Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

[sali1023]

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

Hi Wombats,

Thank you for the link, I will take a lookin a moment. If there is a case that the warrant was not executed correctly, what would be the first step be to complain to the court that issued the warrant?

Thanks

[Milo]

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.

Before I respond on the actaul 'warrants' it may be useful to read a new thread that I have just started (which is a copy of an Offical response from HMCTS regarding warrants.

[Guest]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

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

No one is saying that the third party is "responsible for anyone else's debts|" what is being said is that a third party can pay those debts and /or enter into a controlled goods agreement under the act, as long as that party is authorised to do so, by their relationship with the debtor.

If oyou like I will dig the supporting legislation out for you but really it is common sense.

As a matter of interest, what exactly is it you are saying was claimed incorrectly here, I must admit i have lost track, is it the fees which you/your partner are saying are incorrect or the amount of the order

edit it is enshrined is section 14(b) of the taking control of goods regulations, in the latest version of the regulation in this area

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Before I respond on the actaul 'warrants' it may be useful to read a new thread that I have just started (which is a copy of an Offical response from HMCTS regarding warrants.

Hi Milo,

Do you have the link for that?

Thanks

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

No one is saying that the third party is "responsible for anyone else's debts|" what is being said is that a third party can pay those debts and /or enter into a controlled goods agreement under the act, as long as that party is authorised to do so, by their relationship with the debtor.

If oyou like I will dig the supporting legislation out for you but really it is common sense.

As a matter of interest, what exactly is it you are saying was claimed incorrectly here, I must admit i have lost track, is it the fees which you/your partner are saying you are incorrect or the amount of the order

edit it is enshrined is section 14(b) of the taking control of goods regulations, in the latest version of the regulation in this area

That is something new and something I was not aware of so I would be interested in the legislation. Being in a relationship does not give me the authority or responsiblity for a third party (although I agree there may be some exceptions where there would need to be prior agreement/ documented evidence e,g power of attorney etc).

The question is that the debt has nothing to do with me. I was not named on the warrant. The bailiffs pressurised me into paying the debt. If this is not the correct procedure, what would be the course of a redress?

Thanks

[sali1023]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Did you mean this part:

Who may enter into a controlled goods agreement

14.
—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a controlled goods agreement, as defined by paragraph 13(4)

of Schedule 12, may only be entered into by an enforcement agent and—

(a) a debtor who is not a child;
(b) a person, aged 18 or over, authorised by the debtor to enter into a controlled goods
agreement on the debtor’s behalf; or
(c) a person in apparent authority who is on the premises, where those premises are used
(whether wholly or partl) to carry on a trade or business

There was no authorisation. The debtor was not present & could not be contacted by phone. And also it was the bailiffs first visit.

Part c would not apply as it was not a business.

[pepsie]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Hi Milo,

Do you have the link for that?

Thanks

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-from-HMCTS&p=

[Milo]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Sali,

I will try to bring this query to a speedy conclusion.

I have now read your post on here a couple of time and also read your post on another website and it would seem that you have only a couple of points that you wanted clarification on. If I am incorrect on this please post back.

As I understand it your queries concern the following:

That two bailiffs attended but that the enforcement company state that only one attended.

At the time (March 2013) that the warrant was enforced the regulations did not provide that a bailiff needed to be certificated. Whether one or both were certificated is not of any relevance. The second bailiff could very easily have been in attendance purely to gain experience.

Whether discussing the debt with you was a breach of the Data Protection Act.

A bailiff is allowed to 'make enquiries' with neighbours etc regarding the debtors whereabouts. In fact I am sure that HMCTS would encourage bailiffs to do so. After all, the courts are only interested in getting the fine paid.

As you are the debtors partner I would be very surprised indeed if the Information Commissioners (or even the court) found fault with the bailiff making such enquiries. You have not said whether the bailiff actually discussed the offence that had been committed by your partner or whether he was just making enquiries.

Whether a warrant in your partner's name can be enforced against you.

You have said on this forum that you paid your partners debt because you 'panicked' as you 'genuinely thought that they would take the car'. On the other website you state that you were 'embarrased' (as a relative was with you) and that this was another reason for paying your partner's debt.

If you are minded to make a formal complaint to the enforcement company it would assist if you were able to get a sworn statement from the relative to evidence that you were forced to make payment of your partners debt. It is likely that the bailiff company will respond to state that their records reflect the fact that you had made a 'voluntary' payment on behalf of your partner.

On the matter of what options are available to you.....I will outline these in another post.

[Milo]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

What you can do:

In the first instance, you will need to outline your complaint to Marston Group and await their response. You could state in the letter that the relative would be willing to make a sworn statement.

Given that the warrant is in the name of your partner, I would suggest that he signs a Letter of Authority.


Parliamentary Ombudsman.

You would need to first make a complaint to Marston Group and await their response. If you are unhappy with the response, as the debt is your partners (and the warrant is in his name) he would need to make an apppintment with his local Member of Parliament to discuss the matter. It would be for the MP to approach the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

[Amethyst]

Re: Marston's Unlawful Execution of Warrant 2013

Thread tidied up and posts moved to http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...-Sali-s-thread and closed.