Marstons/TV licence again...

[danny7147]

Hi all, I've read the previous threads regarding Marstons and TV licence fines but my case is slightly different and it's a bit confusing so would really appreciate some urgent advice!

I had a visit from Marstons around a year ago regarding a TV licence fine which I knew nothing about and after a few calls went to court and obtained a statutory declaration. I've received absolutely nothing in the post (and I haven't moved house in the last year) from the court saying that it was going to court again, or that the case had been reopened.

Out of the blue about a week ago I came home to find that there was a "Final Notice" from Marstons... you know the drill... so I contacted Senior Bailiff and he said that the court had reopened the case and reinstated the fine. I asked for details of the fine, he said that he didn't know but could only give me reference number and court. Slightly strange as surely he should know what the fine is relating to that he's collecting(!) but anyway. I called the court, they said they knew nothing about it reopening. A few days later I received a "Removal Notice" from him, and tonight got a call from him saying that he's attending tomorrow "with a locksmith" to obtain entry and remove goods.

That's where I'm at. Now, I've read what I can online but would appreciate some proper advice, legality etc, as I am aware that a forced entry warrant can be obtained for a magistrates court fine... but I just really don't understand why the court accepted the stat dec and then presumably took it to court again without telling me a second time!

So, question...

1. If he does call here tomorrow, what are the chances of him having a locksmith, and (as I don't know if he actually has a warrant) what are the chances of him having one?

2. Would a court reopen a case without telling me, and presumably retry it a second time without giving me any notice after a stat dec had been made?

3. Should I be in? Out?

The last correspondence I received as a text after I said that I wouldn't be letting him in and had obtained a police incident number (I called them and told them of a threat for an attempted break in) stated "I am intending on entering your premises. Tribunal, courts and enforcement act 2007. Any attempt to obstruct me whilst enforcing the legal document is a criminal offence and the police will be called on 999.

The car we have is a taxi registered to my husband, and most of the belongings in the house are his. The computers are for the taxi as they have software that tracks it and sends jobs. The landline/mobile are all business registered. There are a few things, like a display cabinet with old toys and a couple of bikes that are my husbands but...

4. Is it true that as the debt is "mine" the bailiff can't take anything that's business related or owned by my husband?

Advice on any of the above would be extremely grateful!

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

Hi all, I've read the previous threads regarding Marstons and TV licence fines but my case is slightly different and it's a bit confusing so would really appreciate some urgent advice!

I had a visit from Marstons around a year ago regarding a TV licence fine which I knew nothing about and after a few calls went to court and obtained a statutory declaration. I've received absolutely nothing in the post (and I haven't moved house in the last year) from the court saying that it was going to court again, or that the case had been reopened.

Out of the blue about a week ago I came home to find that there was a "Final Notice" from Marstons... you know the drill... so I contacted Senior Bailiff and he said that the court had reopened the case and reinstated the fine. I asked for details of the fine, he said that he didn't know but could only give me reference number and court. Slightly strange as surely he should know what the fine is relating to that he's collecting(!) but anyway. I called the court, they said they knew nothing about it reopening. A few days later I received a "Removal Notice" from him, and tonight got a call from him saying that he's attending tomorrow "with a locksmith" to obtain entry and remove goods. If the case had been re-opened, you would have been summonsed to court.. If the court have no record of the case being re-opened, this would indicate Marstons may have the warrant from before and have not removed it from their systems. Once a defendant informs the court they have no knowledge of a summons or court hearing, the court sends a fax to the bailiff company recalling the warrant. This is normally done on the day the defendant informs the court.
That's where I'm at. Now, I've read what I can online but would appreciate some proper advice, legality etc, as I am aware that a forced entry warrant can be obtained for a magistrates court fine... but I just really don't understand why the court accepted the stat dec and then presumably took it to court again without telling me a second time! If the court have said they have no record, they have no record. Also, if they have no record of issuing a Distress Warrant, the bailiff will be acting outside the law if he attempts to gain entry. If a locksmith is with him and attempts to break the locks, they will be acting outside the law also and could run the risk of never working as a locksmith again.
So, question...

1. If he does call here tomorrow, what are the chances of him having a locksmith, and (as I don't know if he actually has a warrant) what are the chances of him having one?

2. Would a court reopen a case without telling me, and presumably retry it a second time without giving me any notice after a stat dec had been made? Unless they have made an horrendous blunder, no.

3. Should I be in? Out? I'm going to post the email address for the CEO of Marstons at the foot of this post. Email him tonight without fail.

The last correspondence I received as a text after I said that I wouldn't be letting him in and had obtained a police incident number (I called them and told them of a threat for an attempted break in) stated "I am intending on entering your premises. Tribunal, courts and enforcement act 2007. Any attempt to obstruct me whilst enforcing the legal document is a criminal offence and the police will be called on 999. Any attempt to gain entry to a dwelling without lawful authority is a criminal offence. So is threatening to break in to a dwelling without lawful authority. Save the text message as this is evidence of a possible further offence.
The car we have is a taxi registered to my husband, and most of the belongings in the house are his. The computers are for the taxi as they have software that tracks it and sends jobs. The landline/mobile are all business registered. There are a few things, like a display cabinet with old toys and a couple of bikes that are my husbands but... Only a debtor's goods may be seized.

4. Is it true that as the debt is "mine" the bailiff can't take anything that's business related or owned by my husband? Correct.

Advice on any of the above would be extremely grateful!

Responses in red text above. Email address for CEO, Marston Group below.

gareth.hughes@marstongroup.co.uk

[danny7147]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

Wow, thanks for the fantastic reply! It really does seem odd about the stat dec part, the original bailiff accepted it and we heard nothing since... and we've certainly had no communication from the court regarding anything since. There's been no notification that the case had been reopened, no further steps order, nothing which is why alarm bells rang but we'll see I guess!

It's a little irritating (although presumably deliberate) that he called at 7pm when we couldn't call the court to discuss the matter but I guess that's just their way!

I will certainly send an email to the CEO, but the thing that does bother me is that I keep reading that bailiffs can force entry for magistrates court fines... and then that's all that it says! That's why I'm a little confused about whether if he "does" have a warrant and there has been a court blunder etc, if he may be able to force entry. I'll be calling the court again first thing in the morning, but from what I've read these idiots have a habit of turning up at 6.30am so it may be a little late by then!

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

In order to force entry, they must obtain sanction from a nominated officer at the court that issued a Distress Warrant first. Also, forced entry must be a last resort, not a first resort.

The original bailiff would have had little choice but to accept the Statutory Declaration you swore before the court last year. Once a SD is sworn, a conviction is set aside (cancelled) and any fine is too. As stated previously, once you contact the court and inform them of having no knowledge of a court hearing or conviction and they arrange for you to swear a SD, the court faxes the bailiff company to recall the Distress Warrant. Enforcement action should then cease. If a bailiff then continues or attempts to continue with enforcement, they are acting without lawful authority and committing an offence.

If the bailiff does turn up tomorrow, call the police on 999, quote the incident log number they should have given you and ask them to attend to remove the bailiff. Make sure you print off a copy of the email you send to the CEO of Marston Group and any reply you receive and hand copies to the bailiff. Make sure you ring the court first thing tomorrow morning without fail. The fact the bailiff called at a time when he knew the court would be closed does sound suspicious. If it transpires that Marstons did not remove the Distress Warrant from last year from their systems, I would be inclined to report them to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) as it is a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 to fail to maintain accurate records and to keep data on a person longer than is necessary.

Additionally, once a conviction is set aside, only the prosecuting authorities can re-open a case and a court must re-hear the case and determine the fine after examining the defendant's means. The statement by the bailiff that the court has re-opened the case and re-instated the fine sounds more like 24-carat bovine excrement than fact.

[Wombats]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

It would appear to be an administrative error by either the court or the enforcement company. As BB rightly says, contact the court and explain what has happened (also the distress caused). If their error, ask for their complaints procedure; if the enforcement companies error ask for their complaints procedure. It is wrong you should be put through this.

This was taken from a highly respected website:

"The court will send a copy of the signed Statutory Declaration to the prosecution and it will be for the prosecution to decide whether or not they wish to issue a new summons. Depending on the period of time that had elapsed since the offence , the prosecution may consider that it is not in the “public interest” to issue a new summons."

That's pretty clear to me! :beagle:

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

It would appear to be an administrative error by either the court or the enforcement company. As BB rightly says, contact the court and explain what has happened (also the distress caused). If their error, ask for their complaints procedure; if the enforcement companies error ask for their complaints procedure. It is wrong you should be put through this.

This was taken from a highly respected website:

"The court will send a copy of the signed Statutory Declaration to the prosecution and it will be for the prosecution to decide whether or not they wish to issue a new summons. Depending on the period of time that had elapsed since the offence , the prosecution may consider that it is not in the “public interest” to issue a new summons."

That's pretty clear to me! :beagle:

Absolutely, Wombats. Hopefully, the CEO of Marstons should realise something has gone awry and nip it in the bud before it goes too far and lands Marstons in the proverbial.

[Wombats]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

Yes, someone should certainly nip it in the bud. It is an error - a very unfortunate one, but they happen.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

DELETED

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

The issue is likely to be failure of HMCS systems, asd new staff replacing the old experienced people. Was not HMCS IT systems condemned by a judge as not fit for purpose in the last couple of years? Hopefully Marstons CEO will sort this PDQ. Op needs to enquire at the court and be prepared to issue a complaint if they have cacked up imho.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

It would appear to be an administrative error by either the court or the enforcement company. As BB rightly says, contact the court and explain what has happened (also the distress caused). If their error, ask for their complaints procedure; if the enforcement companies error ask for their complaints procedure. It is wrong you should be put through this.

This was taken from a highly respected website:

"The court will send a copy of the signed Statutory Declaration to the prosecution and it will be for the prosecution to decide whether or not they wish to issue a new summons. Depending on the period of time that had elapsed since the offence , the prosecution may consider that it is not in the “public interest” to issue a new summons."

That's pretty clear to me! :beagle:

In the case of HMCTS Criminal Enforcement, the usual complaints route is -

Stage 1 - Court Manager at magistrates court involved;
Stage 2 - Area Enforcement Team, if not resolved at Stage 1;
Stage 3 - Regional Enforcement Team, if not resolved at Stages 1 and 2;
Stage 4 - Head of HMCTS Criminal Enforcement, if not resolved at Stages 1, 2 and 3.

In my experience, most complaints are resolved at Stage 1. A few end up being escalated to Stage 2.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

In order to force entry, they must obtain sanction from a nominated officer at the court that issued a Distress Warrant first. Also, forced entry must be a last resort, not a first resort.

The original bailiff would have had little choice but to accept the Statutory Declaration you swore before the court last year. Once a SD is sworn, a conviction is set aside (cancelled) and any fine is too. As stated previously, once you contact the court and inform them of having no knowledge of a court hearing or conviction and they arrange for you to swear a SD, the court faxes the bailiff company to recall the Distress Warrant. Enforcement action should then cease. If a bailiff then continues or attempts to continue with enforcement, they are acting without lawful authority and committing an offence.

........

Additionally, once a conviction is set aside, only the prosecuting authorities can re-open a case and a court must re-hear the case and determine the fine after examining the defendant's means. The statement by the bailiff that the court has re-opened the case and re-instated the fine sounds more like 24-carat bovine excrement than fact.

There is a first time for everything.....and this is the first time I don't quite agree with BlueBottle.

When a debtor files a Statutory Declaration, the Enforcement Agency is asked to put the warrant on hold (generally 28 days) for the case to be assessed.

It is not unknown for a Court to turn down the SD (without telling the debtor, which I think is pants, but happens) and tell the EA to carry on enforcing.

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

There is a first time for everything.....and this is the first time I don't quite agree with BlueBottle.

When a debtor files a Statutory Declaration, the Enforcement Agency is asked to put the warrant on hold (generally 28 days) for the case to be assessed.

It is not unknown for a Court to turn down the SD (without telling the debtor, which I think is pants, but happens) and tell the EA to carry on enforcing.

In my experience, Sir Vere, most magistrates courts I have dealt with where a defendantt has advised no knowledge of a hearing or conviction, have either recalled DWs or suspended enforcement action until the defendant attends the court to swear an SD.

In respect of the text I have emboldened, in the event a defendant has no knowledge of any hearing and subsequent conviction and a court follows the course of action you illustrate, the court's actions are, potentially, unlawful by virtue of Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998. I have no doubt there are court staff who engage in this sort of behaviour and, quite frankly, they are doing HMCTS and those who work within it considerable harm and should be sacked.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

In my experience, Sir Vere, most magistrates courts I have dealt with where a defendantt has advised no knowledge of a hearing or conviction, have either recalled DWs or suspended enforcement action until the defendant attends the court to swear an SD.

In respect of the text I have emboldened, in the event a defendant has no knowledge of any hearing and subsequent conviction and a court follows the course of action you illustrate, the court's actions are, potentially, unlawful by virtue of Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998. I have no doubt there are court staff who engage in this sort of behaviour and, quite frankly, they are doing HMCTS and those who work within it considerable harm and should be sacked.

If they refused the Stat dec and allowed Sir Vere's scenario to carry on, then they may also fall foul of the provisions mentioned here if the debtor is vulnerable or has had a change of circumstances for the worse:

http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.o...-and-bailiffs/

[bluebottle]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

It also flies in the face of the Judicial Review in the Purnell Case, BB.

[bizzybob]

Re: Marstons/TV licence again...

It also flies in the face of the Judicial Review in the Purnell Case, BB.

Problem is each court seems to be a law unto itself and some are over reliant on their private army of EAs
Purnell should certainly be considered especially where there are multiple fines unpaid.