Marston bailiffs

[bizzybob]

Re: Marston bailiffs

Fault or not Marstons have form for continuing enforcement even after they have been called off

[bluebottle]

Re: Marston bailiffs

In this case, it does not appear to be Sharkstons's fault - the errors seem to lie within HMCTS, as they issued the warrant before the appeal had even been heard.

I would say that, in these circumstances, justice would be better served by writing off the fine as if it had been paid.

Alternatively. Milo could use a firm of lawyers to seek an account of damages from HMCTS...

As far as I am aware, Cloggy, there is currently no legal provision to write-off a fine in the manner you suggest. What Milo will probably have to do is lodge a claim against HMCTS and within the terms of settlement a provision is made whereby HMCTS agree to pay a sum of money into the fine account, clearing any outstanding amount due, in addition to any other compensation to which Milo may be due.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marston bailiffs

Fault or not Marstons have form for continuing enforcement even after they have been called off

I am informed HMCTS has a zero tolerance of this sort of conduct. If an Approved Enforcement Agent, such as Marstons, continues to enforce after a court or Area Enforcement Team has told them to discontinue action or the Distress Warrant has been recalled, any bailiff so enforcing is acting without lawful authority and liable to arrest and prosecution, civil litigation or both, in addition to running the risk of losing their certificate and, possibly, their bond, also.

As far as an AEA company is concerned, a single incident, unless very serious in nature, is not, IMO, sufficient to put their contract with HMCTS in jeopardy. However, I suspect that repeated instances of continuing enforcement without lawful authority or a single instance of a very serious nature would be sufficient to force HMCTS to review an AEA company's contract.

Where individuals are subjected to unlawful enforcement action, they need to report this to HMCTS in the first instance, escalating up to senior level until the matter is resolved to the individual's satisfaction. The individual's human rights, enshrined within the Human Rights Act 1998, should always be respected, even if an AEA considers them to be an inconvenience to achieving their objectives, and the AEA left in no doubt that they are required to comply with the Act whether they like it or not. Section 6 of the Act clearly states that it is unlawful for any public authority, which includes individuals and businesses acting in the capacity or on behalf of a public authority, to breach an individual's human rights under the Act.

The civil enforcement companies that act for HMCTS, HMRC, CSA and local authorities need to have it drilled into the heads of their respective management that the human rights of a debtor are inviolate and inalienable and that if they treat them as an inconvenience to be ignored, they should not be surprised if a court hands them down a damages award and costs order.