Help marstons charged £403

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

So BB - you would concur with what I say in post 85 yes?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

CC - do you think there is a genuine issue with the warrant here? We know there is a theoretical issue, but when push comes to shove, do you think the bailiff would be able to hide behind that theoretical right?

Sorry for butting in, but it will be what is on the warrant, as issued by the court, that will be the most important factor. If what is written on that court warrant does not correspond with what is on Marstons' DIY warrant, the court warrant will be the warrant that is accepted, not something a bailiff company has cobbled together to mislead debtors and police officers.

If you want my opinion, yes, there is an issue surrounding the warrant the bailiff had in his possession. If Shaz submits a FOIA request to the court for a copy of the actual warrant, this should answer a lot of questions.

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Good - I'd agree that it is the distress warrant which is going to be the way forward as well. The court has said in the link in my post to Bizzybob that Marstons will use their warrant to enforce the fees. Surely they wouldn't have put this on a letter if the warrant didn't actually give that entitlement?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Sorry, Labman, our posts seemed to have crossed.

I agree with what you say in Paragraph 3 of Post #85. My honest opinion of the bailiff's actions are that he is going to have some explaining to do. And I wouldn't mind betting the so-and-so lied to the police and, indeed, fooled them with his faux warrant. All that would be on the Distress Warrant as issued by the court would be the amount of the fine. That is a legal document and is enforceable. The faux warrants Marston bailiffs wave around are, in my opinion, worthless pieces of paper that have no legal standing whatsoever and I wouldn't mind betting that a debtor would be fully within their rights to tell a Marston bailiff to stick the faux warrant where the sun don't shine. If the bailiff had the actual court warrant in their possession, which is what HMCTS should require them to do in order to prevent this sort of thing happening, that is another matter, as the bailiff would have lawful authority in accordance with what was written on the court warrant.

Whether the OP could reclaim the fees is another matter. The locksmith fees I feel are recoverable. The administration and attendance fees would need to be looked at to gauge whether or not Marstons were entitled to demand them in the circumstances. Certainly, if the bailiff involved cannot justify his actions, Marstons are going to be hard-pushed to justify charging the fees and would, in all probability, have to repay them.

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

And this is where we hit the other problem. The court warrant would have the fine amount on it which was paid -ie- £195.00

The £300 comprised of £85 + £215 are not specified on the warrant but are accepted as chargeable until they are challenged in the High Court. This leaves us the age old problem - the warrant won't specify the fees, but we agree they are payable. The only authorisation for this is the letter from the courts, which is NOT a warrant, and the letterhead warrant from Marstons.

Short of challenging them and being that test case, it's hard to see what the OP can do to dispute these. The locksmith seems OTT to me.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

And this is where we hit the other problem. The court warrant would have the fine amount on it which was paid -ie- £195.00

The £300 comprised of £85 + £215 are not specified on the warrant but are accepted as chargeable until they are challenged in the High Court. This leaves us the age old problem - the warrant won't specify the fees, but we agree they are payable. The only authorisation for this is the letter from the courts, which is NOT a warrant, and the letterhead warrant from Marstons.

Short of challenging them and being that test case, it's hard to see what the OP can do to dispute these. The locksmith seems OTT to me.

When challenged about the enabling legislation for the admin and attendance fees, the MoJ run scared and, so far, have failed to show anything that confirms debtors are legally-required to pay fees to Marstons. Part 52 of the Criminal Procedures Rules 2011 are very vague and do not specify them, other than the cost of executing the warrant, which would be removing goods and arrnaging their sale. It makes no mention of the admin fee or attendance fee. These are purely contractual and not enshrined in law. I am of the opinion that if challenged forcefully enough, the fees could not be enforced using the court warrant. It is also apparent that court staff are clueless as to what is lawful and what is not.

The letterhead warrant from Marstons, as previously stated, does not, in my opinion, carry any weight in law whatsoever. They are on a very sticky wicket indeed. A court warrant has to be complied with to the letter. If it's not on the warrant, you don't do it and you can't do it.

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

And yet, NOBODY has challenged this £300 fee yet. Nor does it seem likely anyone is going to. Some sites claim victories challenging them, but can't back it up with case law. Why?

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

And yet, NOBODY has challenged this £300 fee yet. Nor does it seem likely anyone is going to. Some sites claim victories challenging them, but can't back it up with case law. Why?

Maybe because nobody has gone as far as the High Court with it.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

And yet, NOBODY has challenged this £300 fee yet. Nor does it seem likely anyone is going to. Some sites claim victories challenging them, but can't back it up with case law. Why?

What has probably happened is that legal action has been threatened against HMCTS/MoJ and rather than have their dirty deals with Marstons and the lack of legal backing for the £300 fees exposed to public scrutiny, HMCTS/MoJ have quietly backed-down as they know themselves the court would force them to show what grounds there were in law for fine defaulters to be forced or required to pay such fees to their contractor.

Speaking from experience, when politicians and civil servants realise the s**t is about to hit the fan and they will get it full in the face, they back down rather than have to stand up in a court and explain themselves. You would be surprised how quickly they back down when the consequences of what they have been involved in are explained to them in graphic detail.

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

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

I'm not sure this holds water though as the cases would be advertised so widely across forums that everyone would be challenging and forcing the issue. I honestly believe it needs testing in court.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Usually what tends to happen is that the potential plaintiff is asked to enter into a confidentiality agreement, aka gagging agreement. People are waking up to what is going on and are challenging it. In a minute, that will gather momentum and the politicians and civil servants won't be able to stop the wave of change that will sweep over them. This racketeering is in its final days. It will come out into the public domain sooner rather than later.

[labman]

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.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

As I see it the only real issues here are .
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.

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 .

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.

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

[CleverClogs]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The £300 comprised of £85 + £215 are not specified on the warrant but are accepted as chargeable until they are challenged in the High Court. This leaves us the age old problem - the warrant won't specify the fees, but we agree they are payable. The only authorisation for this is the letter from the courts, which is NOT a warrant, and the letterhead warrant from Marstons.

I am not convinced that those fees are payable, as there could plainly be no question of removing the OP's goods if the auction value thereof would not cover bailiff costs, sale costs and the fine.

Short of challenging them and being that test case, it's hard to see what the OP can do to dispute these. The locksmith seems OTT to me.

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

[CleverClogs]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

And yet, NOBODY has challenged this £300 fee yet. Nor does it seem likely anyone is going to. Some sites claim victories challenging them, but can't back it up with case law. Why?

The bailiffs capitulated rather than letting a precedent be set?