Issue with Marston Group

[bizzybob]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

However, do NOT make a "Form 4" complaint against the oaf, as bailiffs and bailiff companies have Perverted the process by pretending that the only purpose for such a complaint is to deny a bailiff his livelihood.

Accordingly. they'll cheerfully pack the courtroom with a posse of barristers and then, when you lose, they'll hit you with a costs order for thousands of quid.

IFYPFY :tongue2:


Yes Form 4 has been taken away from it's intended purpose by introducing the concept that it is litigation not an enquiry. Makkie, do not be tempted to do Form 4 no matter what may be suggested elsewhere,

[Milo]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

Makkie,

Before considering a chargeback against your credit or debit card you will need to fully understand what will likely happen afterwards.

It now seem to be the case that you brother did know of the fine and in fact made some payments to the court and then defaulted.

For reasons that are unclear letters were coming to your home and you have even stated that your mother called the bailiffs to tell them that your brother does not live at the property. Before doing anything further you need to find out the REASON WHY letters were being sent to your home. For instance....did your brother give the court your address instead of his address?

When you mother called the bailiffs to advise that you brother does not live at your home did she provide the company or the court with your brothers correct address?

The concern with a 'chargeback' is simply that the warrant will simply be enforced again....and unless your brother or your mother have provided an alternative address the bailiffs will simply return to YOUR address again.

Also, there is the problem that your mother called the bailiffs and told them that your brother does not live at the house and yet......he was at the house on the day of the visit !!!

Unless evidence is provide of an alternative address then if a chargeback is made the bailiff will simply return and this time....will ONLY accept a cash payment.

I think you need to ask your brother to provide answers to the above questions because otherwise, your parents are at risk of further bailiff action.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

In cases where a 'chargeback' has been claimed it is obvious that when re-enforcing the warrant the bailiff will NOT under any circumstances accept anything other than cash from your brother.

Not even one of his kidneys instead?

[wales01man]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

Sorry to say this .
I think the brother may have caused a lot of the problem,the address he gave the court is crucial here mother saying he does not live there over the phone> well the bailiffs have heard that thousands of times that why the advice is get a SD signed a legal document.
Why did the brother who we are told was at the house when the Bailiff called deal with this its his debt now for whatever reason as to why he did arrange something the OP is facing a long uphill battle to reclaim money.
If the Bailiff has a recording of the incident it may prove that events were different to the version we read on here,
Finally what has the brother done about this since it all blew up into a big ugly mess for the OP and possibly the rest of the family?
Is he sitting back thinking its paid im alright

[Milo]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

Makkie,

You are familiar with the postings on another forum as that is where you have also posted your question.

By way of an answer regarding whether a "chargeback" will be a success, I suggest you have a read of a thread in the parking section from a poster by the name of IRIDIUM. This debtor was encouraged to submit a Form 4 complaint and he has exhibited a copy of the letter from the Court REJECTING his complaint.

The site owner also encouraged the debtor to apply for a Chargeback against his credit card and was directed to a "template" letter. Again, the poster has exhibited a copy of a letter from his bank REJECTING his claim for a chargeback.

You will see that the site owner (who is resident in the Middle East) is now advising the poor debtor to run a "Compliance Check Wizard". By completing this 'wizard ' the debtor will be required to give SUBSTANTIAL amounts of personal information and when he gets to the last page he will find that the site owner will "offer" to refer the case to a "no win, no fee" Claims Management Company. Lastly, the site owner will "offer" to complete the necessary "legal" papers for you. The fee is £100.

PS: You will need to read the thread by IRIDIUM very quickly because....most negative posts on that website have a habit of being removed from public view and put into a secure "private members area".

[bizzybob]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

In view of the above from Milo, a chargeback could have serious unintended consequences, as in they will re attend to your address in the absence of an updated one for your brother, and whether lawful or not will decide to force entry under DCVA, take goods and clamp and/or tow cars just because they think they can.

Bailiffs cannot see beyond the next fee, and are bolstered by the fact they are collecting for HMCS, which allows a forced entry more easily than for council tax.

A stat dec as to non residence of the named debtor, and that all goods/motor vehicles of any value are not his property, is essential at this stage imho in case you do a chargeback aginst advice and the bailiffs steam in mob handed.

[bluebottle]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

Once the full and complete facts are known of this case and in view of what appears to be an instance of physical force used against an individual, by a bailiff, which is not in self-defence, something I know HMCTS will not tolerate, a formal complaint should be made to HMCTS.

Milo has said this and I have said this and that is you should not, under any circumstances, apply for a chargeback, especially where HMCTS are involved.

Marstons have acted wrongly in making a person who is not a fine defaulter pay a fine that is not attributable to them, which they do not owe and for which a warrant of distress does not exist. It would also appear that, on the face of it, Marstons did not comply with the conditions applicable to the distress warrant.

Please bear with us whilst we help you sort this out. A bit of patience now may well pay dividends later on.

[Makkie]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

I thank you all for your advice and will be going to the law centre tomorrow to obtain a statutory declaration (can I mention in this he doesn't live with me and the car and possessions aren't his?). Will I need to take my V5 / car documents proving it's mine (since it'll help I think I should). Once I obtain this, the bailiffs cannot take any of the items within the household or my car, right? Also, can I put anything on my window if the bailiffs come again?

For instance....did your brother give the court your address instead of his address?

Yes, he gave ours since all his letters come to our house. He's applied for benefits, so hasn't got his own place and lives with his sister (I don't think she will be happy if I give her address but I have to since he lives there).

When you mother called the bailiffs to advise that you brother does not live at your home did she provide the company or the court with your brothers correct address?

They asked us to write to them instead of calling, my mother forgot to. Should we send them a letter now? To Marston or the council? Also, my brother visits occasionally, it was their pure luck that they came on the day he was there too, else I'd have never personally even opened the door!

Unless evidence is provide of an alternative address then if a chargeback is made the bailiff will simply return and this time....will ONLY accept a cash payment.

Statutory declaration good enough mentioning he doesn't live at our address and possessions and car isn't his?

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

Okay, so I have the following options:

1) Chargeback, if not successful;
2) HMCTS Criminal Enforcement Team
3) Complain to secretary of justice
4) Claim in small claims court

Listen to what BB says, the bailiff was well out of order and his/her behaviour needs to be nipped in the bud.

[bluebottle]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

If the bailiff has not been authorised to make a forced entry, they must enter peaceably, which means they must not need to push or shove someone aside or assault them in order to gain entry. Distress Warrants issued by Magistrates Court have clear conditions attached to them and that includes that a bailiff must only take goods belonging to the debtor/fine defaulter. Bailiffs employed by the four civil enforcement companies under contract to HMCTS know or ought to know this and there is, therefore, no excuse for not complying. Is is evident from what has been said that the bailiff in your case failed to comply with the conditions attached to the Distress Warrant by making demands and threats they had no right in law to make. This is compounded by the fact that money was extracted from a person other than the debtor/defaulter named on the Distress Warrant. This matter does need to be brought to the attention of HMCTS CET as soon as possible and, as Sir Vere has said, the behaviour exhibited by the bailiff does need to be nipped in the bud.

[bluebottle]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

I thank you all for your advice and will be going to the law centre tomorrow to obtain a statutory declaration (can I mention in this he doesn't live with me and the car and possessions aren't his?). Will I need to take my V5 / car documents proving it's mine (since it'll help I think I should). Once I obtain this, the bailiffs cannot take any of the items within the household or my car, right? Also, can I put anything on my window if the bailiffs come again?



Yes, he gave ours since all his letters come to our house. He's applied for benefits, so hasn't got his own place and lives with his sister (I don't think she will be happy if I give her address but I have to since he lives there).



They asked us to write to them instead of calling, my mother forgot to. Should we send them a letter now? To Marston or the council? Also, my brother visits occasionally, it was their pure luck that they came on the day he was there too, else I'd have never personally even opened the door!



Statutory declaration good enough mentioning he doesn't live at our address and possessions and car isn't his?

As alluded to in my last post, the bailiffs can only deal with the person named on the Distress Warrant and take money and/or goods belonging to that person. They cannot, lawfully, demand money from third parties or seize third party goods or threaten to take third party goods. The simple fact is, the bailiff acted contrary to the conditions attached to the Distress Warrant and, in all probability, breached the law in the process. HMCTS will not be at all impressed that the actions of the bailiff are likely to have brought HMCTS and the courts into disrepute. The actions of the bailiff may well land him and Marstons with more hassle than they can handle.

[wales01man]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

As the OP contacted the Bailiff company and the Courts?

[bluebottle]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

As the OP contacted the Bailiff company and the Courts?

It has been advised earlier in this thread that they should make contact with the HMCTS Area Enforcement Team asap, Wales. Although the normal route of escalation is -

Level 1 = Bailiff Company
Level 2 = Court that issued DW
Level 3 = HMCTS Area Enforcement Team
Level 4 = HMCTS Regional Enforcement Team

where there is evidence of the use of unlawful force against the person of someone who is not named on a DW and the unlawful force is not in self-defence, but in order to gain entry by other than peaceable means or money is being demand from a person not named on the DW or threats being made against a person not named on the DW, then the matter should be notified to HMCTS at Area Enforcement Team level, as this means the conditions attached to the DW have not been complied with and, potentially, HMCTS has been exposed to litigation, albeit that a contracted bailiff company is required to indemnify HMCTS against all and any costs, damages and expenses arising out of such instances.

Even though a DW may have been issued correctly, this does not, in itself, prevent HMCTS suspending enforcement action as it see fits.

[Makkie]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

I thank you all for your advice and have sent emails and letters to HMCTS.

[bluebottle]

Re: Issue with Marston Group

I thank you all for your advice and have sent emails and letters to HMCTS.

Ideal Makkie. Let us know how you get on.