How to deal with Marston bailiffs

[Inca]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Yeah it's been 6 weeks. No sign of him. No phone calls. No visits. I told him he can try anything and everything he wants but there's no way he'll get a penny from me haha

I wouldn't chillax just yet.......these things have a habit of biting you on the bum again when you least expect it ( and Mr & Mrs Bailiff have a nifty little habit of reading these forums,),so it's :spy: for a while yet

[wales01man]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

As the OP told the bailiff nicely that he didn't want them to meet again nice bailiff will no doubt say OK I wont ask for my fees?

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Well it's been almost been 6 weeks since I last spoke to the bailiff and since then I haven't recieved no phone calls or visits from him. Maybe he's given up as I was quite firm over the phone? Oh well lets just see what happens as like I said to him there's no way in the world he's getting a single penny of me

As stated previously, it might be a case that Marstons are unsure as to whether they can, in fact, enforce fees totalling £300 when neither Parliament or a court has sanctioned fees at that level, i.e. it is a commercial agreement between them and HMCTS. I would think that Marstons would have sought competent professional legal advice and if that advice said they could enforce, they would have returned before now. Don't rule out them asking for a lesser amount or attempting to pursue you through the Small Claims track of the County Court. I'm not saying they will, but be prepared just in case.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

As stated previously, it might be a case that Marstons are unsure as to whether they can, in fact, enforce fees totalling £300 when neither Parliament or a court has sanctioned fees at that level, i.e. it is a commercial agreement between them and HMCTS. I would think that Marstons would have sought competent professional legal advice and if that advice said they could enforce, they would have returned before now. Don't rule out them asking for a lesser amount or attempting to pursue you through the Small Claims track of the County Court. I'm not saying they will, but be prepared just in case.

If the warrant is still in date they can and probably will, depending on how observant the bailif was they could avail themselves of schedule 4a of the MCA 1980 and use a locksmith.

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

If the warrant is still in date they can and probably will, depending on how observant the bailif was they could avail themselves of schedule 4a of the MCA 1980 and use a locksmith.

That I wouldn't doubt, Sir Vere. What Marstons and the other three AEAs need to be on their guard against is a test case going before the courts, challenging the level of the fees and whether amounts not provided for under legislation, but by a contract agreed between the AEAs and HMCTS are legally-enforceable against debtors at the level they are. If the courts were to rule in favour of the debtors, Marstons and the other AEAs could, IMHO, face having to repay substantial amounts of money in refunds, interest and costs.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

That I wouldn't doubt, Sir Vere. What Marstons and the other three AEAs need to be on their guard against is a test case going before the courts, challenging the level of the fees and whether amounts not provided for under legislation, but by a contract agreed between the AEAs and HMCTS are legally-enforceable against debtors at the level they are. If the courts were to rule in favour of the debtors, Marstons and the other AEAs could, IMHO, face having to repay substantial amounts of money in refunds, interest and costs.

I heard about it, but since the fees were set in stone and approved by the Lord Chancellor I think that not much is going to happen.

If you look at the fees in a dispassionate way they are not outrageously high.

£85 Compliance fee is not really a lot if you consider that it covers the cost of not just having to write a letter to the defaulter, but to search for them if they have moved....and a good few have without having their mail redirected...in the case of most Eastern Europeans maybe 4/5 times in any given 12 months...staff an office propertly and pay for the office itself.

£215 Attendance fee, this could be considered over the top if only one visit was made, but you know better than I do that generally the issue is resolved in most cases on the third visit, if a plummer had to visit your property they would charge more than £71.66, guaranteed.

Also one other thing to consider, some defaulters will pay the fine to the Court after receiving the bailiff letter within the seven days, hoping that the fees would be quoshed (misguided souls!), if that were the case not many bailiffs would be able to survive.

Possibly this is why I prefer the "good old days" of the Court own warrant officers, but it seems that the MOJ, for the recovery of unpaid fines, is spending less now than 10 years ago with a better result, as in 300% better. And to look at the situation from this point of view it's taxpayer money well spent!

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

I heard about it, but since the fees were set in stone and approved by the Lord Chancellor I think that not much is going to happen.

If you look at the fees in a dispassionate way they are not outrageously high.

£85 Compliance fee is not really a lot if you consider that it covers the cost of not just having to write a letter to the defaulter, but to search for them if they have moved....and a good few have without having their mail redirected...in the case of most Eastern Europeans maybe 4/5 times in any given 12 months...staff an office propertly and pay for the office itself.

£215 Attendance fee, this could be considered over the top if only one visit was made, but you know better than I do that generally the issue is resolved in most cases on the third visit, if a plummer had to visit your property they would charge more than £71.66, guaranteed.

Also one other thing to consider, some defaulters will pay the fine to the Court after receiving the bailiff letter within the seven days, hoping that the fees would be quoshed (misguided souls!), if that were the case not many bailiffs would be able to survive.

Possibly this is why I prefer the "good old days" of the Court own warrant officers, but it seems that the MOJ, for the recovery of unpaid fines, is spending less now than 10 years ago with a better result, as in 300% better. And to look at the situation from this point of view it's taxpayer money well spent!

The question is, "How much of that 300% has been gained totally within the law?" It is all very well Greasy Grayling claiming, publicly, it is taxpaper's money well-spent, but at what cost? Sooner or later, I can see the policy of using private sector bailiff companies to collect unpaid court fines coming back and biting the politicians hard on the bum.

HMCTS Warrant Officers are respected by fine defaulters as they treat defaulters as human beings, are reasonable people and use commonsense. Can the same be said for the less reputable certificated bailiffs?

[Milo]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Can I just correct a few mistakes on this thread:

Warrant and 180 day period

There is a misconception that distress warrants should be returned after 180 days. In the HMCS contract with Collectica, Marston's etc it merely provides a 'warrant handling period' of a maximum of 180 days. If the enforcement company have been unable to enforce/trace the debtor in 6 months then they should return the warrant. However, if there is a payment arrangement in place or they have managed to obtain part payment then it is a simple matter for the court to agree for the warrant to be 're-worked'. After all..the courts are only interested in getting payment.

The matter of the fees has been addressed many times and you only have to look at the 'sticky' that I posted here a few months ago to understand the position. as many will know, Lord Lucas raised a Parliamentary question on this very subject in the House of Lords in April 2009. In Lord Bach's response he made the point very clear indeed when he stated the following:

"The relevant primary legislation is Part III of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the necessary implication of which is that proper costs associated with the execution of the warrant are chargeable. There is also common law authority that such costs may be added (Cook v Plaskett)"

Following Lord Bach's response there was a flurry of activity in the 'advice sector' seeking clarification on his answer. After obtaining a copy of Cook v Plaskett I was surprised at the reference to this by Lord Bach and at the time ( although I now do understand it). I even obtained Counsel's opinion. Sadly, the response (which was very detailed indeed) made it clear that under 'common law' fees are chargeable.

Last point, the fees may well appear 'excess'. However, the fees are almost the same as the fees which will come into force in April next year for the enforcement of parking charges, council tax and court fines. Each debt type will have a 'one off' administration fee and a 'one off' visit fee. This will come as a dreadful shock to many people.

PS: The new fee scale is still being looking at as there could well be a huge "sting in the tale" which ( if enacted) will have devastating effect on all debtors. We will know more in a few weeks time.

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

Can I just correct a few mistakes on this thread:

Warrant and 180 day period

There is a misconception that distress warrants should be returned after 180 days. In the HMCS contract with Collectica, Marston's etc it merely provides a 'warrant handling period' of a maximum of 180 days. If the enforcement company have been unable to enforce/trace the debtor in 6 months then they should return the warrant. However, if there is a payment arrangement in place or they have managed to obtain part payment then it is a simple matter for the court to agree for the warrant to be 're-worked'. After all..the courts are only interested in getting payment.

The matter of the fees has been addressed many times and you only have to look at the 'sticky' that I posted here a few months ago to understand the position. as many will know, Lord Lucas raised a Parliamentary question on this very subject in the House of Lords in April 2009. In Lord Bach's response he made the point very clear indeed when he stated the following:

"The relevant primary legislation is Part III of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, the necessary implication of which is that proper costs associated with the execution of the warrant are chargeable. There is also common law authority that such costs may be added (Cook v Plaskett)"

Following Lord Bach's response there was a flurry of activity in the 'advice sector' seeking clarification on his answer. After obtaining a copy of Cook v Plaskett I was surprised at the reference to this by Lord Bach and at the time ( although I now do understand it). I even obtained Counsel's opinion. Sadly, the response (which was very detailed indeed) made it clear that under 'common law' fees are chargeable.

Last point, the fees may well appear 'excess'. However, the fees are almost the same as the fees which will come into force in April next year for the enforcement of parking charges, council tax and court fines. Each debt type will have a 'one off' administration fee and a 'one off' visit fee. This will come as a dreadful shock to many people.

PS: The new fee scale is still being looking at as there could well be a huge "sting in the tale" which ( if enacted) will have devastating effect on all debtors. We will know more in a few weeks time.

That is, if Cabbage Patch Doll Cameron and his band of misfits remain in office long enough to see the legislation come into force. I have a very strong feeling the proverbial is going to hit the air conditioning between now and the end of January that will result in a hung parliament where no-one will have sufficient seats to form even a coalition government. In short, the politicians will be forced to do what is right for the country as a whole, not what is right for vested interests. And I would not be at all surprised to see there being a bonfire of oppressive legislation, with the provisions alluded to in your post, Milo, being on the bonfire along with the legislation that allows the insurance industry, DVLA and police to crush people's cars with impunity, even where the said bodies have seriously messed-up.

[bizzybob]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

What is the sting in the tail Milo, on top of the increased fees and the tough carp, can't afford the interpleader, the bailiff can have your third party car with no comeback?

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

What is the sting in the tail Milo, on top of the increased fees and the tough carp, can't afford the interpleader, the bailiff can have your third party car with no comeback?

I agree, BB. It more or less allows certificated bailiffs to defraud and steal with impunity. And I have no doubts Grayling will claim the legislation complies with the Human Rights Act. I don't think so.

[bizzybob]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

I agree, BB. It more or less allows certificated bailiffs to defraud and steal with impunity. And I have no doubts Grayling will claim the legislation complies with the Human Rights Act. I don't think so.

How long before the police and army turn on the toffs and pinkos? No seriously the TCGA is one seriously dangerous piece of busted-ass legislation, that shows the people who drafted it are less intelligent than a dead amoeba.

Grayling deserves to meet up with JBW and their out of control ANPR when they decide to clamp and seize his ministerial Jag, for a TFL cock up.

[bluebottle]

Re: How to deal with Marston bailiffs

How long before the police and army turn on the toffs and pinkos? No seriously the TCGA is one seriously dangerous piece of busted-ass legislation, that shows the people who drafted it are less intelligent than a dead amoeba.

Grayling deserves to meet up with JBW and their out of control ANPR when they decide to clamp and seize his ministerial Jag, for a TFL cock up.

Certain government ministers and secretaries of state have an officer from the Royalty & Diplomatic Protection Group riding in their ministerial car with them. RDPG officers are armed and I would love to see the look on a JBW bailiff's face if they attempted to clamp and seize a ministerial car and the RDPG officer pulled their firearm out. It would certainly be a brown trouser moment for the bailiff. :grin: