marston bailiffs

[Melly87]

Hello everyone! I'm new to this forum I was just browsing to see if I could find anything on this topic. Basically situation is I had a been given a TV licence fine from my old address which I knew nothing about until the first bailiff from Marstons showed up informing me I had just the end of last year. I phoned court fines number who told me a TV licence man had visited me december 2011 which he never had done but was taken to court I moved out of my property in March 2012 even though I had got my mail redirected I never received this court fine. The lady stated it was out of our hands now and had to deal with the bailiffs so I made my offer to the bailiff and marston group which was point blank refused it apparently was £250 but they was asking for £560 even though I explained I was currently out of work and only my partner was working so I could only give them what I could realistically could afford. Monday morning two big bailiffs turned up at my door, saying I have to pay the money in full or they was coming in, with that this bailiff put his foot in my door forced my door open and pushed me into my home whilst I was holding my 1 year old son putting his full body weight into me I had no choice but to let go as he didn't care about hurting us. I was actually quite shaken up about this they stormed into my home and started moving my stuff closer to the front door by this point neither bailiff had showed me any ID or warrant no documentation whatsoever. I called 999 who told me to call 101 both bailiffs laughed at me saying the police aren't going to come and help you don't be stupid, I'm given you 20 minutes to give us the amount in full or I call a removals van. Luckily a very close friend managed to come over and pay them in full so they didn't cause me and my children anymore distress. I made a report with the police as I believed that was assault, they informed me that he had the power to force entry and that was called reasonable force, even though citizens advice bureau told me reasonable force doesn't include pushing you or anyone else out of the way, I felt more like the police was on bailiffs side apparently the same bailiff had already had a few complaints and statements made about him to them they viewed his previous footage and found it to be fine him doing that. I'm in real shock right now I'm still trying to get more information on it the debt has been settled but I don't believe this bailiff should be allowed to carry on doing what he is doing he could seriously cause someone injury eventually he was a pretty big guy. Thank you for reading anyway nice to meet you all

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiffs

Hi Sorry to hear about this, it must have been a nightmare for you.
Was there any other witnesses to these events ?

[Melly87]

Re: marston bailiffs

No unfortunately not, I know they were wearing cameras as the one who pushed me into my home told the other he could now switch his camera off so I'm guessing hopefully his was still on. Perhaps he is allowed to do what he did but Citizens advice told me it wasn't at all allowed so I'm just a bit confused about it all. Plus my friend showed up 15 minutes after the incident

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiffs

No unfortunately not, I know they were wearing cameras as the one who pushed me into my home told the other he could now switch his camera off so I'm guessing hopefully his was still on. Perhaps he is allowed to do what he did but Citizens advice told me it wasn't at all allowed so I'm just a bit confused about it all. Plus my friend showed up 15 minutes after the incident

No he is certainly not allowed to push past you, in that way. I hope you were not injured in any way ?

ou should make complaint to Marstons in writing in the first instance, the problem is of course the the enforcment officers version of events will no doubt differ from yours. However if this is on record and there are previous or future reports they can be used against them.

[Melly87]

Re: marston bailiffs

Thank you so much and yes the officer who was taking my statement said there had been numerous complaints and statements against this same bailiff, what was shocking is that he also said they have viewed footage of him pushing people and past them to get in calling it reasonable force so I'm guessing my local police don't believe he is doing anything wrong which is why it's confusing. I wasn't injured I had to step back before he did because he was putting all his weight on me as he pushed me away from my front door into the corridor and I didn't want any harm coming to my son either. But I will continue to look into it

[Milo]

Re: marston bailiffs

Hello everyone! I'm new to this forum I was just browsing to see if I could find anything on this topic.

Basically situation is I had a been given a TV licence fine from my old address which I knew nothing about until the first bailiff from Marstons showed up informing me I had just the end of last year.

I phoned court fines number who told me a TV licence man had visited me december 2011 which he never had done but was taken to court I moved out of my property in March 2012 even though I had got my mail redirected I never received this court fine.

The lady stated it was out of our hands now and had to deal with the bailiffs so I made my offer to the bailiff and marston group which was point blank refused it apparently was £250 but they was asking for £560 even though I explained I was currently out of work and only my partner was working so I could only give them what I could realistically could afford.

I have read through your post twice now and it certainly seems to be the case that you should have filed a Statutory Declaration when you first heard from Marston Group at the end of last year.

After being contacted by Marston at the end of last week did you make any payments to the company?

[josephbloggs]

Re: marston bailiffs

Heard of Loads of forced entries by marstons recently, especially in manchester. Your not in manchester by any chance are you?
They are deeming reasonable force as exactly what you have said where as i would say it means a locksmith

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiffs

They pushed the OP reasonable force does not include force used against the person, strictly a no no.

[seduraed]

Re: marston bailiffs

Also remeber she was holding a one old child at the time. I do hope these oafs do not injure someone .

[josephbloggs]

Re: marston bailiffs

i agree totally andy58, but until marstons are pulled up properly regarding this it will continue.
the bailiff companies are okaying it which is more worrying its not a rogue EA, they are doing it with their body camera on so they must have been given the go ahead from managers etc.
companies themselves have presumably been giving out advice on the laws to the police who lets be honest are not always clued up so will take their word as gospel. especially when they see/hear "warrant"
for the OP at least it is over and done with, but a word in the ear of the issuing magistrates court would not do any harm i feel.
with the regs only being in place for a short period of time they are open to interpretation, and until someone takes it all the way to court i cant see it stopping anytime soon (unfortunately)

just for anyone including the OP who may not be clued up on the wording of the regs concerning this matter, TCE act 2007 schedule 12 paragraph 17 reads ... well firstly it is headed "general powers to use reasonable force"
it then goes on to say.. Where paragraph 18 or 19 applies, an enforcement agent may if necessary use reasonable force to enter premises or to do anything for which the entry is authorised
and the specific part that relates to fines is paragraph 18 (b) and says This paragraph applies if these conditions are met—

(b)

he is acting under an enforcement power conferred by a warrant of control under section 76(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) for the recovery of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiffs

Yes ubdeed andimportantly

24

(1)

The power to enter and any power to use force are subject to any restriction imposed by or under regulations.

(2)

A power to use force does not include power to use force against persons, except to the extent that regulations provide that it does.

There are no provisions in regulations.

This does not mean of course that the debtor can just obstruct the EA and stop the entry.
Section 68 makes obstructing a bailiff a criminal offence, so the police would have to be called to prevent a breech of the peace and arrest the debtor.

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiffs

Incidentally the power to use force against the against the person was pushed for by our beloved, Harriet Harman fortunately the provision was removed form the act on consideration that it could be either added or not in regulation,, due to public pressure it was left out.

[josephbloggs]

Re: marston bailiffs

Never paid attention to that part andy, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

The part (24(2)) where it says force cant be used against persons except to the extent that regulations provide that it does.

What do think the second line means? How would you interpet that part?

[Guest]

Re: marston bailiffs

Never paid attention to that part andy, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

The part (24(2)) where it says force cant be used against persons except to the extent that regulations provide that it does.

What do think the second line means? How would you interpet that part?

Yes in the original draft of the act the provision to use force against the person was included, however it was hotly opposed by Mitchel I think, Harman was very keen on it, she was the one that said she would gladly kick the debtors door down if they owed money.
In the end after much public pressure, much initiated form various forums they decided to remove it from the act and leave it to regulation, .

In the consultation it was decide not to include the ability to use force against the person in the regulations( taking control of goods regs).

[bizzybob]

Re: marston bailiffs

Never paid attention to that part andy, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

The part (24(2)) where it says force cant be used against personsexcept to the extent that regulations provide that it does.

What do think the second line means? How would you interpet that part?

That part is so woolly, that a bailiff could think it allows them to barge, and pull, or push, roughhly, whilst not allowing a slap or punch they would likely think they can kick the door once open even if it sent the debtor sprawling to the floor. It needs a Test Case. Had the bailiffs action caused a debtor to drop a baby or child they were holding, and the child was killed or injured the police would likely side with the bailiff it would seem, at least for a Magistrates fine, but they could not ignore it if he barged in on a first call for Council Tax. As one of my jobs involves calling on people in their homes, I find at30% to 35% of calls the door are answered by a lone woman holding a baby or small child, so it is only a matter of time before these two thugs seriously injure a child dropped when they barge in.

Is there any real prospect of redress for Melly87? I feel a complaint to the Court Management, and sight of the BC footage by police. if it hasn't been conveniently lost might be an option as at least the fine is paid and the dogs gone.

It is ironic that legislation pushed for by Harperson would have been used against women more than men had it been passed in it's entirety. As it stands what is allowed is still too far, I agree with JB reasonable force should be to the property as in Locksmith, not against a person as happens all to regularly it would seem.