Marstons Court Fine Problem

[wales01man]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

Maybe im reading more posts now but there have been a few posts where others are verbally attacking others while disputing their advice,can see no good in this if anyone disagrees with an opinion or advice they can always go elsewhere the advice is given in good faith opposing advice will always be here even top barristers can give different views but with them you have to pay.
Legal Beagles is here to help it cannot give a diffinitive answer but can point people in the right direction

[labman]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

Following discussion with Milo about CFA's today, I thought it might be useful to post up the following information:

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/...fee-agreement/

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

The OP should now not tomorrow, not next week, CONTACT THE COURT and provide information to them and Marstons of the financial position before it gets to an arrest without bail to appear for non payment.

[Milo]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

Given that the OP has also posted on another forum I assume that he will be taking their normal "legal advice" and will go down the normal route of sending endless letters to the police and the courts citing 200 year old irrelevant case law and claims of fraud.

What the OP needs to do is carefully look at the site to see whether there have been any CONCLUDED cases and whether anyone has EVER posted to provide confirmation of even ONE sucessful outcome. One would do....

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

The total fine was 2500, I have paid over £1100, the outstanding in £1455, the bailiff wants £500 by Monday and the rest by end of Oct.
i m on benefits have no other income. I m struggling with my mortgage and other necessities.
Marston said they can BREAK INTO MY HOUSE without any Court orders as they have a warrant.
Thank you for your help

Marston will have to apply to Court for permission to use a locksmith, and yes, if permission is granted they can and will use a locksmith to enter you premises.

Somewhere you mention vulnerability...in what form?

[Milo]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

When you say that Marston Group must "apply" to the court for permission to use a locksmith, you should be aware that all that is required is for the bailiff to telephone the court !!!

I have a commercial business and it is simply staggering the number of courts that give "permisssion" (to force entry) without batting an eyelid !!!

It is very worrying indeed that there are some internet sites which "claim" that a bailif cannot force entry (to enforce a DISTRESS WARRANT) as the court would need to first issue another warrant. NOT TRUE !!!

It would seem that such mis-information has been banded around by some sites connected to Freeman on the Land movement.

A question was put to HMCTS to ask them what a bailiff has to do before using the powers of forced entry and the response from HMCTS ( a copy of which I have) clearly states that there is no legal obligation for a bailiff to require court approval prior to using forced entry and furthermore; that before "forced entry" is used to "levy distress" the officer should "attempt to seek" prior approval (to use the forced entry powers) but worryingly; that if an officer is not available at the court that the bailiff can proceed to use forced entry at his own discretion !!!


It is important that the public are aware of the correct position.

[Milo]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

The relevant websites constantly mislead debtors into wrongly believing that a bailiff enforcing a Distress Warrant (in relation to an unpaid court fine) is “apparently” not allowed to force entry UNLESS he has been granted a Search Warrant under Section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 !!! Unbelievable rubbish.......

Firstly Section 8 of PACE applies to search warrant applications for serious arrestable offences.

The person applying for such a Search Warrant (under Section 8) is required to state under oath that “there are reasonable grounds for believing that an indictable offence (namely etc etc ) has been committed"

and that:

“There is on the premises situated at xxx material that is likely to be relevant and be of substantial value to the investigation of the offence and does not consist of or include items subject to legal priveledge , excluded material or special procedure material, namely (indentify, so far as is practical , the material sought).

When authorised the search warrant under Section 8 of PACE states the following:


“Authority is hereby given for any constable, [*accompanied by such other person or persons as are necessary for the purposes of the search], to enter the said premises on the number of occasions specified below within three months from the date of issue of this warrant and on each such occasion to search for the material in respect of which the application is made”

Once again, it is important that the public are aware of the correct position.

[labman]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/8

:beagle:

[Milo]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

Since posting about the Forced Entry powers last night I have received 3 emails and 4 PM's !! This is clearly a subject that is of vital importance and from the messages received it would seem that 2 people had been mislead by information given by a handful of websites. When websites "claim" that either legislation or "case law" supports their "theory" then it is worthwhile checking the legislation for yourself and this is so very easy to do by way of a simple Google search. I see that Labman has already posted a link to the statutory regulations regarding Search Warrants under Section 8 of PACE. Thank you.

The messages that I have received advised me that one particular websites had last night referred to my post on this forum and were once again attempting to discredit the information. What is of serious concern is that the website in referring to my post on the previous page are stating the following:
.

"I have never seen it done and I don't know any magistrate been asked for such a warrant"

My answer to this is that if anyone were to read my post properly, they will see that I did not state at all that a request is made to a "magistrate"and neither did I say that a request is made for "a warrant". In fact, I specifically stated that a warrant is not required !!!

"I have searched the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 and The criminal Procedure Rules and i can find nothing that resembles this advice, or any regulation that enables a person telephone a magistrate in this way"

Correct...and the reason why no such information is in either of the above regulations is very simple. This is because; the power to force entry to either "levy distress" or to execute a distress warrant in relation to an unpaid Magistrates Court fine is contained in Schedule 4A of the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act and to provide clarity, HMCS have provided clear guidance on the steps that are required before the bailiff actually uses the powers available to him and this document confirms that before approval can be given to force entry the bailiff ( or indeed his Manager) must contact a nominated OFFICER ( not a Magistrate) to explain the reason why they wish to use forced entry and what method this will take ( i.e. a locksmith)


The document from HMCS outlining the procedure the bailiff needs to take before forcing entry has been "known" about for a long time in the "advice sector" but requests for a copy have been difficult. My copy has come from official sources under a recent FOI request.

In the next few days I will start a Sticky on this very subject. I would assume that it will receive a lot of visits. I will of course provide the official HMCS document referred to in my posts.

[Milo]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

The HMCS Contracts with Marston Group, Collectica Ltd, Excel and Swift provide under Schedule 4 specific Specifications.

The FOI document from HMCS that I have referred to in my above post is in relation to section 6.12 of Schedule 4 where it states the following:

6.12: The Contractor will adhere to instruction given by the Department in respect of the powers of the Domestic Violence and Crimes & Victims Act 2004

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

I have been aware of the requirement for contracted bailiffs to contact the nominated officer at the court before forcing entry for a while Milo. A very helpful HMCTS Regional Enforcement Officer alluded to this when I was helping an LB member deal with Collectica who got caught out by their own untruths and had the Distress Warrant withdrawn by the courts. I am currently engaged in an exchange of emails with HMCTS to clarify the position of contracted bailiff companies using documents bearing their own corporate logo/namestyle and the words DISTRESS WARRANT. Subject to confirmation, it would appear such documents are not authorised by HMCTS. I am also attempting to establish which escalation route HMCTS HQ would prefer defendants to use when complaining about contracted bailiff companies.

At present, the information I have to hand is:

Court Enforcement Team > Regional Enforcement Team > Head of Enforcement Operations > Director of Enforcement Operations > CEO, HMCTS.

[labman]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

Hi Bluebottle,

When you say, "subject to confirmation, it would appear such documents are not authorised by HMCTS" - subject to confirmation by who exactly?


Milo - are you in agreement with the route for complaining about bailiff companies. I always thought going to Enforcement Teams was a no no unless it is really serious. Could you clarify this for us please? :beagle:

[Milo]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

HMCTS have several Regional Heads of Enforcement for England & Wales who are responsible for Magistrates Fine Enforcement and these seven individuals are each responsible for each of the 7 geographical areas covered by the HMCS Contract (ie North West, North East, London, South West etc).

In the first instance; complaints should be addressed to the relevant Fines Office of the Magistrate Court and copied to the enforcement company.

[Milo]

Re: Marstons Court Fine Problem

PS: I have just noticed that since posting about the Forced Entry provision last night this thread had received a further 260 visitors !!!. Clearly a most important subject.....