Please help Marston bailiff came today

[bizzybob]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Milo and BlueBottle, what this amounts to if examined in the light of the Articles of the ECHR and Human Rights Act, is that the whole procedure as outlined by yourselves may well be contrary to the Convention and the ACT insofar as it breaches right to a fair trial or hearing, and it allows non judicial private companies to.tbasically run the court for the day. Similarly the Crapita TVL stitch up is flawed also.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The problem with council tax (and NNDR) is that statutory regulations actually permit the likes of Equita, Liberata and other 'back office'providers to play a significant role in court when these applications are authorised.

The same 'powers' do not exist for road traffic debs...only council tax and NNDR.

I think you've put your finger right on it, Milo. The contracting-out regulations have. basically, allowed the likes of Capita, Liberata, etc., to stick their oars in and wreak havoc. Public pressure is the only thing that will remove them from central and local government.

[Milo]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

There have been cases where, on inspection, it has been found Liability Orders have been granted before the court opened to the public for the day. In short, the defendant comes into court, believing they are there to challenge the local authority's allegations when, in fact, their right to a fair hearing has been undermined and destroyed.

The practice you outline is called Passing Off and it would be helpful if the legislation allowing a magistrates court to delegate power to issue summonses to the local authority could be specified, please.

With regard to granting LOs before the court has opened to the public for the day, that is fraudulent as if the court heard each case individually as they are supposed to do, there are going to be cases that should never have been pursued by the local authority in the first place. By the local authority representing to the court a person owes money when, in fact, they do not, that is not only fraud, but, potentially, perverting the course of justice.

It would be useful for you to contact Loretta1 on CAG about a hearing she attended in respect of CT and the unacceptable behaviour of the three JPs and Justices Clerk and the local authority representative. When she rang me about it, I have to say that the only word I can find to accurately describe it is fraud.

The problem with council tax (and NNDR) is that statutory regulations actually permit the likes of Equita, Liberata and other 'back office'providers to play a significant role in court when these applications are authorised.

The same 'powers' do not exist for road traffic debs...only council tax and NNDR.

[Kati]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

there are going to be cases that should never have been pursued by the local authority in the first place. By the local authority representing to the court a person owes money when, in fact, they do not, that is not only fraud, but, potentially, perverting the course of justice.

I know THAT one well myself :tinysmile_hmm_t2:!!

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Thanks for the info Milo, I think however you credit the statement with far more seriousness than it deserves.

But perhaps i am just a grumpy old sod

You're a grumpy old sod. Lol!

[bluebottle]

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.

There have been cases where, on inspection, it has been found Liability Orders have been granted before the court opened to the public for the day. In short, the defendant comes into court, believing they are there to challenge the local authority's allegations when, in fact, their right to a fair hearing has been undermined and destroyed.

The practice you outline is called Passing Off and it would be helpful if the legislation allowing a magistrates court to delegate power to issue summonses to the local authority could be specified, please.

With regard to granting LOs before the court has opened to the public for the day, that is fraudulent as if the court heard each case individually as they are supposed to do, there are going to be cases that should never have been pursued by the local authority in the first place. By the local authority representing to the court a person owes money when, in fact, they do not, that is not only fraud, but, potentially, perverting the course of justice.

It would be useful for you to contact Loretta1 on CAG about a hearing she attended in respect of CT and the unacceptable behaviour of the three JPs and Justices Clerk and the local authority representative. When she rang me about it, I have to say that the only word I can find to accurately describe it is fraud.

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Thanks for the info Milo, I think however you credit the statement with far more seriousness than it deserves.

But perhaps i am just a grumpy old sod

[Milo]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

As mentioned above, the legal advisor issues the summonses and they are printed by the local authority with a pre-printed copy of the Justice's Clerk signature.

There have been 'challenges' in the past from various 'movements' (mainly FMoTL) about the summons not having a 'wet ink signature. This point is also addressed by the Justice's Clerk's Society in detail. If you require me to provide further information please post back and I will be happy to assist.

[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.

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 )

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 ?

[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.

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.

[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.

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.