Marstons!

[Lilacdreams]

Re: Marstons!

Thank you Milo. That's much clearer now.

[BoroBoy1975]

Re: Marstons!

The Marston scumbags strike yet again - now there's a surprise - seriously why do government departments continue to reward this vile, horrible company with even more contracts when surely they must know how their meat head, moron bailiffs are behaving intimidating a young child with serious health problems is really brave of the clown who is responsible for the incident above & don't get me started on their rude ignorant office staff who answer the phone calls who think their so big & clever on the other end of the line - if I had my way I'd treat the lot of them like an old dog past it's sell by date including their CEO who is that far up his own back side & can't see out of his middle class bubble - take the buggers to the vets & have them put out of their misery the low-life, sad, pathetic individuals!!!

[Milo]

Re: Marstons!

PS: Marston Group are now aware of this matter.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons!

PS: Marston Group are now aware of this matter.

The question is what are they going to do about it, pull back whilst Stat Dec is entered or carry on enforcement until the originating court tells them to cease and desist, then carry on enforcement anyway in true traditional marstons style?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons!

The question is what are they going to do about it, pull back whilst Stat Dec is entered or carry on enforcement until the originating court tells them to cease and desist, then carry on enforcement anyway in true traditional marstons style?

Isn't it the traditional Marstons style to claim - falsely - that the court has issued an arrest warrant and that to avoid gaol, the alleged debtor has to pay up in full?

[Qpips]

Re: Marstons!

Isn't it the traditional Marstons style to claim - falsely - that the court has issued an arrest warrant and that to avoid gaol, the alleged debtor has to pay up in full?

Yep! they sure did that to me...

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons!

Yep! they sure did that to me...

You aren't the only one.

The trouble is one of securing proof that the false claim was made. If it could be proved, the bailiff ought to be nicked.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons!

You aren't the only one.

The trouble is one of securing proof that the false claim was made. If it could be proved, the bailiff ought to be nicked.

We must watch them asclosely as we can, it's only a matter of time, before one slips up. hopefully they won't kill anyone in the meantime.

[Lilacdreams]

Re: Marstons!

PS: Marston Group are now aware of this matter.

thank you so much for all of your help today Milo! If there is any justice in this world then you surely are a welcome sign of it.

Boroboy & CleverCloggs, There is no way that the bailiff officer could possibly have known about my sons mental health issues as no previous correspondence had been shared or entered into. And so on this occasion she is not at fault. But I have since told her and her office so they are now aware of the damage that such brutal force on the front door can incur on my son. Therefor, any further incidents will now be very wrong. Not that anyone should feel the need to hammer like that in the first place? That in itself was uncalled for.

She was obviously intent on asserting her dominance from the get go.

[Milo]

Re: Marstons!

thank you so much for all of your help today Milo! If there is any justice in this world then you surely are a welcome sign of it.

Boroboy & CleverCloggs, There is no way that the bailiff officer could possibly have known about my sons mental health issues as no previous correspondence had been shared or entered into. And so on this occasion she is not at fault. But I have since told her and her office so they are now aware of the damage that such brutal force on the front door can incur on my son. Therefor, any further incidents will now be very wrong. Not that anyone should feel the need to hammer like that in the first place? That in itself was uncalled for.

She was obviously intent on asserting her dominance from the get go.

Thank you for your kind words....it is very much appreciated.

You are right of course in that the bailiff would not have known beforehand the mental health issues with your son and hopefully, the fine can be resolved with the court. If this was not to be the case (which I doubt) then Marston Group will keep the account within their welfare department and will NOT allocate it to an enforcement officer to enforce. Almost all other bailiff companies have similar arrangements. Naturally, all companies will require some evidence of vulnerability.

[Milo]

Re: Marstons!

If this post offends anyone I would assume that the moderators of the site will remove it. I hope not.

For the past 6 years I have posted on the bailiff forum of Consumer Action Group. I also have a commercial business advising individuals regarding bailiff enquiries. Neither on here or on CAG do I advertise my business. I found posting on this site very difficult last year as I was constantly being attacked by a poster who has since been banned and who now runs another forum with his "site team" person (MN).

The reason for the "attacks" relates to that persons belief that when Her Majesty's Government awarded the contracts to Marston Group, Collectica, Excel & Swift to collect unpaid court FINES that they (HMCS) are committing fraud as there is apparently no legal basis to allow bailiff fees to be added by the enforcement company. I will post much more on this in a separate thread.

I would assume that because of his many previous posts on here, this site (LB) tends to attract more enquiries than CAG about Marston Group and unpaid fines in general.

What I find very worrying is the way in which some posters on here frequently make the most awful comments about this one particular company almost as soon as a query is posted ( and before even knowing the full background to the enquiry).

As an example; in this particular thread there are comments such as: "Marston morons"..."meat head moron bailiffs"..."Marston scumbags" and finally..."I expect they will kill someone soon".

Even the original poster (Lilacdreams) has stated that the bailiff would not have known that her son was in the property or that he has mental problems. Quite why such hostile comments are being made is worrying.

As I have said above, this site tends to "attract" more enquiries about court fine enforcement but I can assure you that in "my day job" there are some companies that are even worse and below I will give you two examples from yesterday alone!!

One case was where a Marie Curie nurse called as she had been at the house of a debtor who has terminal breast cancer. The debtor is a single lady aged 39 with 3 children. DLA has been awarded on "special grounds" as her life expectancy is considered to be less than 6 months. This was awarded last November and the Marie Curie nurse believes that the debtor has probably no more that 2-3 months to live. She even went into a hospice for respite care two weeks ago and her children were cared for by her sister.

The bailiff was provided with evidence of the serious vulnerability but he would NOT return the Liability Order and insisted to the Marie Curie nurse that he would only do so if the debtor completed an Income & Expenditure so that he could make a deduction against her benefits !!!

With the authority of the debtor I sent a very stern email to the Director of the company and within minutes the bailiff had confirmed that he would return the account to the council. I dread o think what would have happened without my intervention.

The second case was of a bailiff enforcing an unpaid PCN. The debtor had woken up during the
night and had seen a clamp being put on her car at 2.40am !!! The bailiff returned at 6.50am and demanded almost £900.

The warrant was for a different address. The debtor pleaded with the bailiff that she had not not known of the PCN as she had moved and she even provided evidence that she had advised DVLA. The bailiff was adamant that unless she paid £900 her car would be taken. She had available credit on her credit card but, given the frequency of chargebacks ( as constantly advised by the above mentioned forum) the bailiff would only take cash or debit card.

She then tried to plead that she was vulnerable as she had just had a baby. She even showed the bailiff her 8 day old daughter. The response from the bailiff was that "both of you look healthy and can't be vulnerable".

Her car was taken and she was advised that the removal costs will add another £210 to the debt. Hopefully, this dreadful case will be resolved this morning.

The above are just 2 examples of what is happening with other bailiff companies on a daily basis. I have also made complaints to Marston Group if one of their bailiffs is acting out of order and I have done the same to other bailiff companies as well. Given that Marston Group is very much larger than other bailiff companies it goes without saying that they would attract more complaints. Common sense alone would tell you this.

What I would say is that when a post is made, it is far better to wait to hear the background to the complaint and reserve negative comments to very serious cases and where all of the facts are known.

The hostile comments on here are not helpful at all.

[Milo]

Re: Marstons!

Clever Clogs

It was NOT Marston Group that "bumped up" the fine to £1,190 and please let me explain:

When is summons is issued, the defendant is required to enter a "plea" on the summons. If the defendant enters a plea of not guilty...the case is listed for hearing at the Magistrates Court.

If the defendant enters a plea of guilty on the summons, he will also be required to complete the very simple Means Enquiry Form enclosed. This form is of vital importance as the court MUST take the information contained on this form into consideration when SETTING THE LEVEL OF FINE. This is all outlined very clearly by the Sentencing Council as a court should not (if possible) impose a fine that would take more than about a year to repay ( if you require more details on this please post back).

The court also impose the fine on a "sliding scale" depending in the income position....as outlined on the Means Enquiry Form.

When the case is heard in the Magistrates Court, then court will consider whether a plea has been entered and whether a Means Enquiry Form has been completed.

In the absence of a plea and completed Means Enquiry Form the court will consider that the defendant has failed to show any remorse and that he or she is not willing to disclose income details. The court will therefore impose a fine at the "higher end" of the sentencing guidelines. This always the case and this is all the more important with a speeding offence where the court will always impose 6 points on the licence where in normal cases the offence should warrant just 3 points.

There is a legal route to rectify any mistake made by the court ( for instance where the summons had gone to a wrong address or where the response to the summons had not arrived at the court in time and the remedy for this is to file a Statutory Declaration.

The Statutory Declaration will render void the conviction, fine, costs, surcharge, any endorsements, collection order, further steps notice and any bailiff action such as distress warrants. Anything already paid has to be repaid or otherwise undone (endorsements, for example)

As you will see from the above, in this particular case, the fine has been "bumped up" as Lilacdreams had not received the summons or completed the Means Enquiry Form and the reason for this is because she had moved home. She wil therefore be able to "rectify" this mistake by filing a Statutory Declaration.

[Qpips]

Re: Marstons!

We must watch them asclosely as we can, it's only a matter of time, before one slips up. hopefully they won't kill anyone in the meantime.

And hopefully I will be instrumental in that ( not the killing bit) lol

[Qpips]

Re: Marstons!

You aren't the only one.

The trouble is one of securing proof that the false claim was made. If it could be proved, the bailiff ought to be nicked.

Watch this space! (alledgedly) Hopefully...

[Qpips]

Re: Marstons!

You are right of course in that the bailiff would not have known beforehand the mental health issues with your son and hopefully, the fine can be resolved with the court. If this was not to be the case (which I doubt) then Marston Group will keep the account within their welfare department and will NOT allocate it to an enforcement officer to enforce. Almost all other bailiff companies have similar arrangements. Naturally, all companies will require some evidence of vulnerability.

I believe this should be researched - along with whether the fine has already been paid, prior to the bailiff attending, causing mayhem and treating alleged debtors like criminals! (As in my case!)

After all knowledge is power and their bull in a china shop tactics, and threats help no-one! ...Not even themselves