Marstons Bailiffs

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

I have just caught up with this thread. If a Direct Debit mandate was already active and payments were being made to TV Licensing in accordance with the monthly payment plan a lot of people use, including myself, TV Licensing have no grounds, per se, for laying an information before a court for the issue of a summons.

However, you do need to check with your bank and ask them to confirm that payments were being taken from your account and whether the DD mandate was cancelled and, if so, by whom.

Your case sounds like one of a number of cases where the TV Licensing goon has behaved in a less than scrupulous manner. If what has happened in your case is what has happened in a number of other cases, the TV Licensing goon involved in your case may be joining his former colleagues who engaged in similar behaviour and who are currently residents in H.M. Holiday Camps or cleaning graffiti from walls for no remuneration.

[Milo]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

[QUOTE=ljrees83;383563]

The TVL man came round on his rounds to advise us that the TVL DD had been cancelled (even though we were up to date with payments), We re-set up the DD on the spot with him and he updated his records.
We then recieved a court summons for non payment so provided them with a not guilty plea and provided them with the licence. We thought that was the last of it (This was back in August) until this thug turned up on our doorstep! We hasn't had any correspondence from the court or Marstons.

I only noticed your post last night as well.
As you had completed the summons with a 'no guilty' plea then the court appear to have made a mistake. They will likely state that they had not received the plea !!! There is also the further concern as to what evidence the Capita TVL Court Presenter provided at the hearing. All TV licence fines are 'bulk applications' in a similar away to applications for Liability Orders. The difference with TV licence fines though is that the 'Court Presenter' must provide evidence regarding EACH debtor. You will need to find out from the court what information was given.

Once the fine had been imposed you should have received from the Court a formal document called: Notice of Fine and Collection Order. This would state the amount of the fine, costs and 'victims surcharge' and stating how and when to make payment. If you fail to make payment then there is a further LEGAL document entitled 'Further Steps Nortice' to advise you that you had defaulted on the amount due and that if not paid within 10 working days of the date of the notice that 'any one' of the 'Further Steps' would be taken...one of which is to issue a Distress Warrant.

It is strange to not receive either of these two statutory documents. This could be due to a number of reasons mostly to do with problems with your address etc. Have you moved address since the TVL visit?

In any event, it would seem that you have grounds in which to file a Statutory Declaration at the Magistrates Court. If accepted, this will revoke the conviction and you will be refunded any money paid.

[enquirer]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Your case sounds like one of a number of cases where the TV Licensing goon has behaved in a less than scrupulous manner.

TVL wouldn't know the truth if it jumped out the bushes and bit them on the :censored:.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

When I answered it was A SEEAR from Marstons Bailiffs

I see that you have posted this on several other sites, including one that should not be mentioned here (or, indeed, mentioned anywhere) as their advice is so wrong.

As it seemed obvious that Marstons do not employ seers - if they did, they'd surely be able to predict such problems - I deduced that you'd posted the oaf's name. According to his Skillpages (tm) reference - http://www.skillpages.com/andrew.seear - he is based in Portsmouth. Are you?

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

When I answered it was A SEEAR

What is a SEEAR?

A typo for a sewer?

Like a sewer, he seems to have been full of shyte. :rofl:

Whether his name was Seear or Sewer, he seems to be notably absent from the Bailiffs' Register. Please see the attachment.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

In any event, it would seem that you have grounds in which to file a Statutory Declaration at the Magistrates Court. If accepted, this will revoke the conviction and you will be refunded any money paid.

According to a post made elsewhere by Mrs R---, the £830 paid was the original fine plus an additional £370.

Will that additional sum be reimbursed by the Court?

Why was £370 charged, when Marstons standard charges would total £300?

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

According to a post made elsewhere by Mrs R---, the £830 paid was the original fine plus an additional £370.

Will that additional sum be reimbursed by the Court?

Why was £370 charged, when Marstons standard charges would total £300?

They would have to refund the lot, however if the extra £70 was not forthcoming a report to plod although completely useless along with Formal Complaints progressed up the HMCS food chain should be pursued.

Have just put up a new notice at my gate. TVL Goons who enter do so at the risk of gelding.

[labman]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

According to a post made elsewhere by Mrs R---, the £830 paid was the original fine plus an additional £370.

Thank you CC! :beagle:

Another site advised:

You can do a fee recovery as you paid under duress.

As you have been prescribed medical assistance as a result of a bailiff, consider making a personal injury claim.
Link Removed

If the police say it is a civil matter, record everything and we can show you how to obtain redress through the courts. Police forces settle out if court anyway so you won't need to attend a hearing.

I'm not sure why you paid another persons fine. Did you pay by card? Consider a chargeback.
Link Removed

When making complaints to the police for bailiff fraud and violence, try to keep it in writing and if a home visit is made by police officers, record it on video. More, Link Removed

The bailiff was wearing a bodycam, get the footage and if your request is refused, your have them on concealment of evidence. Link Removed



#3)Re: Marstons (Yet again!)

by ljrees » 30 Oct 2013 23:43

Sorry I didn't explain, my partner paid the fine over the phone, which we have just worked out had £370 on top of the original fine.



Posts: 2 Joined: 30 Oct 2013 22:27 Top



#4)Re: Marstons (Yet again!)

(link removed) by 31 Oct 2013 00:06

Reclaim it. Two ways.

1. Chargeback, If you paid a bailiff using a card then this article explains how you can make a Chargeback. You can also consider exploiting the bailiffs unlawful action by makinga Postponed Chargeback.
2. Through the courts, This article (link removed) gives a summary of the procedure for bringing a claim in the small claims court.. And this article explains more, (link removed).

Have you followed any of the above advice?

[Milo]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

The poster was clearly desperate and posted her query on a number of sites (one of which can be named as it was MSE).
What is clear is that a complaint needs to be made to the Magistrates Court and copied to Marston Group. As for calling 'Mr Plod' regarding the query about a 'supposed' overcharge of £70 with respect; such measures are the standard advice given on two other forums which are known to LB and which are frankly churning out dangerous irresponsible and frankly, almost always totally inaccurate information to debtors.

At the very least, an investigation needs to be made by the court and Marston to ascertain WHY the fees were more than normal. I am pretty sure that if the court find that the fees charged are more than they are supposed to be that there will be serious repercussions.

Advising the debtor to apply for a 'chargeback' at this moment in time is frankly, 'irresponsible'. The poster explained that she has a 4 month old child and that the debt is not hers but her partners. If a 'chargeback' is applied the warrant will then be LIVE once again; and if passed to a bailiff again I can ASSURE anyone reading this thread that the bailiff will NOT accept anything other then CASH !!!

Next point, the debtor has stated that he received a summons and that he pleaded NOT guilty. What should now be done is to apply to the court to file a Statutory Declaration. I cannot see that this should not be accepted. Once agreed, the conviction will be void and if they wish; TVL can re-issue a NEW summons. Whether they will do so will remain to be seen.

If a Statutory Declaration is arranged next week the court will advise the enforcement company and the debtor will then receive a REFUND of all money paid.

The website in question are well know for trying to tempt debtors into believing the spin that "police forces settle out of court so you wont need to attend a hearing' .

With respect, there is not one single shred of evidence of any such "settlements" and it is becoming increasingly clear that these online claims are nothing more than despicable attempts to encourage "guinea pigs" to sign up for "no win, no fee" claim management referrals.

[labman]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

I'm glad I suggested you respond rather than me now - you put it so much better! :beagle:

I agree wholeheartedly that what you suggest is the best approach to take.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Advising the debtor to apply for a 'chargeback' at this moment in time is frankly, bloody stupid or downright dangerous.

I've fixed your post for you. :grin:

Next point, the debtor has stated that he received a summons and that he pleaded NOT guilty. What should now be done is to apply to the court to file a Statutory Declaration. I cannot see that this should not be accepted. Once agreed, the conviction will be void and if they wish; TVL can re-issue a NEW summons. Whether they will do so will remain to be seen.

If a Statutory Declaration is arranged next week the court will advise the enforcement company and the debtor will then receive a REFUND of all money paid.

Including the £70 over and above the charges normally made by Marstons?

[labman]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Yes. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Have you followed any of the above advice?

:scared::scared: I hope not! It is absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong. As well as this, it displays an alarming lack of knowledge and understanding of the law and police procedures. It should carry a wealth warning!

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

A typo for a sewer?

Like a sewer, he seems to have been full of shyte. :rofl:

Whether his name was Seear or Sewer, he seems to be notably absent from the Bailiffs' Register. Please see the attachment.

Please do not forget that for enforcing "Distress Warrants" (God only knows why) one does not need to be a "certicated" bailiff, all they need to be is "supervised" (all be it at a distance) by one who is, hopefully the legislation coming in next year will take care of this "anomaly"

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

Please do not forget that for enforcing "Distress Warrants" (God only knows why) one does not need to be a "certicated" bailiff, all they need to be is "supervised" (all be it at a distance) by one who is,

I understood that their contract with HMCTS required all bailiffs enforcing fines etc had to hold a general certificate.

Furthermore, this particular "gent" seems not to have been "supervised" at all, whether closely or "at a distance" - he turned off his recording device (why?) as soon as he saw a child was also present, so his alleged superiors could not even check retrospectively on what he had done.

hopefully the legislation coming in next year will take care of this "anomaly"

I expect that matters will become much worse.