Help marstons charged £403

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

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.

Ignoring the irrelevant comments.

The fact that these fees are sanctioned by the issuing court is quite important i think, if you wanted to challenge them. The fact is that these fees are legitimate until someone gets a judgment that says they aren't. Like it or not. There is no enabling legislation there does not need to be, it is a contractual arrangement between the parties. If you wish to challenge its validity then you will have to take them to court.

This is not just my opinion it is the opinion of anyone who knows anything about the subject.

Pleased to be on your ignore list though

[CleverClogs]

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.

If the warrant had been executed by other means, such as by an enforcement officer working directly for HMCS, would any additional fees have been payable?

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

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

"I got a fine from court for £195.00 back in March 2012 which I paid in December 2012 after I got a letter from Marstons with added charge of £85.00,but I paid direct to the court the amount of £195.00 on advice of this Forum."
Which is why I stated at post# 119 that if Op had paid the Admin fee at the same time as the fine, the action should have ceased there and then, because only the fine was paid, they went in for the kill.

Again is the admin letter fee due? Arguably, as the letter has been received by the debtor, and the fine paid it has, it would appear that as Marstons sent the letter the fee is due, but if OP had not been sent a Final Steps Notice by the court previous to this, then that may also change things

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

"I got a fine from court for £195.00 back in March 2012 which I paid in December 2012 after I got a letter from Marstons with added charge of £85.00,but I paid direct to the court the amount of £195.00 on advice of this Forum."
Which is why I stated at post# 119 that if Op had paid the Admin fee at the same time as the fine, the action should have ceased there and then, because only the fine was paid, they went in for the kill.

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

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Ignoring the irrelevant comments.

The fact that these fees are sanctioned by the issuing court is quite important i think, if you wanted to challenge them. The fact is that these fees are legitimate until someone gets a judgment that says they aren't. Like it or not. There is no enabling legislation there does not need to be, it is a contractual arrangement between the parties. If you wish to challenge its validity then you will have to take them to court.

This is not just my opinion it is the opinion of anyone who knows anything about the subject.

Pleased to be on your ignore list though

MoJ/HMCTS have yet to provide evidence of enabling legislation to enforce the fees through the court warrant. And contrary to your statement, what case or statute law are you relying on to say the fees are legitimate? The fees may be legitimate between HMCTS and Marstons, but as the fine defaulter is not a party to that contract they cannot be enforced on the fine defaulter through that contract. Explain why MoJ bottle out whenever they are challenged on this very point?

The things is, Gravytrain, or is it Mr Peterbard or DavyB, we have a private sector bailiff company that is out of control and officials within HMCTS who either haven't got a clue what they are doing or talking about or are, quite possibly, corrupt. Explain why no two courts give the same answer to the same question?

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

MoJ/HMCTS have yet to provide evidence of enabling legislation to enforce the fees through the court warrant. And contrary to your statement, what case or statute law are you relying on to say the fees are legitimate? The fees may be legitimate between HMCTS and Marstons, but as the fine defaulter is not a party to that contract they cannot be enforced on the fine defaulter through that contract. Explain why MoJ bottle out whenever they are challenged on this very point?

The things is, Gravytrain, or is it Mr Peterbard or DavyB, we have a private sector bailiff company that is out of control and officials within HMCTS who either haven't got a clue what they are doing or talking about or are, quite possibly, corrupt. Explain why no two courts give the same answer to the same question?

No BB the problem is that the OP could well be in the situation they are in because they followed your advice and didn't pay the initial fee.

[bizzybob]

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 ?

Thats how I read the Op's original post, the fine was £195, which was then paid, but the £85 letter fee Marstons were charging was not.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

No BB the problem is that the OP could well be in the situation they are in because they followed your advise and didn't pay the initial fee.

Evidence please. Because I certainly didn't tell them not to pay the fee. They came to this forum AFTER the bailiff behaved like a muppet. Please get your facts straight, Peterbard/DavyB/Gravytrain.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Evidence please. Because I certainly didn't tell them not to pay the fee. They came to this forum AFTER the bailiff behaved like a muppet. Please get your facts straight, Peterbard/DavyB/Gravytrain.

Perhaps not you personally but someone of the same misguided and dangerous opinion.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Hi everyone.
This is my first post here.
A quick guide first, I got a fine from court for £195.00 back in March 2012 which I paid in December 2012 after I got a letter from Marstons with added charge of £85.00,but I paid direct to the court the amount of £195.00 on advice of this Forum.

See above

[CleverClogs]

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?

I'd say it was both, as it is the extra-judicial imposition of charges or penalties by a mere court official.

As those charges would not be payable if an employee of HMCS had enforced the warrant, the defaulter was therefore being charged fees incurred for the administrative convenience of the court bureaucracy.

[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.

[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

[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

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

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