Marston bailiff help needed

[bluebottle]

Re: Marston bailiff help needed

A bailiff is not permitted to levy on or seize any property belonging to a third party. And the one involved in your case knows it. So does Marstons.

From a strictly criminal point of view, the bailiff has committed one offence of Blackmail and one offence of Fraud by False Misrepresentation. He has committed Blackmail because he made an unwarranted demand and used menaces (threats) to enforce the demand. If the car was yours 100% he would be acting within the law, except if it was used in connection with your employment, business or vocation, in which case it cannot be levied on or seized. Because the car belongs to a third party, he cannot seize it, levy on it or remove it. The law does not allow him to do so. He can only levy on and seize goods belonging to the debtor. Under these circumstances, he had no right in law to make the demand and the threats he made were not a proper means of enforcing the demand. He has committed Fraud by False Misrepresentation because he levied on third-party goods and the levy fee for that is invalid. Other fees may also be invalid

On the civil side, you could seek damages for Unlawful Interference with Property and Unlawful Detention of Property.

I would suggest that recovery of unlawful fees would be appropriate in your case. Could you list the fees this bailiff charged, please, including the PCN amount and court fee?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marston bailiff help needed

the fiancé company payed the garage

When are you to be married? :grin:

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marston bailiff help needed

A bailiff is not permitted to levy on or seize any property belonging to a third party. And the one involved in your case knows it. So does Marstons.

Indeed, but do you suppose they might care about that?

I would suggest that recovery of unlawful fees would be appropriate in your case.

Yes, and from the Council on whose behalf this goon was acting.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marston bailiff help needed

Indeed, but do you suppose they might care about that?


Yes, and from the Council on whose behalf this goon was acting.

I don't think the local authority will be too chuffed with Marstons when a LBA lands on their doormat, thanks to the unlawful actions of this brainless bailiff.

[charitynjw]

Re: Marston bailiff help needed



I SEE HE'S ALREADY GOT THE DOORMAT!!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marston bailiff help needed

I don't think the local authority will be too chuffed with Marstons when a LBA lands on their doormat, thanks to the unlawful actions of this brainless bailiff.

That's one way.

I believe it would be better to acquaint the Head of Revenues and/or CEO of the Council with the extent of the bailiff's overcharging, invite them to order a repayment of that sum and, when they play at Silly Buggers, refer the council to the LGO.

[Willbro]

Re: Marston bailiff help needed

Thanks for all your help so far

i have wrote to the council and marston


I I have also rang the police and reported it as a crime
under blackmale and also fraud by misrepresentation
and am going down on Saturday at 5

i understand the blackmail is because he has threatened to toe my car away if I did not pay when he had no legal right to do so

am I right the fraud by false misrepresentation because he has charged me
for the levy when he had no right to and is there other reasons

I just want to be clear on my story

thanks everyone

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marston bailiff help needed

Just don't expect the woodentops to do much - if anything - about it.

[ploddertom]

Re: Marston bailiff help needed

Have you provided proof the car was on HP?

[bluebottle]

Re: Marston bailiff help needed

Although the bailiff was enforcing an unpaid PCN, he can only levy on and seize goods that belong to you. As long as he does that and has a valid warrant from the court, he is acting within the law and is committing no offence(s) under the Criminal Law.

However, in your case, this brainless buffoon seized a vehicle belonging to a third party, namely, a finance company, who are the lawful owners of your car until such time as you make the final payment, at which time proper right and title passes to you. He knows or ought to know that he cannot levy on or seize any goods belonging to a third party. His statement that he could seize the car, sell it and give the money to the finance company is false. As Ploddertom has correctly pointed out, the finance company would be in breach of their contract with you and not only would they have to return all payments made to date to you, they would also potentially forfeit their right to any further payments.

The warrant this numpty was acting under will, no doubt, specify that only the goods belonging to the debtor may be seized, not third-party goods in the debtor's custody or under the debtor's control.

The act of Blackmail will apply where he seized the car and, having been advised it was third-part property, threatened to remove and sell the car, knowing he had no right or power in law to do so. Under those circumstances, the terms of the warrant would have been breached and he was, therefore, acting without lawful authority, as the warrant would not, in all probability, allow him to seize and sell third-party goods, only those belonging to the debtor.

It is essential it is shown that the blackmailer made an unwarranted demand and, at the time of doing so, used menaces (threats) to enforce the demand and that the use of these threats was an improper means of enforcing the demand. Even though the bailiff had a warrant empowering him to demand the amount owed to the creditor - the local authority responsible for issuing the PCN - he was also demanding payment of bailiff fees in addition to the PCN and court fee. He seized third-party goods, which he was not permitted to do, and then demanded payment of fees relating to the seizure which he was not entitled, in law, to demand. This is because the levy and fees relating to the seizure were invalid and unlawful.

Where the Fraud by False Misrepresentation offence comes in is in relation to the levy on the car and all fees relating to the seizure. Fees can only be charged legitimately on goods belonging to the debtor. Once the bailiff was told the car was on HP, he should have ceased enforcement action as, at that point, he was acting ultra vires (outside the law). He then claimed he could seize and sell the car, which is untrue. Essentially, he falsely misrepresented his powers and the law.

An email needs to be sent to the finance company and they need to confirm the following -

a. that they are the lawful owner of the car until such time as the OP makes the final payment;
b. that the HP agreement prohibits the car being used as lien or surety for any debt;
c. that the finance company did not authorise the bailiff to seize the vehicle;
d. that the finance company would not have authorised the bailiff to seize and sell the vehicle whilst it was subject to a legally-binding HP agreement.

If negative consent is forthcoming from the finance company, the bailiff is stuffed.

As Ploddertom has advised, you will need to have proof the car is subject to a current HP agreement. Make sure you get the finance company to email you answers to the items listed a - d.

Any further queries, come back on to this thread.