Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

[sali1023]

Hi there,

I hope that someone can help me with this. I have only recently found this website and have found some valuable information and I just wanted help to clarify my situation and also to find out if there is anything I can do.

Last year around the middle of March, I was home with my 4 young boys all under the age 5. My sister and her 5 month old were also visiting and were staying with us at the time. In the evening, unexpectantly two men came to the door. At first, I thought they were policemen as they had similar uniform. But it turned out that they were court enforcement officers. They claimed that they had come to execute a warrant for an unpaid Magistrates fine for my partner. My partner was not always at home, he would come and go.

I told the 2 men that he was not there and they then asked if I could find out where he was and if he could come to the house to sort out the outstanding fine. I tried calling him numerous times in front of them and there was no answer. I told the enforcement officer that he might come in the next hour if they wanted to wait for him. At first they seem reluctant but then they agreed to do so by waiting in their vehicle.

After about 40 mins or so they came back and said that they could not wait any longer and that this matter had to be dealt with. I was going out of my head as I didn't know what to do and felt under pressure and at the same time, my kids were wanting my attention as well.

One of the men claimed that there was a warrant out for his arrest if this was not paid. They also noted my car outside and asked me if it was my vehicle and I told them it was mine and they then stated that they would tow the car away if the fine wasn't settled. I told them that I don't know where my partner is and I can't get through to him but they didn't relent.

I felt so embarassed in front of my sister, harassed, intimidated and pressurised by these 2 men and felt that they put me in an awkward position to pay the debt that had nothing to do with me. I felt threatened that they were going to take my car away. They could see that I was in a vulnerable postion and continued to excute their warrant in front of my kids

I ended up reluctantly paying the debt on my debit card. At the time I was not aware of the procedures of how bailiffs operated, nor of my rights in this situation. I was so annoyed with my partner at why he had let it get to this stage and also I had no idea that the bailiffs were going to attend.

After reading up on this recently, I realised that I should not have been made to pay my partner's debt. My partner was never present at any point during their visit. Am I right in thinking that they unlawfully executed their warrant ? Is there anything that I can do now?

I have got my partner to find out who the debt collectors were and that the bailiffs were actually employed by Marstons Group Ltd and on their records only one man had attended. And also that it was a magistrates fine. My partner requested a copy of the warrant and also a breakdown of costs. From my understanding, it is not an official warrant (Marstons headed paper). The cost were (bearing in mind this is pre April 2014 regulation):

Fine: £198.00
Compliance Fee: £85.00
Attending to Remove Fee: £215.00
Debit Card Fee : £1.00
Total: £499.00


Any help will be much appreciated.

TIA

[Milo]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

You say that this incident was last March. Do you mean March 2013 or 2014?

Also, you have mentioned that the bailiff did not have an 'official; warrant. Can you elaborate on this.

You have said that the bailiff noted your car. Did he list the car down on a seizure notice?

Has you partner made a formal complaint?

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

You say that this incident was last March. Do you mean March 2013 or 2014?

Also, you have mentioned that the bailiff did not have an 'official; warrant. Can you elaborate on this.

You have said that the bailiff noted your car. Did he list the car down on a seizure notice?

Has you partner made a formal complaint?

Hi Milo,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, it was March 2013. It was an A4 sheet that had 'Distress Warrant' on the top left and on the right it had the Marstons logo - a DIY distress Warrant. On one of your other threads it has a picture of the two warrants.
http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ed-the-warrant

It is similar to the one on the right.

The Bailiff acknowledged the car but I can't remember them wrinting anything down in front of me, but I do remember him saying that they'll tow the car away and that there was a warrant for partner's arrest. At the time I was panicking as I genuinely thought they would take the car and that my partner would be arrested. It was my car and I needed it as I have 4 young children. That was the first time they came so unsure how they can justify their fees. I had no knowledge of the debt or else I would have made my partner settle it early on.

No he didn't make a complaint as we were not aware of the rules and regulations regarding bailiffs. It's only recently that I found out that what the bailiff did at the time may not lawful. Also the fact that they were willing to discuss his debt with me - would this be a breach of DPA? Another thing is that 2 men attended, but apparently Marstons claim that there was only one and would only give us a surname.

Thanks

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

The Bailiff acknowledged the car by pointing to it.

[Milo]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Sail 1023.

I will address the matter of the 'warrant' in a further post.

Worryingly, I have just received a PM to advise me that you have posted this identical question on another forum. I have now read your post and the replies from the owner of that forum.

Firstly, the poster answering you is well know to me and to this forum and other forums as well.

Sadly, this particular subject (bailiffs supposedly not being allowed to charge fees and allegations of 'fake' or 'bogus' warrants) is one that that forum owner has been arguing about since at least 2009 !!! The arguments have lead to people being banned from forums or posts being moderated. For a long time I have posted compelling evidence that the person is wrong and to do so again now will frankly be a waste of my time.

Furthermore, as you will have seen this morning, the forum owner has noticed that you have posted on this forum and he has posted the usual comment ( which has been posted by him many times) warning you of the dangers of replying to private messages and other very serious allegations (all of which are completely untrue). If you wish to take note of the rubbish written please do do. All that I would say to you is the following:

You have made clear on both forums that the court fine and bailiff fees were paid by you in March 2013. The new bailiff regulations came into effect 13 months afterwards in April 2014. The advice that you are being either relates to Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 or the Taking Control of Goods Regulations....both which came into effect on 6th April this year. Accordingly, they will be of no use to you at all.

Astonishingly, you are also being advised that you can make a formal complaint to the County Court for the judge to consider removing the bailiffs certificate from him.

The usual 'advice' about asking the court to refund the money to you is being given and the usual nonsense about escalating the complaint to the Secretary of State is also be advised. Before considering this course of action request evidence of previous successful cases. Be prepared for excuses.

Astonishingly you have been advised that you can have the Parliamentary Ombudsman return the money. This is completely an utter nonsense!!! Also, members of the public cannot approach the Parliamentary Ombudsman themselves. Instead, you have to ask your local MP to intervene on your behalf. So far, there is no evidence whatsoever of the Parliamentary Ombudsman dealing with such an enquiry and no evidence either of the Parliamentary Ombudsman returning any money'.None.

Finally, I see that the forum owner has stated that 'your partner still needs to pay the fine'. Given that you have stated very clearly that the fine and bailiff fees were paid in March 2013 this is a very odd comment indeed.

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

To be honest, you are unlikely to get 'legal advice' as in advice from a solicitor on any forum. However, solicitors are often not the best placed people to give advice on enforcement issues. The advice you're receiving here is from a highly experienced person who is very highly regarded in the enforcement industry by enforcement companies and right up to the Ministry of Justice. Because they are so knowlegeable, it suits other forums to try to discredit them with ridiculous, false allegations.

I assure you there are very few people in the country better placed to give impartial, expert help than you are getting here. To be given it free of charge is a bonus.

I freely admit to be biased, but that is for a good reason. I know the huge number of cases Milo has resolved successfully. Ask for solid evidence of success elsewhere before acting on any advice given - you will see posts discrediting me as well probably appear now. That, in itself, speaks volumes.

I appreciate your comments above.

Thank you.

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Thank you for your speedy response. If you are OK to wait I will respond later on (probably early evening) and will deal also with the 'misunderstanding' regarding the warrant. For the avoidance of doubt, the warrant is not 'bogus' and neither is it 'fake'.

Sorry I couldn't back sooner. Yes, that's fine. I understand what your saying about the warrant and appreciate that a warrant would exist. But when the courts grant a warrant to recover an outstanding debt, the amount would be x (for the sake of arguement). The 'warrants' that the bailiff would produce would show (x+y) to make it appear that the higher amount is to be enforced even though the courts haven't authorised this amount. Would this be a valid point?

My question is still that if the warrant was under someone else's name, then why was it discussed and enforced on me when the bailiffs clearly knew that the debtor was not present. What was the regulation regarding this pre-April 2014? And who is it that I need to redress this with?

Thanks

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Also in my first post, i pointed out a link to another thread on this website which showed examples of a genuine and fake distress warrant. Is this not true?

[Wombats]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

I see you are being given inaccurate advice again. Sadly the prediction that they would personally attack people has come true. It is unclear whether the orginal answer in its original form stands - it shouldn't!

A couple of points in relation to points of legislation mentioned to you:

CPR 52.8(b) was mentioned. Other parts of Part 52 were conveniently omitted - see below:

Information to be included in a warrant to take goods, etc.

52.7. (1) A warrant must identify—

(a)each person to whom it is directed;

(b)the defendant against whom it was issued;

(c)the sum for which it was issued and the reason that sum is owed;

(d)the court or fines officer who issued it, unless that is otherwise recorded by the court officer; and

(e)the court office for the court or fines officer who issued it.

(2) A person to whom a warrant is directed must record on it the date and time at which it is received.

(3) A warrant that contains an error is not invalid, as long as—

(a)it was issued in respect of a lawful decision by the court or fines officer; and

(b)it contains enough information to identify that decision.

[Note. See sections 78 and 125ZA of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980(17).]
Execution of a warrant to take goods, etc.

52.8. (1) A warrant may be executed by—

(a)any person to whom it is directed; or

(b)anyone authorised to do so by section 125 (warrants), 125A (civilian enforcement officers) or 125B (execution by approved enforcement agency) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980(18).

(2) The person who executes a warrant must—

(a)explain, in terms the defendant can understand—

(i)the order or decision that the warrant was issued to enforce,

(ii)the sum for which the warrant was issued, AND

(iii)any extra sum payable in connection with the execution of the warrant;
(b)show the defendant the warrant, if that person has it;

(c)if the defendant asks—

(i)arrange for the defendant to see the warrant, if that person does not have it, and

(ii)show the defendant any written statement of that person’s authority required by section 125A or 125B of the 1980 Act;

and the Magistrates Court Act 1980

78 Defect in distress warrant and irregularity in its execution.

(1)A warrant of distress issued for the purpose of levying a sum adjudged to be paid by the conviction or order of a magistrates’ court shall not, if it states that the sum has been so adjudged to be paid, be held void by reason of any defect in the warrant.

I won't comment further at present as there is much which could be said. Suffice to say I hope you can see the importance of checking what is written. I hope you can see also the advice given in post 2 on the other site has now changed. Why? Possibly because it was incorrect.

Also, one has to question why a site is so keen to discredit one person (and others) who post in support of that person. I addressed this briefly in post 8, so don't intend repeating myself; however I would encourage you to follow advice given freely by a person with immense knowledge and a long proven track record in achieving success for people with enforcement issues.

We really do not like setting this site 'against' another, so it may be best for you to choose one or the other. That choice ultimately must be yours. Nobody wants any problems from the past to be brought to the fore again. We want to help you resolve any issues you have to the best of our ability.

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Thank you for the information. I will look into it tomorrow.

Going back to the main question for now, the debt belonged to my partner - it was in his name alone. He was not present at any time when the bailiffs came to the door. The bailiffs were aware of this. Yet, I was made to pay. Is this something that can be redressed and if so, to whom?

Thanks

[Guest]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Thank you for the information. I will look into it tomorrow.

Going back to the main question for now, the debt belonged to my partner - it was in his name alone. He was not present at any time when the bailiffs came to the door. The bailiffs were aware of this. Yet, I was made to pay. Is this something that can be redressed and if so, to whom?

Thanks

Under the new regulations it is quite acceptable for a third party to be responsible for negotiating a controlled goods agreement as long as the goods involved are those of the debtor, the issue of the children being present is really a none issue, the presence of a child or any vulnerable individual when the taking into control or payment is made is not relevant, all that is required is that there is a responsible person involved in the process.

The threat of removing the vehicle was not carried out I believe, so it would be difficult to show incorrect action, even if the car was proven not to belong to the debtor. As long as the debt was rightfully owed, IE the correct amount due under the warrant and the correct fees upto he action then really there is nothing to reclaim IMO.

The issue regarding the validity of the warrant is really another none issue, no one seriously believes that the bailiff must carry around a bunch of "wet signature" warrants anymore, this is nonsense, the warrant has to be shown on request but it does not have to be there and then and even so it can be a reproduced version, it is as said really not an issue.

As also as said your enforcement action took place before the new regulations came into force this year, however none of the points I have raised here are different in the old regime s far as your case is concerned.

[Amethyst]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Anyway,

Also in my first post, i pointed out a link to another thread on this website which showed examples of a genuine and fake distress warrant. Is this not true?

I believe one is the actual distress warrant issued by the court and the other is the paperwork that the bailiff gives to the customer after they have added in their fees, so not really a 'fake' but meant to be misleading. Just nudging really for a definitive answer.


Think these are the ones you pointed to.

[Wombats]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Sali,

I note there is further incorrect information now about you going to the parliamentary ombudsman. You cannot go about this in the way stated, it has to be done through an MP (not necessarily your own constituency MP).

This link gives some accurate information on the issue:

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/make-a-c...an-investigate

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Anyway,



I believe one is the actual distress warrant issued by the court and the other is the paperwork that the bailiff gives to the customer after they have added in their fees, so not really a 'fake' but meant to be misleading. Just nudging really for a definitive answer.


Think these are the ones you pointed to.

Hi Amethyst,

Thank you for your reply. Yes those are the ones I was referring to. And I agree they are very misleading. But would it not be case of fraud to try to pass an ordinary document/paperwork as an official document? How many bailiffs to date actually willingly provide a breakdown of what the debt consist of?

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Under the new regulations it is quite acceptable for a third party to be responsible for negotiating a controlled goods agreement as long as the goods involved are those of the debtor, the issue of the children being present is really a none issue, the presence of a child or any vulnerable individual when the taking into control or payment is made is not relevant, all that is required is that there is a responsible person involved in the process.

The threat of removing the vehicle was not carried out I believe, so it would be difficult to show incorrect action, even if the car was proven not to belong to the debtor. As long as the debt was rightfully owed, IE the correct amount due under the warrant and the correct fees upto he action then really there is nothing to reclaim IMO.

The issue regarding the validity of the warrant is really another none issue, no one seriously believes that the bailiff must carry around a bunch of "wet signature" warrants anymore, this is nonsense, the warrant has to be shown on request but it does not have to be there and then and even so it can be a reproduced version, it is as said really not an issue.

As also as said your enforcement action took place before the new regulations came into force this year, however none of the points I have raised here are different in the old regime s far as your case is concerned.

Hi Andy58,

I would be interested to know what the evidence is with the statements that you made above? In particular how a third party is liable for a someone else's debt, especially when the debtor is not present and It is the bailiffs first visit?

Thanks