Marstons Help urgently required!!!

[exiledhatter]

Right here goes.

I am currently having major issues with Marstons over an unpaid fine for TV Licence.

The fine was for £142. However im now told it is now £442.

After writing off to them for a breakdown and other information the following has come to light.

Fine : £142
Compliance Fee : £85
Attendance to remove fee : £215

However at no point has the appointed bailiff had access inside the property.

Its has also been revealed by marstons that the bailiff is not certified and will be having his hearing in relation to his certification shortly. In letter is also stated the following:

"Please be advised Mr ********** is due for his hearing in relation to his certification shortly. However, there is no requirement for an enforcement agent to be certificated by the court while enforcing a distress warrant of this nature"

I was under the impression that it was in fact a legal requirement for an enforcement agent to have a certificate from the courts while enforcing a distress warrant for unpaid fines.

Any Ideas???

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

Unfortunately for you, since it is a Magistrate's Distress Warrant the bailiff does not have to be Certificated, as long as he is "supervised" (even at a distance) by one who is.

If a bailiff has made a visit to your property (not necessaraly entered, i.e. rang the bell of your flat from the street), or one where you resided previously, to serve this particular warrant, the fee of £215.00 is chargeable.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

Unfortunately for you, since it is a Magistrate's Distress Warrant the bailiff does not have to be Certificated, as long as he is "supervised" (even at a distance) by one who is.

If a bailiff has made a visit to your property (not necessaraly entered, i.e. rang the bell of your flat from the street), or one where you resided previously, to serve this particular warrant, the fee of £215.00 is chargeable.

I've come across "supervised at a distance" before, Sir Vere. It was for alleged NNDR arrears which turned out to be Council-Owed-Businessperson-Money arrears. The "bailiff" was a trainee and was not being properly supervised. The certificated bailiff who was supposed to be supervising them subsequently lost their certificate as a result of the certificating court exercising its powers under the Civil Procedures Rules 1998 to make a decision of its own initiative and to dispose with a case without a hearing. No Form 4 or Form 5 was submitted, but witness statements, video footage an a copy of a police incident report were sent to the District Judge at the court. The complainant received a letter from the court, two weeks later, confirming discharge of the bailiff's certificate. I understand the trainee bailiff was banned from applying for certification as a bailiff.

[wales01man]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

In short is the OP liable for the 300 quid whether a trainee before and a bailiff was found to be at fault has little bearing here?

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

In short is the OP liable for the 300 quid whether a trainee before and a bailiff was found to be at fault has little bearing here?

In short, yes. HMCTS allow uncertificated bailiffs to enforce magistrates court DWs, as long as they are supervised. However, they must apply for and be granted a bailiff certificate within six months of them commencing work as a bailiff.

As to the case I refer to above, involving alleged NNDR arrears, I put this up to illustrate how supervision of bailiffs at a distance can go badly wrong and why I, personally, feel HMCTS should change their policy to that of certificated bailiffs only.

[wales01man]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

I think like you BB that the way bailiffs operate needs changing and rules that are legally enforced and can be challenged are needed.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

If civil enforcement is going to be used, Wales, then it should be done fairly, responsibly and in accordance with the law. HMCTS can, in all probability, change the situation with regard to the use of uncertificated bailiffs by changing their policy. I have no doubt the bailiff companies involved wouldn't be too happy, but HMCTS is the client and what they say goes or should go. The decision to get rid of HMCTS Warrant Officers is, in my view, a serious error of judgement on the part of those behind the decision. Fine defaulters I have spoken to and who have had dealings with Warrant Officers have told me they are fair, decent and honest people who treat them as human beings. Can the same be said for certificated bailiffs?

I have a sneaking suspicion fate will, as always, exact retribution on those who have wronged or done wrong against others. And I doubt those behind the situation that currently exists will escape unscathed.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

In short is the OP liable for the 300 quid whether a trainee before and a bailiff was found to be at fault has little bearing here?

From what I read from the OP there is no sign of unlawfull behaviour from the bailiff.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

I've come across "supervised at a distance" before, Sir Vere. It was for alleged NNDR arrears which turned out to be Council-Owed-Businessperson-Money arrears. The "bailiff" was a trainee and was not being properly supervised. The certificated bailiff who was supposed to be supervising them subsequently lost their certificate as a result of the certificating court exercising its powers under the Civil Procedures Rules 1998 to make a decision of its own initiative and to dispose with a case without a hearing. No Form 4 or Form 5 was submitted, but witness statements, video footage an a copy of a police incident report were sent to the District Judge at the court. The complainant received a letter from the court, two weeks later, confirming discharge of the bailiff's certificate. I understand the trainee bailiff was banned from applying for certification as a bailiff.

Which ever was the Bailiff Company they deserve to loose the contracts. In no way one sends a non certificated bailiff, on his own, to enforce anything but a Distress Warrant.

Of course a certificated bailiff can have a trainee on tow, but the trainee just watches and does not intercede.

In the case that you describe I feel that the trainee was unfairly treaded by all parties.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

Which ever was the Bailiff Company they deserve to loose the contracts. In no way one sends a non certificated bailiff, on his own, to enforce anything but a Distress Warrant.

Of course a certificated bailiff can have a trainee on tow, but the trainee just watches and does not intercede.

In the case that you describe I feel that the trainee was unfairly treaded by all parties.

From my recollection of the case, Sir Vere, the trainee was very lucky to have only suffered a ban from being certificated as a bailiff. The police had more than ample grounds to arrest both the trainee and the certificated bailiff and to secure convictions for a number of offences, including Battery and Criminal Damage. Although they both lost their jobs and have been prevented from ever working as bailiffs again, when looked at in the cold light of day, they both got off lightly.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

From my recollection of the case, Sir Vere, the trainee was very lucky to have only suffered a ban from being certificated as a bailiff. The police had more than ample grounds to arrest both the trainee and the certificated bailiff and to secure convictions for a number of offences, including Battery and Criminal Damage. Although they both lost their jobs and have been prevented from ever working as bailiffs again, when looked at in the cold light of day, they both got off lightly.

Was that that one as a result of R v Tucker 2012 COA or another case where they acted ultra vires and with malice?

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

Was that that one as a result of R v Tucker 2012 COA or another case where they acted ultra vires and with malice?

The case I refer to in this thread, BB, involved Ross & Roberts and happened in Hampshire, not Sussex. Hampshire Police, I have to say, really did come up trumps and a Woman Police Sergeant, who sent the bailiffs packing, became something of an internet celebrity over on CAG. She upheld all that was best about British police officers. It was she who helped the householder obtain a copy of the Police Incident Report that was submitted to the DJ at Bournemouth & Poole County Court and which lead, in part, to the discharge of the certificated bailiff's certificate without a Form 4 or a hearing and the trainee being prevented from being certificated as a bailiff.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

Ah yes I recall that case now, it was a particularly nasty one. Didn't the bailiffs crash into the Op's motor, then try to report Op for failure to report an RTA, amongst other nasty things?

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

Ah yes I recall that case now, it was a particularly nasty one. Didn't the bailiffs crash into the Op's motor, then try to report Op for failure to report an RTA, amongst other nasty things?

That's the one, BB. And it was the householder's daughter's motor they crashed into. The certificated bailiff struck the daughter when the daughter tried to prevent the bailiff removing her car. As soon as the police arrived on scene, both bailiffs were ordered to leave the property. They both hung around like bad smells in their van until the Woman Police Sergeant returned, fresh from having found out they had lied to her and her colleagues and almost put their jobs on the line, before proceeding to tell them, in a very loud voice, to leave and not return. To say the Woman Police Sergeant was well p*ssed-off with the bailiffs is an understatement.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Marstons Help urgently required!!!

The case I refer to in this thread, BB, involved Ross & Roberts

And yet that company is still in business...