Help marstons charged £403

[shaz]

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.
I got a letter from HM Courts&Ttibunals Service to say all payments should be made to Marstons etc(its a standard letter).
Then I got a visit from Mr Kendall from Marstons on 25.1.2013 who put a "postcard" through the letter box with figure written on the back of card.. £495 - £195 rejected court payment).On Monday 4th feb 2013 I got a phone call from My accountant telling me that Mr Kendall phoned him inquiring about me?on the same day I sent an email to Marstons asking for some details about total charges warrant etc. I got a reply from Marstons on 07.01.2013 by email and the sent me a complaint form (which I didnt request)but got none of the information I requested,so I sent another email on 07.01.2013 requesting details again.
Then this morning on 08.02.2013 at 6am I get a knock on my door from Mr Kendall from Marston with two police officers and a lock smith!! and explained to me who he was etc and I told him I sent few emails requesting details which he didnt want to know,anyway he had the locksmith so I said I wanted to record this and I asked him why he is here .he said to collect the court fine...i said its already paid and he replied the court rejected the fine and it was passed to Marstons. so I asked him are you here to collect your fees or court fine?? his reply..The court passed the payment of £195 to us and we will take our charges out first and then pay the court.
I paid £403 in total (£300 marstons fee £103 for locksmith.
HOW DO I GET THESE CHARGES BACK???
THANKS

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Until yesterday I confess that I had not known that the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 had been introduced on 1st November 2013

... and with it the surprising inclusion of clause 52.8 (4) which now allows that either the debtor OR the court may give permission for the goods to be removed before sale.

A most significant "loophole" has now well and truly been closed.

Will the Court give permission for the bailiff to remove goods? Without fail.

This was, of course, to fit with the infamous Part 3 of the Courts, Tribunals and Enforcement Act, whereby a "control order" over the goods and chattels of a debtor could be signed by a judge and collected from the debtor's home whenever a bailiff pleased, using whatever force was deemed expedient. Cameron had declared in 2010 that he would never introduce such barbaric and draconian laws but, by November 2013, with the Lib Dems looking as if they really would leave the coalition this time and simultaneously facing a Tory right wing revolt over Europe, he decided that now was as good a time as ever to enact the piece of legislation that would ultimately lead to the expulsion of the UK from the Council of Europe which the UK had helped to found in the aftermath of WW2.

[Milo]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

(11) Subject to any direction to the contrary in the warrant, where the distress is levied on household goods, the goods shall not, without the consent in writing of the person against whom the distress is levied, be removed from the house until the day of sale;and so much of the goods shall be impounded as is in the opinion of the person executing the warrant sufficient to satisfy the distress, by affixing to the articles impounded a conspicuous mark.

For well over 100 years it has always been the case that where distress is levied upon household goods that the items cannot be removed from the property until the day of sale without the written permission of the debtor. It is a truly bizarre clause and has remained unchanged since the 1800's.

Until yesterday I confess that I had not known that the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 had been introduced on 1st November 2013 and with it the surprising inclusion of clause 52.8 (4) which now allows that either the debtor OR the court may give permission for the goods to be removed before sale.

A most significant "loophole" has now well and truly been closed.

Will the Court give permission for the bailiff to remove goods? Without fail.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The swivel servant on whom Margaret Hodge should be unleashed is Peter Handcock CBE.

I'll leave it for others to decide if he is a case of (link) nominative determinism. :rofl:

lol:rofl:

Re: Help marstons charged £403

The swivel servant on whom Margaret Hodge should be unleashed is Peter Handcock CBE.

I'll leave it for others to decide if he is a case of (link) nominative determinism. :rofl:

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

When you've got someone who is smarmy, out-of-touch and either can't or won't give a straight answer, in fact, he avoids answering questions, in charge of Justice, Prisons and Offender Management, is it any wonder few people have any confidence in the judicial system anymore? Why not set Margaret Hodge on him? She doesn't seem to stand for any BS or nonsense, if the mauling she gave the NHS CEO the other day is anything to go by.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

If MoJ don't know this is happening, they can't do anything about it. Different case once they are told about it, however. Then, they have no excuse.

How can they not know? there have been enough complaints regarding bailiffs, and questions in Parliament regarding their activities.

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

If it could be proved it was 2, then it would be a breach of Due Process, and a potential remedy under Human rights or the European convention On Human Rights Articles, 3 and 6

Article 3 Prohibition of torture, Marston's pursuit of a debtor and constant calling for unaffordable payments, and obstructing a debtor attempting to pay what they can reasonably afford could amount to torture under this head

Article 6 Right to fair trial, they have been tried convicted and sentenced, court staff sending an account to bailiffs as a further punishment would fall foul of this head, as well as possibly breach Article 3 also.

MOJ as it is complicit would be liable for any restitution if someone successfully brought a case and won.

If MoJ don't know this is happening, they can't do anything about it. Different case once they are told about it, however. Then, they have no excuse.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Definition of justice
noun

• 1 [mass noun] just behaviour or treatment:a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people
• the quality of being fair and reasonable:the justice of his case
• the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:a tragic miscarriage of justice
  
  Now let's ask how well that definition sits alongside the Government Department charged with ensuring this in relation to this specific area?
  

Well it doesn't does it!

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

That does not adequately explain why the default or debt is passed to bailiffs.

I suspect there may be two main reasons:

1. Laziness - attachments to earnings or to benefits may require more effort by the court staff
2. Punishment - the court staff know that the bailiffs can double or treble the money owing.

If it could be proved it was 2, then it would be a breach of Due Process, and a potential remedy under Human rights or the European convention On Human Rights Articles, 3 and 6

Article 3 Prohibition of torture, Marston's pursuit of a debtor and constant calling for unaffordable payments, and obstructing a debtor attempting to pay what they can reasonably afford could amount to torture under this head

Article 6 Right to fair trial, they have been tried convicted and sentenced, court staff sending an account to bailiffs as a further punishment would fall foul of this head, as well as possibly breach Article 3 also.

MOJ as it is complicit would be liable for any restitution if someone successfully brought a case and won.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

That does not adequately explain why the default or debt is passed to bailiffs.

I suspect there may be two main reasons:

1. Laziness - attachments to earnings or to benefits may require more effort by the court staff
2. Punishment - the court staff know that the bailiffs can double or treble the money owing.

Surely an unbiased Court of Law would never do that?

Also, re laziness, I would have thought some of the other options might be less trouble. I'd very much applaud anyone who is successful in getting a definitive answer to these questions though. The reluctance to be open and provide an answer from the Ministry of Justice speaks volumes.

This is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of justice:

Definition of justice
noun

• 1 [mass noun] just behaviour or treatment:a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people
  
• the quality of being fair and reasonable:the justice of his case
  
• the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:a tragic miscarriage of justice
  
  Now let's ask how well that definition sits alongside the Government Department charged with ensuring this in relation to this specific area?
  

[bluebottle]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

That does not adequately explain why the default or debt is passed to bailiffs.

I suspect there may be two main reasons:

1. Laziness - attachments to earnings or to benefits may require more effort by the court staff
2. Punishment - the court staff know that the bailiffs can double or treble the money owing.

If it's 1, they need a good hard kick up the arse. If it's 2, they need pointing in the direction of the nearest Jobcentre. The judges/JPs are the ones who have the legal authority to hand out punishment, not the court staff.

Re: Help marstons charged £403

Probably because it is the ONLY option that allows their appointed contractors the opportunity to make a profit. Justice takes a second place, to Mammon and cash, where a penalty or even arrears in extremis of £0.01, a penny! will be inflated to hundreds of pounds by Marstons, Phillips, and the others.

That does not adequately explain why the default or debt is passed to bailiffs.

I suspect there may be two main reasons:

1. Laziness - attachments to earnings or to benefits may require more effort by the court staff
2. Punishment - the court staff know that the bailiffs can double or treble the money owing.

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

This, of course, effectively hinders any sale.

Depending on how they mark it, if they seize antiques it could damage them and reduce the value. A muppet bailiff could attach a plastic tag to a Chippendale chair with a staple gun or a couple of panel pins.......

[bizzybob]

Re: Help marstons charged £403

I think there's another more pressing question needs asking here as well. Below I hope I've attached a copy of a Further Steps Notice. WHY is the option of levying on goods always chosen, when some of the other options, particularly the AOE, are cheaper and more likely to get the money back?

Probably because it is the ONLY option that allows their appointed contractors the opportunity to make a profit. Justice takes a second place, to Mammon and cash, where a penalty or even arrears in extremis of £0.01, a penny! will be inflated to hundreds of pounds by Marstons, Phillips, and the others.