Help marstons charged £403

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

This is not arguing for augments sake BB, you advised the OP to complain about the contents of the paperwork they were left, because your "gut feeling" said it was not worth the paperer it was printed on, and because it was not the warrant, well unfortunately it does not have to be the warrant.
So in this case your gut feeling was incorrect.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I still hold that view. Post #178 refers.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

"Also, please bear in mind the recent JR in respect of court fines. This may well cast doubts on the legality of the court's and a contracted bailiff's actions, especially if the defendant's means have not been examined"

Any links to this one BB?

And i agree marstons Bailiffs are known thugs and criminals, HMCS court staff should have their collars felt along with some of Marston's finest for aiding and abetting the marstons criminal action collecting fines, such as assault, ABH, GBH etc etc.

[wales01man]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I have to butt in here in support of Bluebottle,he like many others on here give advice which they consider correct they state they are not trained qualified solictors or barristers,the purpose of forums like this is to try to offer help to all the choice to use that advice rests with the thread starter and others in the same situation,Bluebottle has many times expressed an opinion and suggested the OP seeks legal advice and as many posters state they are NOT legally qualified.when someone comes onto a thread and argues a point of view its fair comment but there is no place for abuse of other members advice if this happens too much many members will withdraw their support for the site i think,i read many posts and always try to look at the situation with an open mind i think some OPs are fighting a losing battle but others have a good chance of resolving things in a way that suits their needs, this type of forum can help i presume that those who ask for advice realise its someones view of the problem which is posted for legal advice from a qualified legal person there are other ways to gain advice some FOC some at a price the choice is there,
I do not know any of the members of LB personally but i respect those who give advice

[MissFM]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Bravo Wales! Well said.:clap2:

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I have to butt in here in support of Bluebottle,he like many others on here give advice which they consider correct they state they are not trained qualified solictors or barristers,the purpose of forums like this is to try to offer help to all the choice to use that advice rests with the thread starter and others in the same situation,Bluebottle has many times expressed an opinion and suggested the OP seeks legal advice and as many posters state they are NOT legally qualified.when someone comes onto a thread and argues a point of view its fair comment but there is no place for abuse of other members advice if this happens too much many members will withdraw their support for the site i think,i read many posts and always try to look at the situation with an open mind i think some OPs are fighting a losing battle but others have a good chance of resolving things in a way that suits their needs, this type of forum can help i presume that those who ask for advice realise its someones view of the problem which is posted for legal advice from a qualified legal person there are other ways to gain advice some FOC some at a price the choice is there,
I do not know any of the members of LB personally but i respect those who give advice

I agree that people come on here for support and this is admirable . I also agree that we are not (in the main) qualified.
But when someone gives advice which is expressed in an authoritative and specific fashion all efforts must be made to ensure that this advice is correct.

Resorting to name calling of bailiffs or anyone else to cover errors like this is an easy way of winning approval on a forum like this, but is not a lot of use to the OP or anyone else who is after factual solutions to their problems.

BB please use my current user name. As for your post 178 it has no basis in law, you have been shown the relevant statute, Labman the resident Bailiff expert agrees, so other than your, "gut feeling" what reason do you give for your contrary view.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

"Also, please bear in mind the recent JR in respect of court fines. .

Do you have more information of this ?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

This is the link to the JR.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

The basic thrust of the ruling is that a fine cannot be imposed or enforced unless the defendant's means have been examined. In layman's terms, this means that if a court has imposed a fine in the defendant's absence without taking account of their means and they default or get behind with payments, it cannot be enforced. Also, six months may not be sufficient time in which to pay a fine, especially if it is particularly large. Two or, even, three years may be necessary to give the defendant time to clear the fine. The computer system used by HMCTS was also condemned by the court as "not fit for purpose".

How will this affect fines the likes of Marstons, Excel, Philips/Collectica and Swift have been involved in collecting?

Personally, I would not be surprised if these are now reviewed, in the light of the JR. I have to add a word of warning that the JR could cost the taxpayer dearly, especially if those defendants affected now lodge formal complaints against HMCTS and seek compensation. Okay, I don't expect Marstons et all to cop the flak over this, but if any of them have engaged in thuggery and misrepresented their powers and the status of warrants to defendants, it is the taxpayer who will, ultimately, pick up the bill for compensation. This may be the ideal opportunity for the MoJ to dump Marstons et all and use their own Warrant Officers to enforce unpaid fines. At least they behave themselves and are fully accountable by virtue of their status as Crown Servants.

[wales01man]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Why shouldnt bailiffs who break the law as in the case of one woman and many more be named if they feel wronged take out an injunction,people need to know there are thugs like her out there who on yhis forun would condone violence against a disable person,
How advice is written and what is stated anyone should know how complicated the answers to some questions can be its up to the reader to decide to act or not on the advice given,as i said and otheres too seek qualified legal advice this forum can only really be seen as a guide to point people in the right direction no one im sure declares their advice 100% legally accurate,lets not forget that and move away from online slanging matches it gets rather boring and pathetic this is not the house of commons?

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Re. Post #178. There is plenty of evidence on LB and other sites as to the behaviour of Marstons' bailiffs. Some of the incidents involve serious injury to innocent people.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

This is the link to the JR.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean

The basic thrust of the ruling is that a fine cannot be imposed or enforced unless the defendant's means have been examined. In layman's terms, this means that if a court has imposed a fine in the defendant's absence without taking account of their means and they default or get behind with payments, it cannot be enforced. Also, six months may not be sufficient time in which to pay a fine, especially if it is particularly large. Two or, even, three years may be necessary to give the defendant time to clear the fine. The computer system used by HMCTS was also condemned by the court as "not fit for purpose".

How will this affect fines the likes of Marstons, Excel, Philips/Collectica and Swift have been involved in collecting?

Personally, I would not be surprised if these are now reviewed, in the light of the JR. I have to add a word of warning that the JR could cost the taxpayer dearly, especially if those defendants affected now lodge formal complaints against HMCTS and seek compensation. Okay, I don't expect Marstons et all to cop the flak over this, but if any of them have engaged in thuggery and misrepresented their powers and the status of warrants to defendants, it is the taxpayer who will, ultimately, pick up the bill for compensation. This may be the ideal opportunity for the MoJ to dump Marstons et all and use their own Warrant Officers to enforce unpaid fines. At least they behave themselves and are fully accountable by virtue of their status as Crown Servants.

Very interesting case, doesn't change the current situation regarding fees unfortunately, as for the remarks about bailiff thuggery, I agree.

The rest is speculation better voiced in a discussion thread rather than one that is supposed to give practical advice IMO

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

There is a current thread that started this morning where there is doubt about the validity of the fees. The bailiff companyinvolved is Marston. Misleading a person about a bailiff's powers can fall within the definition of dishonesty, especially if the bailiff is attempting to obtain money or property or gain entry.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Yes it has been going on for years, perhaps when the new regulations and simplified fee structure is introduced it will help.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Don't hold your breath, but it wouldn't surprise me if this coalition government is pandering more to the civil enforcement industry, the debt collection industry and the banksters than listening to consumer groups who want to see a major clampdown on certificated bailiffs and HCEOs.

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I must confess to not having read the case, though I've had the link for several days. The brief summary is useful, thank you.

I am not sure this makes that much of a change, based purely on the summary. It was my understanding that a court judgment could already be challenged if the debtor found it unaffordable. Does a N245 not serve this exact purpose? Courts don't like judgments not being affordable, and are always willing, in my experience, to do a means test.

I agree that with bailiffs it can take some pushing for in a Magistrates' Court, but the procedure that has to be followed always results in it going back for means testing eventually if the bailiff is unsuccessful. We always advise they go to the court in person (ideally with a doctors note as it helps) day after day after day asking for a means test hearing, until they get one, as per the bailiff guide.

Courts already means test as a matter of course when passing judgment; if the debtor is not there, they have to apply for a variation so their means are tested and a variation to the order is made to take account of the person's financial situation.

As I haven't read it, how does this judgment change this situation?