Please help Marston bailiff came today

[macajl08]

Please help, I am in a bit of a stew!

My husband had a fine for non payment of tv license, we were paying it at £20 per month and though it had ended. We were sent a letter to say still owed £25 so I paid it as soon as I could. 2 days later we had a letter from Marston saying we now owed £100 as they had added £75 charges and pay in 7 days I think. As I had paid the £25 I ignored it......big error as a bailiff has been to the house today and told my husband he is going to seize the car (on hire purchase in my name and used (sign written) for my husband's self employment) unless we pay £310. We do not have this money but will next week as I get paid. He refused to accept this and hubby put him on the phone to me.

The Court confirmed we have paid the £25 but let the bailiff get on with it. Bailiff told me he was being nice as should clamp the car and has given us til Friday to pay even though we can't then he says car will be taken from midnight Friday.

I am trying to see if I can borrow money but not sure if I can, is there anything I can do???

Thanks in advance!

[ploddertom]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Send them details of the HP Agreement. They may only seize the goods of the debtor.

[Wombats]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The letter you received should be headed Notice of Enforcement giving you 7 clear days for the fine to be paid, or a repayment agreement put into place (known as the compliance stage). The notice should also have given an exact date and time when the Compliance Stage ended.

Marstons should, in my opinion, have ceased adding charges at this stage if they knew, as they did, the fine had been during this time. However, there was an onus on you to inform them, and technically Marstons are allowed to enforce for their fees. As the £75 Compliance Stage fee had not been paid, and no contact had been made by yourself, they added on £235 Enforcement Fee, hence the £310.

HOWEVER, they knew the fine had been paid (otherwise they'd be asking for £335), so really they should only be seeking the £75 Compliance Fee from you IMO. I think this is the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Technically they are within their rights though as a debt for their fees remained outstanding and you are seeing the danger of ignoring such important correspondence.

In order to give you a complete answer, I will tell you that there are other views on this issue at present, and some sites will tell you that if the fine has been discharged, as in your case, then no fees are payable as the bailiff did no work and the issue of fees is only a contractual one between HM Courts and the bailiff companies, not a legal one involving you. There are arguments for and against both, and only you can decide who you believe to be correct.

My view is at least the £75 fee is payable, and technically they are within their rights to charge the extra £235, but personally, given they knew the fine was discharged, I don't feel they should have. I would speak to the Fines Officer at the court and copy this to Marstons, asking that the £235 fee be waived. It is hard to see any argument against the application of the £75 Compliance Stage fee I'm afraid.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

It is known that there is fraud going on within the courts system in England and Wales, Wombats, and the advice you have given as to fees payable to civil enforcement companies contracted by HMCTS will need to stand for the timebeing.

[bizzybob]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

It is known that there is fraud going on within the courts system in England and Wales, Wombats, and the advice you have given as to fees payable to civil enforcement companies contracted by HMCTS will need to stand for the timebeing.

Would this be the old fee fraud still being perpetrated despite the changes, as in denying the debtor an arrangement specifically to engineer the £235 Enforcement Fee?

Not long before they start seizing more third party cars and demand interpleader. Op should provide HP docs to court and Marstons if they get silly later.

[Johnboy007]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Same old story....
Bailiffs conning people out of their hard earned money.
Using scare tactics on people who do not know the regulations.
The law was changed, but I'm beginning to wonder if it went far enough.

[doubleslap2]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Seems to be an awful lot of problems with Marstons vile tactics at the moment.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The only way that will change is for HMCTS to tear up their contract. In the meantime, the only measure open is to go on the offensive by drawing cases to the attention of the Head of HMCTS Criminal Enforcement. There are other legitimate means of alerting the public to Marstons' tactics through social media, e.g. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube.

[Wombats]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Seems to be an awful lot of problems with Marstons vile tactics at the moment.

I am reluctant to stick up for ANY enforcement company, but to be fair to Martsons, they are far and away the biggest one, so are likely to attract more issues.

We see vile tactics from many enforcement companies. It appears the legislation has moved on, but the EA's are finding some difficulty adjusting.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

As far as I know this is the situation:

Once the Court appoints an Enforcement Agency to collect unpaid fines, the £75 Compliance fee is applicable.

If the debtor paid the fine before the Court passed the job of collection to the agency, but they did not record such payment for whatever reason, it is to the debtor to inform the Enforcement Agency of such payment and produce documentary evidence of such; at the same time the debtor should inform the Court that payment had been made before the issue of the Warrant; at this point the Court should recall the warrant as an imput error.

If the debtor paid the fine to the Court after the warrant was issued then the debtor is liable for the extra £75 carged at the time the warrant was issued.

If the debtor ignores this then le Enforcement Agency is in their right to escalate the issue to Enforcement fee and add £235, the Enforcement fee could be added to the account at 00:00 hours of the first day after the payment deadline given to the debtor, which in many cases is 10 days fom he date of the leter from the Agency. Some Agency do, some other (including Marston and other compamies within the Marston Group) will only add the "235.00 once an enforcent agent is allocated the jb of recovery.

It is worth bearing in mind that if a sum of money is paid into Court after a warrant was issued, the Court will forward that money to the Enforcemnt Agency because the first £75 paid towards a warrant belongs to the Enforcement Agency, then any money over and/or further payments are split roughly 50/50 between Agency and Court, which means that until the last penny is paid off there will always be money owed to the Court.

[Guest]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

It is known that there is fraud going on within the courts system in England and Wales, Wombats, and the advice you have given as to fees payable to civil enforcement companies contracted by HMCTS will need to stand for the timebeing.

Really BB, known by whom, could you link to the source of this information.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Really BB, known by whom, could you link to the source of this information.

I witnessed it for myself at a county court hearing this very afternoon. I hasten to add that I was not the defendant, only an observer. I will not go into any further detail as the matter is subject to further action.

The manner in which Council Tax Liability Orders are obtained and granted is known to be fraudulent as the summonses are issued by local authorities, not by the magistrates courts, and it is in the Justice's Clerks Society Handbook that JCs should not give the impression local authorities are running the hearing at CT LO hearings, not the court. That is common knowledge and has been for sometime.

It is also known that Civil Procedures Rules and Criminal Procedures Rules have been disregarded in a number of cases waiting to go before the courts.

[Guest]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

I witnessed it for myself at a county court hearing this very afternoon. I hasten to add that I was not the defendant, only an observer. I will not go into any further detail as the matter is subject to further action.

The manner in which Council Tax Liability Orders are obtained and granted is known to be fraudulent as the summonses are issued by local authorities,

You mean that magistrates courts and local authorities are conspiring in fraud, is this something else you witnessed BB, or is there any evidence of this extremely damming statement. Shuld we not all be talking to our MPs about this ?

[Guest]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

[QUOTE=bluebottle;467201


It is also known that Civil Procedures Rules and Criminal Procedures Rules have been disregarded in a number of cases waiting to go before the courts.[/QUOTE]

Sorry missed this, i ask again known by whom(or is this something else yuo witnessed yourself )

[Milo]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The manner in which Council Tax Liability Orders are obtained and granted is known to be fraudulent as the summonses are issued by local authorities, not by the magistrates courts, and it is in the Justice's Clerks Society Handbook that JCs should not give the impression local authorities are running the hearing at CT LO hearings, not the court. That is common knowledge and has been for sometime.


BB

What you have said above is very serious indeed but most importantly, it differs greatly from the information that I have which was provided by the Justice's Clerks Society. According the THEM, the 'procedure' for isssuing a summons is as follows:

One: The council delivers one or two complaint lists to the court with their fee.

Two: The list is reviewed by a legal adviser with delegated powers who ISSUES THE SUMMONSES.

Three: One copy of the (complaint) list is returned to the council and the court retains the other endorsed list.

Four: The council will then PRINT THE SUMMONSES, pre printed with the Justice's Clerk's signature, and post them out.

If as you say the court hearing that you witnessed yesterday is 'subject to further action' it is worrying that the court are not aware of the TRUE position regarding the 'issuing' of the summonses.