• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Marston Fees - does this sound right?

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Marston Fees - does this sound right?

    This morning we woke up to find our car clamped by Marstons due to an unpaid PCN, it was in a public car park across the road (my husband's work van was in our allotted space outside our building). I understand that I hadn't paid the charge so it was my fault, although I can't remember getting a ticket in April. We paid the £431.89 they asked for and the bailiff eventually came back and unclamped it after a couple of hours (I was concerned as it was in a 'short stay' parking space, not meant for more than 2hr stays and although it did have a ticket on it I imagined going back to another PCN for being in the wrong bay!)

    I just want to check the charges though:

    Penalty Charges / Inc court fee: £95.44
    Bailiffs Attendance Costs: £126.45
    Attendance to Remove / Removal Costs: £210
    VAT on Bailiffs Costs at Standard Rate: (this was left blank)

    Total Amount due today: £431.89

    That is from the Notice of Seizure which was under the windscreen wiper. There was also a big red and white sticker on the driver window, but there was no time in the section at the bottom saying 'If not paid in full by ______ today the vehicle will be removed'

    My husband paid immediately over the phone as he was panicking and there was no time limit stated, he also gave me authority to speak on his behalf (car is in his name). After reading a bit online about charges and levies I called Marstons who wouldn't really speak to me and told me to call the bailiff for a breakdown of charges, but I could email the office too but she didn't know when anyone would be able to get back to me. I then called the bailiff who reiterated the fees above, said the attendance to remove fee wasn't a clamping fee and it had to be paid whether he removed the vehicle or not, and then hung up on me when I asked if he thought my car was excessive levy (Honda Jazz, bought in October for almost £1500). He wont answer the phone to me anymore.

    I checked the fees on the Marstons website, which don't match up - then I realised they obviously don't include the VAT, yet the VAT is not listed separately on the fees listed?

    Do I just need to work out how on earth we are going to pay the bills without this massive chunk of money (my husband is a self employed carpenter so this is a huge amount to us) or is there any way I can get any of it back?
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

    Is the vehicle signwritten, i.e. has some form of advertising on it showing it is used for trade purposes? Also, does your husband's motor insurance cover business use?

    The fees are way out of what they should be. it looks as if the bailiff was reading The Brothers' Grimm Book of Bailiff Fees when he wrote up the account.

    The fees should be as follows -

    PCN + Court Fee = £82.00
    Letter Fee = £11.20
    Attend to Levy on £93.20 = £28.00
    Attend to Remove/Removal Costs = £0.00 because the disingenuous so-and-so didn't remove
    VAT on £39.20 @ 20% = £7.84
    Total = £129.04

    By my calculations, the bailiff has overcharged by some £302.05. Let other Beagles look in and check my calculations, but I am pretty sure you have been grossly overcharged.
    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

      Thank you Bluebottle, the big work van wasn't touched, it was my car (although in my husband's name)

      i have read conflicting advice over levy abandonment, would you be able to clarify whether this comes into it at all?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

        Very simply, if a bailiff seizes goods, they have a period of time in which to remove the goods, usually 5-7 days from the date of seizure. If they do not do so within that time, they are then considered to have abandoned the levy. Any fees are then lost. Also, they cannot come back and levy on the same goods a second time.
        Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

          Thanks! There is so much conflicting advice in regards to bailiffs!

          I am still failing to understand how he has applied a £210 attendance to remove fee, without removing anything or even knowing my car would be there for him to try and remove. Do I have any grounds to ask for this to be refunded or claim it back?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

            Originally posted by jtwinkle View Post
            Thanks! There is so much conflicting advice in regards to bailiffs!

            I am still failing to understand how he has applied a £210 attendance to remove fee, without removing anything or even knowing my car would be there for him to try and remove. Do I have any grounds to ask for this to be refunded or claim it back?
            Bailiff Law is far from straightforward, but once you have a good grasp of it, you can derive a certain sadistic satisfaction from seeing a bailiff's dodgy fees tally reduced to virtually nothing and the bailiff going puce in the face at the thought of their beer tokens being flushed down the toilet due to them being disingenuous, dishonest or both.

            You would be best requesting a breakdown of fees from Marstons. There is a template letter in the Useful Letters section in the main Bailiff forum page. I would ask for an explanation of the removal fees, requesting what means of removal they had in attendance and a copy of the invoice from their contractor. Penny to a pound they will not be able to offer a plausible explanation.

            Wait for the breakdown of fees, post up and then we can see what else you can recover from them.
            Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

              Which shonky council seems to condone such egregious overcharging?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

                Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
                Which shonky council seems to condone such egregious overcharging?
                Midsussex District Council (who also told me on the phone today that the fees were correct when I called to question them)

                I've printed a letter asking for the breakdown of charges (including the extra bit asking what means of recovery were in attendance etc as Bluebottle suggested) so that will be sent recorded tomorrow morning and I will also email a copy.

                My husband can't remember if he had to pay a charge to use his debit card so I will check the amount taken as welll, I know they can't do that...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

                  Originally posted by jtwinkle View Post
                  Midsussex District Council (who also told me on the phone today that the fees were correct when I called to question them)
                  That is - of course - utter nonsense; they are evidently too ignorant or too indolent to stop Marstons charging whatever they like.

                  The bad news is that your MP is Nicholas "Fatty" Soames.

                  The good news is that both the CEO and the Assistant CEO look very decorative.
                  http://www.midsussex.gov.uk/6542.htm

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

                    Originally posted by jtwinkle View Post
                    Midsussex District Council (who also told me on the phone today that the fees were correct when I called to question them)

                    I've printed a letter asking for the breakdown of charges (including the extra bit asking what means of recovery were in attendance etc as Bluebottle suggested) so that will be sent recorded tomorrow morning and I will also email a copy.

                    My husband can't remember if he had to pay a charge to use his debit card so I will check the amount taken as welll, I know they can't do that...
                    Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC) were involved in a very serious breach of the law involving an elderly woman and her husband where their brainless enforcement agents - at that time, Rossendales - illegally forced entry to the elderly couple's home, causing damage to the front door, assaulted the couple and then lied to Sussex Police that the woman had assaulted them. The woman was prosecuted and convicted of assaulting the two bailiffs. However, in December 2012, at Hove Crown Court, His Honour Judge Charles Brown, the most senior Circuit Judge on the South Eastern Criminal Circuit, wiped the floor with Sussex Police and the Crown Proescution Service (CPS) after they both admitted to not having any grounds for arrest and prosecution. Not surprisingly, the appeal the elderly woman had lodged was upheld in her favour, giving rise to R -v- Tucker [2012] which upholds the right of a householder to use as much reasonable force as necessary to remove a certificated bailiff who has forced entry to their home, without lawful authority, and has failed or refused to leave after having been requested to do so.

                    When confronted by the local press, MSDC bleated that the elderly couple had not paid their Council Tax, which is a porkie as MSDC had admitted to crediting their CT payments to the wrong account. Not content with this, MSDC have cocked-up again. I have a feeling, this time, the matter could go to a higher court to be dealt with and MSDC could come out it smelling of something that is likely to put the local sewage treatment works in the shade.
                    Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

                      Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
                      That is - of course - utter nonsense; they are evidently too ignorant or too indolent to stop Marstons charging whatever they like.

                      The bad news is that your MP is Nicholas "Fatty" Soames.

                      The good news is that both the CEO and the Assistant CEO look very decorative.
                      http://www.midsussex.gov.uk/6542.htm
                      MSDC's area also has Maude the Fraud as an MP, as well as Soames. Maude the Fraud is what his constituents call him, so whether they know something we don't....
                      Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

                        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-expenses.html

                        http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/...gain-1-4513474

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

                          Originally posted by bluebottle View Post
                          Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC) were involved in a very serious breach of the law involving an elderly woman and her husband where their brainless enforcement agents - at that time, Rossendales - illegally forced entry to the elderly couple's home, causing damage to the front door, assaulted the couple and then lied to Sussex Police that the woman had assaulted them. The woman was prosecuted and convicted of assaulting the two bailiffs. However, in December 2012, at Hove Crown Court, His Honour Judge Charles Brown, the most senior Circuit Judge on the South Eastern Criminal Circuit, wiped the floor with Sussex Police and the Crown Proescution Service (CPS) after they both admitted to not having any grounds for arrest and prosecution. Not surprisingly, the appeal the elderly woman had lodged was upheld in her favour, giving rise to R -v- Tucker [2012] which upholds the right of a householder to use as much reasonable force as necessary to remove a certificated bailiff who has forced entry to their home, without lawful authority, and has failed or refused to leave after having been requested to do so.

                          When confronted by the local press, MSDC bleated that the elderly couple had not paid their Council Tax, which is a porkie as MSDC had admitted to crediting their CT payments to the wrong account. Not content with this, MSDC have cocked-up again. I have a feeling, this time, the matter could go to a higher court to be dealt with and MSDC could come out it smelling of something that is likely to put the local sewage treatment works in the shade.
                          That poor couple, must have been terrifying I have had a brief run in with Rossendales - never again, truly horrible and intimidating. This Marston bailiff Mr Windham was actually quite nice on the phone until he hung up!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

                            £1 card payment charge has been added to the payment.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Marston Fees - does this sound right?

                              Originally posted by jtwinkle View Post
                              That poor couple, must have been terrifying I have had a brief run in with Rossendales - never again, truly horrible and intimidating. This Marston bailiff Mr Windham was actually quite nice on the phone until he hung up!
                              Mrs Tucker is one tough cookie. She takes no nonsense from anyone, as the two bailiffs - Nurpetlian and Rotz aka Reptile and Rotten - found out. They are now no longer certificated bailiffs. One surrendered their certificate whilst the other had their certificate revoked.
                              Life is a journey on which we all travel, sometimes together, but never alone.

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                              Working...
                              X