding amount on their records and correctly continued to collect and enforce the outstanding amount (their costs).

But they enforced more than "their costs"!

They extorted money for the wholly unnecessary presence of a putative "locksmith" and also an undisclosed sum in profit on those alleged costs.

On the other hand, the taxpayer had to pay for the dubious services of any plods in attendance.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

If the £85 "letter" fee had been paid in with the fine, a total of £280 then they could not have added the other costs, the matter would have been concluded. There is an argument about debtors liability for contractors fees, but until this is settled by a High Court judgment, it is better to pay the fine and fee.

Amen to that

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Quote Gravytrain "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!


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.


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 :

.

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)

[shaz]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

If the £85 "letter" fee had been paid in with the fine, a total of £280then they could not have added the other costs, the matter would have been concluded. There is an argument about debtors liability for contractors fees, but until this is settled by a High Court judgment, it is better to pay the fine and fee.

I agree, I should have not overlooked.

[shaz]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Now miss xxxxx has avoided answering the question on FORCED ENTRY again, or is it my understanding which is wrong that FORCED ENTRY and RIGHT OF ENTRY have a different meaning?
I have sent another email to miss xxxxx to clarify this and once I get a reply I will ask Marstons Group to provide me with the original Distress Warrant.
Lots of different questions and opinions have been raised in this thread which are not all are agreed upon by everyone which indicates there are matters of doubt and uncertainty.

One again I thank you all for giving your precious time to this thread, I'm going try my best to get as many answers from The Court and as well as Marstons Group to clear some uncertainty.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I have received a reply from the Court which issued the Distress Warrant..
Dear customer services
I would like to confirm some details about this fine,can you please provide me with the following details below.
Have you received the amount of £195 which I paid direct to youself?
Was this amount credited against my fine?
Was this amount rejected?
Was this amount sent to Marston Group?
Were Marston Group or Mr Kendall given a warrant for FORCE entry or have any of the above two applied for a warrant for FORCE entry.


Yours Sincerely


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AND THE REPLY

Mr XXXXXXXX

As you are aware, this account was imposed on 7th September 2012 when you were ordered to pay £195.00 by 28th September 2012. As you failed to pay as ordered a 'Further Steps Notice' was issued on 5th October 2012, which gave you a further 10 days to pay or respond to the notice. As you failed to do either, a distress warrant was issued to Marstons bailiffs. Your £195.00 payment was received on 17th December 2012 and Marstons were informed of this. Marstons reduced the outstanding amount on their records and correctly continued to collect and enforce the outstanding amount (their costs). You were also sent a letter on this date advising you that this was the case.

I hope this satisfies your enquiry.

Regards

If the £85 "letter" fee had been paid in with the fine, a total of £280 then they could not have added the other costs, the matter would have been concluded. There is an argument about debtors liability for contractors fees, but until this is settled by a High Court judgment, it is better to pay the fine and fee.

[shaz]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

They AVOIDED answering my last question so I emailed back again wit the following email..

Dear Kxxxx xxxxxx


Thank you for your prompt reply.


Two of my questions still remain unanswered.
Can you please confirm the following.


That my payment was not REJECTED by yourself.


Were Marston Group or Mr Kendall given a warrant for FORCE entry or did any of the above two applied for a warrant for FORCE entry.


Many Thanks


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

AND THE REPLY I RECEIVED WITHIN 30 MINUTES..

Mr xxxxxxxxxxxx

I believe you had a conversation with Janet Anderson, who confirmed both these points to you.

Your payment was not rejected, Marstons were notified to reduce the outstanding amount on their records by the £195.00 that you paid.

The distress warrant issued by the Court authorises the Bailiffs to collect and enforce outstanding accounts, including 'right of entry'.

Regards

KXXXXX XXXXXX
Fines & Enforcement
HMCTS Lancashire
T)01282 610051

I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means

[shaz]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I have received a reply from the Court which issued the Distress Warrant..
Dear customer services
I would like to confirm some details about this fine,can you please provide me with the following details below.
Have you received the amount of £195 which I paid direct to youself?
Was this amount credited against my fine?
Was this amount rejected?
Was this amount sent to Marston Group?
Were Marston Group or Mr Kendall given a warrant for FORCE entry or have any of the above two applied for a warrant for FORCE entry.


Yours Sincerely


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AND THE REPLY

Mr XXXXXXXX

As you are aware, this account was imposed on 7th September 2012 when you were ordered to pay £195.00 by 28th September 2012. As you failed to pay as ordered a 'Further Steps Notice' was issued on 5th October 2012, which gave you a further 10 days to pay or respond to the notice. As you failed to do either, a distress warrant was issued to Marstons bailiffs. Your £195.00 payment was received on 17th December 2012 and Marstons were informed of this. Marstons reduced the outstanding amount on their records and correctly continued to collect and enforce the outstanding amount (their costs). You were also sent a letter on this date advising you that this was the case.

I hope this satisfies your enquiry.

Regards

[shaz]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Just for clarity.
The way i read this is that the initial fee was not paid just the fine, is this correct ?

Yes just the fine was paid.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

As I said ages and ages ago though, however much we may argue / debate this point, we cannot resolve it. It has to be actioned by someone who is incurring the fees challenging them, and would end up with case law being set. Also as stated ages ago, this costs a lot of money, and as Mr Evans commented, the fees will be incurred until challenged.

If anyone does not pay them - there was very clear advice on Fourjacks thread to not pay them, and even the letter I finally got and rewrote entirely suggested challenging them - they will get into trouble.

We are misleading our members if this is not pointed out. Far better is to say pay them, unless you can afford to pursue this through what could be a very expensive court case.

None of us can answer the issue, as only a court can. Thus we have to advise members as best we can. Setting them up for a big fall is not sound advice.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

It is the case that the bailiff in this case lied and acted like a total moron.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

In short this is not an argument that can be won by the OP, and their problem should not in my opinion be used as a vehicle to exercise some members personal hobby horse.

Especially when it is to the detriment of the OP

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

This is the reply I received from Philip Evens ex of the bailiff law reform group and accredited expert on bailiff law the last time this question was raised.

Hi

You are at the heart of a very interesting debate about the legal basis of the fees that MoJ authorise its contracted bailiffs to charge. There is a clear legal basis for fees being added to the debt but for all other types of bailiff action those fees are set by Parliament. So far as I am aware, whenever MoJ has been pressed on this issue, it dodges it. But whatever the merits of the debate, if anyone refuses to pay the fees that MoJ has authorised, they would not get any legal redress until the issue was won in the High Court, at least, and so my personal view is that they should be paid – unless someone wants to finance legal action.

Best wishes,

Philip

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The legality of enforcing against a debtor, for a fee that is not part of legislation, and the addition of further fees on the back of the original fee, but is part of a service contract between a bailiff company and HMCS, when the fine has been paid, but a fee that was part of a contract the debtor is not party to, is grey if one looks at it in a Contract law context.