Help marstons charged £403

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

It appears to me, Gravytrain, you are being your usual argumentative self - no matter what incarnation you wish to be addressed by - for the sheer sake of being argumentative. The FOIA request is to clarify a number of issues relating to private bailiff companies acting on behalf of HMCTS. End of.

Yes that must be it BB nothing to do with your usual mistaken advice.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Yes that must be it BB nothing to do with your usual mistaken advice.

Easy people, these questions need to be asked, as basically passing UNRESTRICTED power to force entry, over even what the police have into the hands of companies as duibious as Marstons is a VERY BAD idea indeed, as their track record of assaults on non debtors, and debtors alike bears witness.

Incidentally here is one scenario, you could answer then.

Warrant is issued to marstons to enter my home for a debtor, who has been gone for 15 years, they haven't bothered to check, I have been with my family in occupation since then, and have been on the Register of Electors all the time, they break in without further ado, as I don't answer the door I am in the kitchen with a rolling pin as I am making a pie for dinner, think he is an intruder so clout him with it.

Who should be arrested and Why?

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Easy people, these questions need to be asked, as basically passing UNRESTRICTED power to force entry, over even what the police have into the hands of companies as duibious as Marstons is a VERY BAD idea indeed, as their track record of assaults on non debtors, and debtors alike bears witness.

Incidentally here is one scenario, you could answer then.

Warrant is issued to marstons to enter my home for a debtor, who has been gone for 15 years, they haven't bothered to check, I have been with my family in occupation since then, and have been on the Register of Electors all the time, they break in without further ado, as I don't answer the door I am in the kitchen with a rolling pin as I am making a pie for dinner, think he is an intruder so clout him with it.

Who should be arrested and Why?

What kind of pie ?

[labman]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The issue of forced entry is set in legislation. The warrant does carry the right of forced entry, but it is good practice to go back to the court before using this power as the risks of executing a warrant unilaterally is huge, as a certain bailiff found out recently.

The issue of fees is unlikely ever to be clarified short of a judicial review. I have spent a vast amount of time looking into the £300 fees (£85 and £215) recently, and have learned little that was not already known. It does seem clear there is a contractual right under Common Law to charge the fees. What is totally unclear is who should pay them. Until that is clarified, and I do not anticipate any FOI request or anything else resolving that in the immediate future, it would be irresponsible IMO to suggest debtors do anything other than pay the fees - others would disagree strongly with me.

I am aware of people recently who have been advised they are not liable for the fees as the fine itself has been cleared in full in the court. They have then found the bailiffs have forced entry in order to levy goods to secure their debt. The most recent of these was just yesterday.

The right of entry is given with the distress warrant from the Magistrates' Court, but there is a serious issue with at least Marstons where they print their own warrants and use these for entry. Often the figure owing on these differs from that on the original warrant from the court. The police, HM Courts and the Ministry of Justice appear not to care about this. I do!

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

What kind of pie ?

Snake & pygmy

But who should be arrested, me for mistaking the bailiff for a burglar, the debt not being mine, or the bailiff for not even bothering to check occupation before forcing the door?

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The issue of forced entry is set in legislation. The warrant does carry the right of forced entry, but it is good practice to go back to the court before using this power as the risks of executing a warrant unilaterally is huge, as a certain bailiff found out recently.

The right of entry is given with the distress warrant from the Magistrates' Court, but there is a serious issue with at least Marstons where they print their own warrants and use these for entry. Often the figure owing on these differs from that on the original warrant from the court. The police, HM Courts and the Ministry of Justice appear not to care about this. I do!

Exactly so, as the fees can often dwarf the arrears or remainder of a fine still unpaid, but these private thugs should be nowhere near enforcement. One day soon it may well be a Marstons bailiff in hospital, or mortuary, when they push their way into what was the wrong house in more ways than one.

The whole issue of fees, and how a contract for fees can be binding on someone not party to it, as in it is contrary to the law of contract most likely.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Snake & pygmy

But who should be arrested, me for mistaking the bailiff for a burglar, the debt not being mine, or the bailiff for not even bothering to check occupation before forcing the door?

They are supposed to identify the debtor is the person on the warrant before trying to execute it. So I would say that you would have the right to treat him the same way as any other burglar.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

They are supposed to identify the debtor is the person on the warrant before trying to execute it. So I would say that you would have the right to treat him the same way as any other burglar.

Thanks gravytrain, Marstons and other bailiffs often do not even do a simple check before steaming in, as happened in Plymouth, and an innocent party ended up severely injured by a Marstons bailiff, due to neither HMCS or marstons checking..

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

At the risk of cluttering this thread. there was a FOI request sent to the HMCS in 2008, requesting the guidance for implementation of the search and entry powers under the DCVCA. They replied with a heavily redacted document that basically told nothing.
A complaint was logged with the ICO by Baroness Ashton and this is what resulted.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/docume..._50159091.ashx

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

At the risk of cluttering this thread. there was a FOI request sent to the HMCS in 2008, requesting the guidance for implementation of the search and entry powers under the DCVCA. They replied with a heavily redacted document that basically told nothing.
A complaint was logged with the ICO by Baroness Ashton and this is what resulted.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/docume..._50159091.ashx

The usual obstruction and obfuscation.

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The usual obstruction and obfuscation.

Yes very frustrating.
It is difficult to find out when these powers re actually used, the presumption is that the only reported cases are when the police become involved, more often than not the threat and mention that they have the powers is enough to gain entry, it's a bit of a grey area.
Of course not knowing the guidance that they are supposed to follow makes it difficult to see if they are playing by the rules, or even what the rules are.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Yes very frustrating.
It is difficult to find out when these powers re actually used, the presumption is that the only reported cases are when the police become involved, more often than not the threat and mention that they have the powers is enough to gain entry, it's a bit of a grey area.
Of course not knowing the guidance that they are supposed to follow makes it difficult to see if they are playing by the rules, or even what the rules are.

Usual pack drill, mushroom syndrome, hide what is allowable, obfuscate, and bluff; one day it will trip them up, when marstons or another kills someone during a forced entry, possibly to the wrong house.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The Plymouth incident resulted in the victim being left with serious injuries and it is likely they will never be able to walk properly again. As for HMCTS and Marstons, are we not forgetting both are subject to Section 3, Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 (Duty to Ensure Safety of the Public)? The MoJ can obfuscate and obstruct as much as they like, as regards to what their contracted agents can and cannot do, it does not relieve them, nor does the DVCVA provide them with any exemption at all from compliance with health and safety legislation. Ways and Means Act.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The Plymouth incident resulted in the victim being left with serious injuries and it is likely they will never be able to walk properly again. As for HMCTS and Marstons, are we not forgetting both are subject to Section 3, Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 (Duty to Ensure Safety of the Public)? The MoJ can obfuscate and obstruct as much as they like, as regards to what their contracted agents can and cannot do, it does not relieve them, nor does the DVCVA provide them with any exemption at all from compliance with health and safety legislation. Ways and Means Act.

If the bailiff injures themselves due to a debtor, or third party with mental health issues clobbering the bailiff with a blunt instrument, or an agressive wheelchair user ramming them on the way in, the bailiff company could be done by the HSE summarily and with no defence to the charges under H & S for failure to carry out a risk assessment, imho. Wonder if marstons and the others who rely on DCVA realise their obligations and potential criminal liabilities under H & S?

[gravytrain]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The issue of forced entry is set in legislation. The warrant does carry the right of forced entry, but it is good practice to go back to the court before using this power as the risks of executing a warrant unilaterally is huge, as a certain bailiff found out recently.

The issue of fees is unlikely ever to be clarified short of a judicial review. I have spent a vast amount of time looking into the £300 fees (£85 and £215) recently, and have learned little that was not already known. It does seem clear there is a contractual right under Common Law to charge the fees. What is totally unclear is who should pay them. Until that is clarified, and I do not anticipate any FOI request or anything else resolving that in the immediate future, it would be irresponsible IMO to suggest debtors do anything other than pay the fees - others would disagree strongly with me.

I am aware of people recently who have been advised they are not liable for the fees as the fine itself has been cleared in full in the court. They have then found the bailiffs have forced entry in order to levy goods to secure their debt. The most recent of these was just yesterday.

The right of entry is given with the distress warrant from the Magistrates' Court, but there is a serious issue with at least Marstons where they print their own warrants and use these for entry. Often the figure owing on these differs from that on the original warrant from the court. The police, HM Courts and the Ministry of Justice appear not to care about this. I do!

The problem is that the bailiff does not have to show the actual warrant at the visit, he does have to make arrangements for the debtor to view it if requested. The requirements for the paperwork he shows and leaves behind include,
Purpose of visit, proof of powers invested I him by contractor, sum owed and where the actual warrant may be viewed.
There may be a problem where bailiffs are printing off documents and alleging that they are the actual warrant when they are not, I suspect that if you challenged them on this they would just say that they never intended to give the impression and the warrant can be viewed at xyz.
Slippery I know but legal unfortunately.
Of course any paperwork must have the amount of costs correctly stated.