Marstons Bailiffs

[ljrees83]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

....

[ljrees83]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

He definitely wasn't supervised, I saw him drive off alone.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

As there are doubts as to whether the matter should have been sent to court in the first place, I cannot understand the response by the court. For all we know, they could be talking total bovine excrement. If you pleaded not guilty, you should have been advised of a hearing date. Under Article 6, Human Rights Act 1998, any person accused of an offence at law is entitled to a fair hearing. That cannot be said to have happened in your case. Did you speak to an office wallah or an officer or manager. If an office wallah, ring back and ask to speak to the Court Manager and ask why you were refused to be allowed to swear a Statutory Declaration. It appears clearly evident to me that there is a question mark over the proceedings and the conviction in your case. As stated previously, some Capita/TVL employees are currently serving community and custodial sentences over what are clearly questionable proceedings against and convictions of householder.

[ljrees83]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

....

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

It is accurate insofar as your being aware of the impending prosecution.

It is not right that you seem to have been denied any opportunity to offer a defence.

[ljrees83]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

....

[labman]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

What steps do I take now then?

To be perfectly honest, I'm not not sure. I will however email someone for you to ask them to look at the thread and see if they can give you a way forward here. :beagle:

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

It was the administration team, she advised that as we pleaded not guilty then we were aware of the situation so are not allowed to apply for a statutory declaration, is this right?

Ask the "administration team" to quote you the legislation they are relying on to deny you the facility to swear a Statutory Declaration. As there is a question mark over the matter, that is, whether Capita/TVL should have proceeded in the first place, the court staff should have placed the matter on hold, at the very least, whilst an investigation took place, or until your MP heard from Capita/TVL. Advising the court staff that your MP is now involved might make them stop and think, especially if the validity of the proceedings and conviction is in question. To continue regardless may have the effect of exposing HMCTS to litigation for failing to act with due care. Even if a conviction has been made, HMCTS still has a statutory duty of care.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

I suspect the only way out of this mess will be for the OP to appeal against their conviction.

[labman]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs

I believe it is now working towards a resolution.