Help marstons charged £403

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Bluebottle, could the inclusion of contractual payments, into a Warrant to collect a legally imposed fine be regarded as repugnant to the law, or a breach of due process by adding additional financial penalties not handed down at time of sentencing?

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Personally I think the warrant would be legitimate as far as the OP is concerned. If they are seeking redress for the the fees then the only avenue open would be to say that the locksmith and all attempts to force entry under the stated legislation was not reasonable, in that it the costs were incurred in order to recover the fine and that this was already paid.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

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.

Someone needs to challenge the validity of a warrant with Marston's letterhead on it then, especially the +£85 scribbled on it for locksmith, as is this not defacement? and if they did this to an official court issued warrant they could be in a spot of bother?

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Personally I think the warrant would be legitimate as far as the OP is concerned. If they are seeking redress for the the fees then the only avenue open would be to say that the locksmith and all attempts to force entry under the stated legislation was not reasonable, in that it the costs were incurred in order to recover the fine and that this was already paid.

It was minus the £85 already incurred for the letter, has that been paid in with the fine, then there would be no ground for further enforcement. In the circumstances, the actions of the court and Marstons may appear to be disproportionate and merely to garner extra fees for the bailiff, it all depends on how a court would view the status of the £85 letter fee, is it contractual between court and bailiff, or does the debtor have to pay a consideration for a contract they are not party to? This question has not yet been answered satisfactorily.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Personally I think the warrant would be legitimate as far as the OP is concerned. If they are seeking redress for the the fees then the only avenue open would be to say that the locksmith and all attempts to force entry under the stated legislation was not reasonable, in that it the costs were incurred in order to recover the fine and that this was already paid.

Just to clarify what you are saying GT, would I be correct in thinking you are saying that the OP believed the letterhead warrant the bailiff was waving about was genuine and paid on the grounds of that, even though the fine and admin fee had already been paid previously and the bailiff, therefore, had no lawful reason to attend her home? If this is what you are saying, the bailiff's words and actions indicate the bailiff acted ultra vires. If the OP is currently on this thread, could they please confirm if they were lead to believe they were liable to pay these additional fees, even though they had already paid the fines and admin fees some time previously?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

It was minus the £85 already incurred for the letter, has that been paid in with the fine, then there would be no ground for further enforcement. In the circumstances, the actions of the court and Marstons may appear to be disproportionate and merely to garner extra fees for the bailiff, it all depends on how a court would view the status of the £85 letter fee, is it contractual between court and bailiff, or does the debtor have to pay a consideration for a contract they are not party to? This question has not yet been answered satisfactorily.

According to the contract, the £215 fee is only payable if the bailiff has to attend following the initial letter and they receive no response from the defendant. However, in this case, the OP paid both fine and admin fee direct to the court and the court informed Marstons of this. Under those circumstances, Marstons had no grounds for attending the OP's home. It is clearly evident that the bailiff who turned up with the police and a locksmith in tow lied through his teeth, evidenced by what the court subsequently told the OP. My gut-feeling is that the bailiff has committed a number of offences under the Fraud Act 2006 by his words and actions and turning up with the police and a locksmith may constitute an offence under Section 21, Theft Act 1968.

[Guest]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Oh dear.
Page 1 - post 24 - MARS 4

The court allows collection of fees after payment of fine. Period.
What is in doubt, is the method.

Whether the court can get away with allowing £300 is beyond me.
I refer to my post #109.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Oh dear.
Page 1 - post 24 - MARS 4

The court allows collection of fees after payment of fine. Period.
What is in doubt, is the method.

Whether the court can get away with allowing £300 is beyond me.
I refer to my post #109.
(I'm outta here!)

Unfortunately, the evidence clearly indicates the bailiff lied. They are not allowed to charge upfront fees. That is fraud, per se.

[Guest]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Unfortunately, the evidence clearly indicates the bailiff lied. They are not allowed to charge upfront fees. That is fraud, per se.

Lied about what, bluebottle?
The court letter clearly states a warrant for distress had been issued.
It also clearly states the bailiff can charge its fees after the payment has been made.

I usually take 'upfront' to mean 'in advance'.
This was actually a very overdue payment.
If by 'upfront' you mean 'under duress' - I agree.

I am not aware whether the bailiff needs to use the original warrant - but is that such a big point, really?
And does that constitute fraud? Is it a big enough issue to take action in fraud over, in court?

Deception of locksmith and police, maybe.

I think I'll leave the thread there.
I did my best for the OP in #109.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

No I don't think any acted beyond the law.

The bailiff are allowed to charge fees and pass on fees for locksmiths unfortunately.

The OP seeks redress for these charges because the fine had been settled, in essence these are enforcement fees made to recover the fine. So they should be returned, simple as that, in my view.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Lied about what, bluebottle?
The court letter clearly states a warrant for distress had been issued.
It also clearly states the bailiff can charge its fees after the fine is paid.

If by 'upfront' you mean 'under duress' - I agree.
I usually take 'upfront' to mean 'in advance'.
This was actually a very overdue payment.

I am not aware whether the bailiff needs to use the original warrant - but is that such a big point, really?
And does that constitute fraud? Is it a big enough issue to take action over, in court?

I don't think they do to be honest

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Was the admin fee paid previously? I missed that bit. Which post please? It might change things.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Was the admin fee paid previously? I missed that bit. Which post please? It might change things.

I have looked back through the thread and it would appear not. However, there is clear evidence of criminality on the part of the bailiff in that he made false statements as to fact. That can neither be ignored or excused. I doubt whether he had lawful authority to attend with a locksmith as, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this only applies when the fine, itself, has not been paid. In this case, the fine had already been paid. I have no doubt the police who attended were hoodwinked by the Marston letterhead warrant and I would not be surprised if, due to their lack of training in bailiff matters, they believed the letterhead warrant to be genuine. There would need to be enabling legislation to allow a court warrant to be used to collect bailiff fees. If the magistrates court distress warrant only permits the collection of the fine, then, unless HMCTS can quote from and produce relevant legislation, contracted bailiffs cannot use it to collect their fees also. A court warrant is a legal document and has to be complied with to the letter. Do not forget that courts do not appear to sing from the same hymn sheet, each court giving a different answer to the same question.

[Guest]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Look, to save a lot of wrist-power, can we please start using :lock1:for pointless locksmith,

:croc:for procedure for treating bailiffs without manners

hone:to advise use of eggy-peggy language for debt calls

and :lunch: I-eat-judges-for-dinner as a motto for everyone.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

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.

Whether or not the MoJ "sanction" the fees and exorbitant charges is not really in question - what is being discussed is whether any legislation exists whereby one or more civil servants may force a defaulter to pay the fees and charges invented by a bailiff and/or the bailiff's employers.

Your latest incarnation and your use of a web proxy fools nobody, for your ego soon appears despite your attempts to disguise yourself. You are not interested in discussion, but in argument largely for the sake of argument, pushing forward your opinion and claiming that no other opinions matter. Henceforth, I shall add you to my "ignore" list.

:flame::flame::flame::flame::flame::flame::flame:: flame::flame::flame::flame::flame::flame::flame::f lame::flame::flame::flame::flame::flame::flame::fl ame::flame: