Dave

[dave1962]

Marston bailiffs have told me that they have a distress warrant to remove goods from my property for a magistrates fine that i defaulted on i have contacted the bailiff yesterday 21st of jan 2014 to try to ask if i could pay the fine over a few instalments but he reused to let me do this and gave me 24hrs to get £1,175.00 together to pay him today and if i do not then he will be attending my property tomorrow with a locksmith and the police to gain access and remove my goods, i would like to know if he is committing any offence firstly by threatening me with locksmiths (section 3 of the criminal damage act 1971) and would the locksmith be committing an offence under section 25 of the theft act 1968, also do i have the right to refuse him entry and is there any way i can take this matter back to the courts to get more time to pay the fine of. The fines relate to motoring offences from about 3 years ago





Can anyone give me good advice

[ploddertom]

Re: Dave

Had you been making payments? Have you received a Further Steps Notice from the Court prior to the Bailiffs being involved? Have you moved sincen being fined and if so did you advise the Court?

[dave1962]

Re: Dave

Had you been making payments? Have you received a Further Steps Notice from the Court prior to the Bailiffs being involved? Have you moved sincen being fined and if so did you advise the Court?

yes to the first two question and no to the third
i was just wondering if i had a leg to stand on and weather i could buy a bit of time so i could get the money together

[bluebottle]

Re: Dave

As you will have realised, this bailiff bears more than a passing resemblance to a bodily orifice at the lowermost point of the human alimentary canal.

A few more questions -

1. How much was the fine?
2. How much have you paid towards it so far?
3. When did you default?
4. Have you received a letter from Marstons?
5. Have you received any further communications from Marstons since?

[dave1962]

Re: Dave

The total fines come to £875.00 and now with the bailiff fees have gone up to £1175.00 one of the fine was for drink driving so i lost my job on the same day i was fined so i wasnt able to start paying any thing and then here we are 3 years later so nothing was paid and i dont recall ever getting a letter from marstons but the does not necessary mean that i did not receive one as me and my wife split up for a while and i was not living at the same address,
Ive just had a phone call from the bailiff about 15 mins ago to see if i was going to make the payment and i have managed to get a reprieve till 3pm on friday

[bluebottle]

Re: Dave

The total fines come to £875.00 and now with the bailiff fees have gone up to £1175.00 one of the fine was for drink driving so i lost my job on the same day i was fined so i wasnt able to start paying any thing and then here we are 3 years later so nothing was paid and i dont recall ever getting a letter from marstons but the does not necessary mean that i did not receive one as me and my wife split up for a while and i was not living at the same address,
Ive just had a phone call from the bailiff about 15 mins ago to see if i was going to make the payment and i have managed to get a reprieve till 3pm on friday

Was the court made aware of your circumstances, i.e. losing your job? The other thing that comes to mind is did the court take into account, at the Antecedents stage of the hearing, the likelihood of you losing your job and, consequently, your income?

[bizzybob]

Re: Dave

They are more interested in making an example of drink drivers so the thought would not even have crossed their mind as to the effect on employment, whether it should due to realistic prospect of the person not being able to pay the fine as they have been pushed onto JSA, and even possibly on a sanction for leaving the job.

[dave1962]

Re: Dave

yes i made them aware that i would not be able to carry on working after i lost my license and they where going to attach my fine to my jobseekers but on the day of my court case i was still working and did not make a claim for jobseekers until the following week but nothing ever got attached

[dave1962]

Re: Dave

they didnt seem to give a toss about the fact i couldnt carry on with my work!!

[wales01man]

Re: Dave

Have to say that if you were not drink driving you would still have a job.

Sorry but most of us I expect have sympathy for your plight with the bailiffs but Drink drivers kill people

[bluebottle]

Re: Dave

Then it doesn't sound as if the court has followed proper procedures. They must take into account your means otherwise they cannot impose or enforce the fine (R -v- South Western Magistrates [on the application of Purnell]). The stated case is a Judicial Review that HMCTS are well aware of, so they have no excuse.

Also, if they made an Attachment of Benefits Order (ABO) and failed to process it, their use of a Distress Warrant is suspect.

Get onto the court that imposed the fine first thing tomorrow morning. If they take the same couldn't-care-less attitude as previously, I would escalate to the Area Enforcement Team. Who is you local police force, please?

As for the drinking and driving, yes, you were a tit for doing it, you got caught and lost your job as a result. I am a retired policeman. The best way I know of putting people off drinking and driving is to put this question to them -

"If a police officer knocked on your door and told you that a loved one had died in an accident involving a driver who had been drinking, how would you feel and what thoughts would be going through your head?"

Have a think about it. It is quite sobering.

[wales01man]

Re: Dave

Well put Bluebottle I expect a lot of coppers feel the same and have had to knock on a door.

[bluebottle]

Re: Dave

Well put Bluebottle I expect a lot of coppers feel the same and have had to knock on a door.

Knocking on the door isn't the worst bit, Wales. It's breaking the news because you don't know how the relatives are going to react. Some break down in tears, some start shaking uncontrollably, whilst some react as if you've just told them what the time is. They are the ones who scare you the most, because you don't know what is going through their minds, whether to call for assistance or what. Some are okay until they do the formal identification, then climb the walls afterwards. Any copper who claims you get used to it is either being economical with the actualities or isn't human.

[Monkey Drunk]

Re: Dave

Then it doesn't sound as if the court has followed proper procedures. They must take into account your means otherwise they cannot impose or enforce the fine (R -v- South Western Magistrates [on the application of Purnell]). The stated case is a Judicial Review that HMCTS are well aware of, so they have no excuse.

Also, if they made an Attachment of Benefits Order (ABO) and failed to process it, their use of a Distress Warrant is suspect.

Get onto the court that imposed the fine first thing tomorrow morning. If they take the same couldn't-care-less attitude as previously, I would escalate to the Area Enforcement Team. Who is you local police force, please?

bluebottle,

Why do you always assume that the court has failed to follow procedure?

The OP clearly states that on the the day of the court case he was still in employment. He will have been asked about his income on the day and while the Magistrate may have suggested a deduction from benefits in the future may be possible if the OP did indeed lose his job, they can only deal with the facts on the day. The fine will have been set accordingly and the OP advised that he would need to recontact the fines office "if" and "when" his circumstances changed. If the OP had done this, the fines officer would have applied for the deduction.

That said, they can apply as much as they like, the decision as to whether it's granted is not the Court's to make. The benefits office will make that decision based on the available income to deduct from. There may be other factors which dictate that a deduction may not be granted.

The Magistrates would have also made it quite clear on the day that it was the OP's responsibility to ensure his fine was paid - period. Unfortunately, despite the seriousness of the offence, the OP decided to willfully ignore his fine for 3 years!

I don't care what the OP's claimed financial circumstances are, there is absolutely no excuse for not contacting the court and arranging payments. Yet another perfect example of how the courts have gone soft on serious crime. That, IMHO is where Courts fail the general public as a whole. Law abiding and mindful people want to know that there are serious consequences for this type of offence. They certainly don't want to read how drink drivers can get away with not paying their fines for 3 years and receive advice on how to dodge the subsequent action taken against them by the courts.

Do you not think the Area Enforcement Team have enough spurious complaints to deal with without adding another pathetic sob story to their list?

:violin:

[bluebottle]

Re: Dave

Inebriated Primate,

Like everyone else, court staff are human and do make mistakes. And there have been cases that have come on the LB forum where Rule 52.8, Criminal Procedures Rules 2011 has not been followed. The other matter is that it is becoming evident that correct procedures are not being followed in the courtroom in some cases.

Turning to the other matters you raise, you appear to display a lack of understanding of the law, generally, sentencing guidelines and case law. During the Antecedents stage of a hearing, the Justices or DJ will examine the defendant's means and determine what penalty to impose. Unless the penalty is fixed by law, in which case the court has its hands tied legally, it has to follow sentencing guidelines as well as any means available before determining the appropriate sentence. The Judicial Review in R -v- South Western Magistrates (on the application of Purnell) confirmed that where a court has not examined a defendant's means, a fine cannot be imposed or enforced. As yet, this JR had not been superseded. In R -v- Hereford Magistrates Court ex parte Macrae (The Macrae Case), where a Magistrates Court Distress Warrant has been correctly-issued, that is, in accordance with the Criminal Procedures Rules 2011, it will not normally be recalled. However, I do know of cases where warrants have been recalled because of disingenuous behaviour by Capita/TVL and DVLA and civil enforcement companies under contract to HMCTS.

With regard to the comments you make in Paragraph 5 of your post, I have heard certificated bailiffs spout that sort of diatribe. And it shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation affecting HMCTS. They were supplied with a crap IT system that has been condemned as "Not Fit for Purpose" by the High Court, Justices of the Peace who are better-named Injustices of the Peace due to their incompetence, a Sentencing Advisory Panel that is made up mostly of businesspersons who haven't a clue about social issues and, quite frankly, give the distinct impression they don't want to know, made worse by disingenuous politicians and agitators who seem hell-bent on causing as much disruption as possible from within government agencies and departments.

As for your comment regarding HMCTS Area Enforcement Teams, in my experience, the people who staff these teams are very helpful. In a case I had dealings with last year, an Area Enforcement Team pulled a warrant after a contracted bailiff company lied to the debtor and HMCTS and put the health of the debtor's partner at risk. There have also been cases where contracted bailiff companies have ignored vulnerability issues. If all magistrates courts sang from the same hymn sheet, which does not appear to be happening at present, it would not be necessary to refer cases to Area Enforcement Teams. The other problem is certificated bailiffs who misrepresent their powers, examples of which there have been many over the past seven days.

bluebottle,

Why do you always assume that the court has failed to follow procedure?

The OP clearly states that on the the day of the court case he was still in employment. He will have been asked about his income on the day and while the Magistrate may have suggested a deduction from benefits in the future may be possible if the OP did indeed lose his job, they can only deal with the facts on the day. The fine will have been set accordingly and the OP advised that he would need to recontact the fines office "if" and "when" his circumstances changed. If the OP had done this, the fines officer would have applied for the deduction.

That said, they can apply as much as they like, the decision as to whether it's granted is not the Court's to make. The benefits office will make that decision based on the available income to deduct from. There may be other factors which dictate that a deduction may not be granted.

The Magistrates would have also made it quite clear on the day that it was the OP's responsibility to ensure his fine was paid - period. Unfortunately, despite the seriousness of the offence, the OP decided to willfully ignore his fine for 3 years!

I don't care what the OP's claimed financial circumstances are, there is absolutely no excuse for not contacting the court and arranging payments. Yet another perfect example of how the courts have gone soft on serious crime. That, IMHO is where Courts fail the general public as a whole. Law abiding and mindful people want to know that there are serious consequences for this type of offence. They certainly don't want to read how drink drivers can get away with not paying their fines for 3 years and receive advice on how to dodge the subsequent action taken against them by the courts.

Do you not think the Area Enforcement Team have enough spurious complaints to deal with without adding another pathetic sob story to their list?

:violin: