Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

[beaglee]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

Okay. Could you answer the following questions, please?

1. Did you receive a summons giving a court hearing date and venue?
2. Did you attend a court hearing?
3. Did you receive notification of the fine?
4. Did you receive a letter asking you to bring your fine account up to date?
5. Did you receive a letter advising that further action would be taken if you did not pay your fine?
6. Was the letter from Marstons the first you heard about the case?

1. No
2. No/na
3. Apparently not for 3 years at my last address. Now, after 3 years at this, yes.
4. yes
5. If 4&5 are the same, and if the initial contact letter counts as this, yes.
6. No.

[beaglee]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

On a further note HMCTS will argue that if you moved and did not notify them, then they have sent the FSN to the address they have on file for you which therefore complies with all they need to do.

The £85 charge which Marstons make is applied to your account on receipt of the file from HMCTS.

This still leaves the question as to why I was not summoned at the last address. I mean it's not like I got a fine, then moved immediately. This is something I have not thought about til now and I don't know why. The fine goes back to 2007, but I lived at that address for a further 3 years.

Nobody knocked, summoned me, sent me a letter.... This really doesn't make any sense at all.

[bluebottle]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

To be honest, your case is a complete mess. This sounds like another Capita/TVL cock-up or, more precisely, dodgy conviction. This matter should have been subject to a Statutory Declaration and the conviction set aside. You were not told of any intention to proceed to court and, so, were not aware the matter had gone to court. Is this correct?

[ploddertom]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

To be honest, your case is a complete mess. This sounds like another Capita/TVL cock-up or, more precisely, dodgy conviction. This matter should have been subject to a Statutory Declaration and the conviction set aside. You were not told of any intention to proceed to court and, so, were not aware the matter had gone to court. Is this correct?

I'll second that.

[ploddertom]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

Can you remember what happened at the time the TVLI visited?

[beaglee]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

You were not told of any intention to proceed to court and, so, were not aware the matter had gone to court. Is this correct?

Completely correct.

[beaglee]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

Can you remember what happened at the time the TVLI visited?

I honestly can't remember. Like I say, that was nearly 7 years ago.

What I do know is that I was at that address for another 3 years after he came.

Me and my partner are racking our brains and have no knowledge at all of any communication from the courts.

Surely a bailiff would have come round during that time had I not paid?

Like I say, I can't understand any of this. It makes less sense to me than it probably does to anyone else reading this.

I just want to know what I can do about it. What avenues to go down.

Thanks

[CleverClogs]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

Surely they've got to keep some record?

They can't get away with that can they?

Alas, yes, they can.

The diktat of the Lord Chancellor has permitted it.

Still, it'll give you a valid retort when you next hear a UKIP numpty blathering on about the UK being undemocratically ruled from Brussels, as it is more accurate to say that the UK is undemocratically ruled from Whitehall.

[bluebottle]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

Beaglee,

This has all the hallmarks of a Capita/TVL dodgy conviction. I would suggest that it might be better to speak to a legal professional about this, due to the mess the case is currently in. When you had the letter, did you tell the court you knew nothing about it? If so, they should have told you to attend the court and swear a Statutory Declaration to set aside the conviction. If they did not, then someone at the court is being disingenuous and that is not fair on you or those court staff who are honest.

If you have a Law Centre near to where you live, make an appointment to see them or find a local solicitor who offers a free 30-minute consultation. Someone, somewhere, has been playing silly buggers, only,what has happened is not at all funny and, to be honest, is serious.

[beaglee]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

Beaglee, When you had the letter, did you tell the court you knew nothing about it?

No. I saw the magistrates symbol at the top of the page and I assumed it was legit, even though I had no knowledge of where it had come from. So I just went about paying it.

How naive.

I'll never make these mistakes again. I feel so aggrieved. I can understand, although not agree, with Marston doing what they do. But not the courts themselves. It's unbelievable how they've handled every step of this. Even if I had been made aware and had been fined legitimately, upon paying half of the fine - and in the process making it obvious I wasn't trying to dodge or avoid anything - it staggers me that they would not send me so much as a reminder letter, on the grounds they, in their words "didn't have to" I feel so angry about this, and 90% of that is directed towards the courts.

The bailiffs?... pshh.... it's like being angry at a dog for eating a chicken you left on the floor.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

The bailiffs?... pshh.... it's like being angry at a dog for eating a chicken you left on the floor.

Not only should the dog have been better trained, it is still lawful to euthanize a dog.
Alas, it is not (yet) lawful to euthanize a bailiff. msl:

[bizzybob]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

Not only should the dog have been better trained, it is still lawful to euthanize a dog.
Alas, it is not (yet) lawful to euthanize a bailiff. msl:

It might be if he stepped backwards into the path of a mobility scooter ridden by a half blind pensioner, without looking.

[bluebottle]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

If you feel H.M. Courts & Tribunals Service have acted improperly, you should make a formal complaint to -

H.M. Courts & Tribunals Service
Correspondence, Complaints & Litigation Unit
102, Petty France,
London SW1 9AJ

However, please read EX343 before doing so.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

I honestly can't remember. Like I say, that was nearly 7 years ago.

What I do know is that I was at that address for another 3 years after he came.

Me and my partner are racking our brains and have no knowledge at all of any communication from the courts.

Surely a bailiff would have come round during that time had I not paid?

Like I say, I can't understand any of this. It makes less sense to me than it probably does to anyone else reading this.

I just want to know what I can do about it. What avenues to go down.

Thanks

I don't think you have much redress here, because probably the Court would have issued summons, payment orders at your old address, possibly followed by a lettter from Marston saying that a warrant was issued in your name for non payment of a fine. But if you did not have your post redirected you can not blame the Court or Marston for not informing you.

Eventually they managed to find where you live, they sent you a final step notice (again), you paid half and forgot the other half. At this point you are a defaulter and the Court will issue a Distress warrant and immediately you are liable for a further £85. And no, the Court does not have to remind you that you forgot to pay in full, because at the bottom of the letter they sent you demanding £120 they have spelled quite clearly what would happen if you don't.

The letter from Marston would have been clear enough in saying that if you did not pay within 7 days you could be liable for a minimum of £215 for further enforcement.

You spoke to the Court they told you to pay Marston, you ignored it, and paid the Court.

I know that it takes the Court a minimum of 7 days to inform the Bailiff, because they need to make sure that the funds have cleared, this is why the bailiff that knocked on your door was demanding £60 + £85 + £215. You told him you paid, he went away to find out, which he did, and now you owe £300.

None the less, it is an unfortunate reality that the TV licencing people do not tell the people that have caught without a licence that they will be reported to Court, it's alpractice on their side, but everybody else have dealt with you fairly and squarely.

[bluebottle]

Re: Really Need Some Clear Answers to Detailed Bailiff Query

I don't think you have much redress here, because probably the Court would have issued summons, payment orders at your old address, possibly followed by a lettter from Marston saying that a warrant was issued in your name for non payment of a fine. But if you did not have your post redirected you can not blame the Court or Marston for not informing you.

Eventually they managed to find where you live, they sent you a final step notice (again), you paid half and forgot the other half. At this point you are a defaulter and the Court will issue a Distress warrant and immediately you are liable for a further £85. And no, the Court does not have to remind you that you forgot to pay in full, because at the bottom of the letter they sent you demanding £120 they have spelled quite clearly what would happen if you don't.

The letter from Marston would have been clear enough in saying that if you did not pay within 7 days you could be liable for a minimum of £215 for further enforcement.

You spoke to the Court they told you to pay Marston, you ignored it, and paid the Court.

I know that it takes the Court a minimum of 7 days to inform the Bailiff, because they need to make sure that the funds have cleared, this is why the bailiff that knocked on your door was demanding £60 + £85 + £215. You told him you paid, he went away to find out, which he did, and now you owe £300.

None the less, it is an unfortunate reality that the TV licencing people do not tell the people that have caught without a licence that they will be reported to Court, it's malpractice on their side, but everybody else have dealt with you fairly and squarely.

The unfortunate reality with Crapita/TVL, Sir Vere, is that some of their visiting officers, more accurately known as goons, have been caught and are currently serving community or custodial sentences for Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Perverting the Course of Justice. And still it goes on. One case that came onto LB, during 2012, lived a few miles from where I live and the "charming" Mr McGovern of Marstons was harassing them. It turned out that the OP had not done anything wrong. In fact, they had informed Crapita/TVL they were moving, as Crapita/TVL ask people to do, and were up to date with their TV Licence. Crapita/TVL, either because of their incompetence or, simply, because they were being disingenuous, decided to claim the person was a defaulter and engineered a conviction. Once the person told the court what had happened, the court, giving them credit where it is due, realised something was not right and called the OP in to swear a Statutory Declaration to set the conviction aside. Despite the fact Marstons were contacted within one hour of the OP informing the court and the court recalling the DW, Mr McGovern still continued with enforcement. The local police, who know Mr McGovern's modus operandi, advised the OP not to open the door to him and to let them deal with him.

Will Crapita be allowed to continue to do this? My gut-feeling is that they have been drinking in the Last Chance Saloon for too long and time is about to be called. The mood of feeling I have found amongst ordinary men and women is that they have had enough of corruption and fraud by politicians and companies. Exposure of corruption, dishonesty and malpractice is the greatest weapon we have and should not be afraid to use it, as exposure is what the corrupt, the dishonest and the disingenuous fear more than anything else.