Thanks for the response Sangie.

Hi folks, Looking for a bit of advice regarding my wife's work contract which I think is a little fishy to say the least. She's contracted to work 52 hours per month and gets paid £6000 per year basic salary. Working on a time tracker, she gets an additional 'living wage' adjustment once a year if she exceeds her contracted hours. Her contract also states that she can get a yearly commission bonus if she surpasses her target sufficiently. She receives monthly commission statements but no monthly commission during the year. To work out whether she qualifies for a bonus payment, the company subtract her annual salary from her yearly commission total with any balance representing her yearly bonus. Fair enough one might say. However, the contract also states that the company is entitled to subtract any additional 'living wage' adjustment figure from the commission as well !! The living wage adjustment is money she's legally entitled to and I simply cannot get my head around how the company can justify deducting this from her commission total which she's worked hard all year to achieve. As a side note, if she doesn't hit target, she still gets paid the yearly salary and living wage adjustment. What say the people of CAG? Does this even sound legal?

With regard to your Stobart example, the insurance would not be in Mr B's name but in the Stobart company name and cover all employees allowed to drive their vehicles. The only time the insurance would be in Mr B's name is if he was a self-employed contractor using his own rig to tow a Stobart trailer. With regards ownership, we all declare vehicle ownership when making an application to take out insurance. This is often stated in the Policy Schedule documentation which is why I always ask for the full insurance documentation when someone claims not to be the owner of a vehicle (yet listed as the registered keeper) .

While it's true that PCN collection has helped to provide me with an income over the years, I've always felt that bailiff action for such matters to be some what draconian. When you consider that I can overstay my welcome in a private car park and avoid paying the PCN wih a carefully worded appeal that stands up to scrutiny from POPLA, it seems outrageous that people can have their car sold to pay a lousy £25 council parking ticket. That said, the guy in this article was clearly deranged !

Locksmiths are only used on people who refuse to cooperate or ignore the bailiffs. As you've made several calls to the Swift office offering a suitable payment plan, the bailiff won't get authorisation to use this power. As you've seen already, it's an empty threat on this occassion. I don't think I've ever seen a single instance of Swift removing anything, never mind forcing entry to a property. There's nothing to stop you paying them online if the bailiff continues to be awkward.

If you think £50 is a reasonable amount for sending you a standard letter in relation to an "official process", what do you think is a reasonable charge for sending someone out to your house to inform you of impending court action who posts that letter personally? Maybe £100? What about if that person has to come back 3 times to catch you in? Maybe £200-£300? What if that person (upon their 3rd call) makes contact with you and spends another 2 hours with you trying to arrange payment or executes the court order and takes control of your goods? Maybe £300-£400? What if they spend 4 hours with you? £500? Maybe you would've felt better paying the £235 if the EA had visited 3 times and "earned" his money (probably equating to 35-50% of the 235.00 Enforcement fee collected) ? The £235.00 is suddenly looking good value......unless you paid on his first visit and the visit involved nothing more than posting a letter.

Sorry if I'm missed this part but which company did the bailiffs come from?

So for clarification, Marstons were "not" trying to "trick" the OP and obtain further fees by slipping in an unnecessary visit?

If you're going to quote me, at least include the entire quote to keep it in context. My comment was based on the guidance notes Bailiff Advice had linked to that explain the reasoning for the compliance fee deduction. As such, it's wholly relevant to the topic IMO. If the reasoning behind the deduction of the compliance fee is an attempt to stop aggressive bailiffs trying to collect in full, then it's flawed while bailiffs remain self employed. That is all.

Section 8.3 of the Explanatory Guidance to the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 are flawed from the outset while Enforcement companies still contract self employed bailiffs to execute their warrants of control. Are you aware of any Enforcement companies who pay out a proportion of the compliance fee to the bailiff BEFORE the debt is collected in full? The company itself may pocket the £75 fee but the bailiffs invariably get nothing until the debt is fully collected..... While the sentiment in the guidance notes is good natured, it doesnt work in reality.

Text book CAG activist then huh?! I personally would welcome a camera following me so that the gen pop could see what bailiffs have to deal with. Don't get me wrong, I've seen the crap that the general poster on here has to deal with but they are only a small minority of cases amongst the masses of visits each day from the 700+ certificated bailiffs in the UK. Luckily for me, only a minor percentage of people I try and collect from are adamant they want to play the game. Those that refuse to show their hand now invariably incur the costs of the ultimate sanction. Locksmith.

The reality of the situation away from the internet is that the Magistrates ARE going to grant an awful lot of these permissions in the coming months until it becomes common knowledge that this can and will happen.

Still not on it Never bothered to ask the question why not, it's never really been an issue. I get asked once in a blue moon and simply supply the court's phone number.

I've been a certificated bailiff for nearly 10 years and never appeared on the register since it first appeared. Why don't you ask the bailiff where he is certificated and contact the relevant court if you want it confirmed?

I asked the OP in person to post back about this last week but I guess he must be too busy. The theft of goods Taken into Control and the suspected theft of a wheel clamp were reported to the local Constabulary several weeks ago. Despite the police officer's best attempts, he was unable to contact the OP ( registered keeper of the vehicle and whom I'd had brief contact with on the phone before the vehicle and clamp disappeared). Several weeks later, the OP phoned me out of the blue asking how he could get his car back from the police pound. Turns out the OP had been stopped in the next county some 100 miles away and had the car re-seized from him by the police. He was given a lift to the train station so he could make his way home. I arranged for the debtor to settle the warrant and asked the police to release the vehicle to him as his fines were settled. He was then free to travel back up to the next county and retrieve his vehicle at considerable further cost to himself as he incuured a recovery fee from the police pound and additional travel costs. Nice bloke though, he even got the clamp fixed and returned it to me with no hard feelings on either side. The police were happy to close the matter on this basis. Lesson learnt hopefully.

Unless the Police catch the offender in the act or the EA records the dope with his body camera/phone, any "allegation" to the Police must be legally sound as you say Old Bill. As such, any EA (who wasn't present at the time of de-clamping) should report the THEFT of any vehicle previously Taken into Control and subsequently "missing". Additionally, if the damaged clamp is not present at the clamping scene, THEFT of a wheel clamp should be added to the report. The EA would be prudent to include details of the registered keeper and/or debtor with any supporting evidence of conversations with said people if they've taken place to enable the Police to conduct a thorough investigation. More often than not, the debtor will often be caught in the act of driving said vehicle in the coming weeks with the vehicle being seized and potential arrest as a result.

All the companies mentioned in this program are going to have to change and change quickly. When Marston's appeared on the whistleblower program 8 years ago, it marked the beginning of a complete shift in thinking. A shift which has seen changes to personnel, training and procedure. The Marston's of today is nothing like the Drakes of old where illegal bailiff behaviour was ignored in the main. To be frank, I couldn't quite believe that any of the bailiffs kept a straight face when quoting the outstanding balances. The absurdity of asking for £1800 or more for 3 parking tickets is simply ridiculous. As an EA myself, I'm either doing my job incredibly well or missing out big time!

.....and lets face it, you never get the full story on an internet forum!

There is no uncertainty about the fees, the legality to seize and clamp your vehicle or the bailiff's right to attend the warrant address. The only confusion stems from the two websites you've frequented which I dare say are a certain [edited] and it's sister site [edited]. What you need to understand about these websites is that they are both run by the same person and designed to confuse. The chap who runs both sites is a software developer no better than a Nigerian Prince trying to shift money to a safe bank account. He sells the idea that every debtor/defendant is the innocent party when faced with court action against them. He then sows the idea in the reader's mind that compensation running into the thousands is within your reach. Before you know it, you're paying him £99 to draft all the relevant letters to claim damages against courts, local authorities and bailiff companies. Look at all the posts on his forum. Each and everyone of them has the same theme and usually ends in the suggestion of attempting to sue one or all of the above. The sites in question have been well documented on here over the last few years and the chap who runs the websites was banished from these shores a long time ago for offering such dangerous and misleading advice. PS. Your vehicle is going nowhere. I can categorically assure that if your vehicle was worth taking, it would currently be sat in a car pound and you'd owe an extra £200 tow truck fee. No bailiff leaves a car on clamp over the weekend if the vehicle is worth taking!

In addition to this information, it should be pointed out that the bailiff doesn't even need to have a copy of the warrant in his possession to enforce it. He merely needs to know of it's existence. See, Butlers Case (1587) 1 Leon 50 & R v Purdy (1974) 3 WLR 367 Also, s125D(1) Magistrates Court Act as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999

If you've failed to update the court with a new address then I'm afraid Marston's fees will be due. Warning: Damaging a clamp while removing it from a seized vehicle is criminal damage regardless of what you've read to the contrary. Don't do it as it will open up a whole new can of worms for you. To answer your questions specifically.... 1. A fine is not a debt and HMCTS is not a claimant. The bailiffs became involved from the date the current valid warrant was issued. There may well have been a previous warrant issued but I dare say this will be a reissue of the original. Only the court can confirm this though. By taking poor advice from elsewhere and attempting to bypass Marstons with your direct payment to the court, you gave the bailiffs the red light to charge you an attendance fee (as clearly stated in the letter you received from them) in pursuit of the £85 compliance fee for sending you the letter in the first place! 2. Whether the bailiff actually takes your vehicle will very much depend on your line of employment, whether the vehicle is critical for that employment (ie: delivery driver) and/or whether the vehicle is modified specifically for that employment. If the business has several vehicles as it's disposal, this could also have a bearing on whether the vehicle is taken. 3. Although distress warrants are usually only valid for a set period, the current warrant could be a reissue as already stated. The court can also grant a time extension (if the old warrant) at the fine officer's discretion. In all likelihood though, this will be a reissue. 4. Your live in landlord could deny access but a distress warrant comes with the power of forced entry under some circumstances. If the bailiff has reasonable suspicion that you own goods in the property, the court could still grant the bailiff permission to use force in order to gain access and levy distress. Putting signs up revoking implied rights of access are as much use as a chocolate teapot when it comes to a distress warrant. The bailiff's legal right to be there supersedes all other denial of rights. Have you offered to provide insurance documents to substantiate your claim that it's used for business purposes? Is your vehicle sign written in connection to your business?

I will defend it using my own moral compass. Were you planning on ringing Marston's to settle the £85 compliance fee after paying the court direct? It would appear you clearly had knowledge of Marston's involvement before they arrived. If you didn't receive the letter from Marston's then you must have received a letter from the courts advising you to contact Marston's to pay whatever fees were due. Did you think Marston's would not bother collecting the balance? If they send a bailiff out to collect the balance, should they do this for free? Maybe you think they should have sent another letter and ask you to comply again? What system of fines collection do you propose? While I agree there are people who deserve enforcement action and people that probably don't, the courts don't have a crystal ball and neither do the bailiff companies. They don't know whether you're a morally decent person who just happened to forget to pay your fine. Maybe you think the courts should treat you differently because you claim to have made a genuine mistake or oversight? Maybe we should adopt this approach to people who fail to comply with ASBO's, Coumminty Service Orders? Non molestation orders, drink drive offences? Sorry 'me lord, I forgot I shouldn't do that. You should have sent me a letter to remind of my responsibilities......NOT. Our courts have a ridiculous amount of money outstanding for fines because the lilly livered government's of the past 20 odd years have decided to go softly on crime and the causes of crime. The result is that we have generations of people taking the proverbial piddle out of the system and simply ignoring their responsibilities to ensure that their fines are paid on time. The courts spend spend a ridiculous amount of taxpayers money sending reminder letters to people who have failed to deal with fines imposed (instead of a custodial sentence). Is it really too much to ask for someone to phone the court, arrange to make payments on time without fail and stick to it? We have standing orders, direct debits, paypoints and attachment to earnings. We even have deductions from benefits where many defendants don't even pay their own fines and the taxpayer foots the bill instead!! All so people don't get sent to jail. While you may well be the genuine case out of another 20 or so other defendant's, do you really believe the system should be changed to cater for the small minority of people like yourself? I can asure you that the vast majority of warrants issued are for multiple offences quite often dating back years and while there will always be people who post on forums complaining about bailiff action, the majority of warrants issued are against certain elements of society who have absolutely no intention of paying their fines if they can help it, nor complaining about it on the internet. Quite often, the most persistent evaders are the one's who couldn't give a damn for the law and know there's next to nothing the courts will do to them if they just keep their door shut and ignore all attempts to get them to pay. This is why the bailiff's are given the power to open a house up (if the circumstances dictate) in order to levy distress. We, as a society, cannot allow this lawlessness to continue on the scale it has done. We, as taxpayers, cannot allow this state of affairs to continue. Society as a whole need to realise that if they do something wrong, there are consequences for it and that atonement must be made regardless. If people don't tow the line, society will fall apart as it has done for the past few decades but that's a debate on a wider scale. As for your claim that the courts do this to you just weeks before Xmas....what sort of time frame do you suggest the courts grind to a halt before Xmas? Maybe we should stop having court cases/fines imposed/warrants issued say two months before Xmas because it might upset a small minority of people who are mindful enough to be really annoyed with themselves for not dealing with their fines while blaming "the system" for their own shortcomings? Maybe the courts should only enforce on Muslims or other people who's religions ignore the Christian calendar? Oh wait, there's no way of knowing what religion people are is there......hence the same rule for you as all others. "Without any doubt whatsoever, companies such as Marston Group exist to capitalise on" an area that the court's own civilian enforcement officers fail to deal with adequately. Just like County Court bailiffs, if there's no incentive to enforce, the bailiffs will take the easy option and turn the other cheek when faced with excuse after excuse, lie after lie, and downright avoidance in the main. But then the "main" don't post on internet forums..........period. Granted the current system has some shortcomings and I personally believe the courts should do more to cover there own back with regards making it clear about the costs of enforcement to fine defaulters so that it becomes general public knowledge but like all government bodies, HMCTS is hideously understaffed for the vast job at hand.

Which begs the question, why on earth didn't the OP call the police? Surely that would be the first thing one would do under the circumstances?

Maybe if you took more time looking after your responsibilities, you wouldn't need to seek free legal advice on the t'internet. Do you think the world owes you a living or something?

How much is outstanding on the warrant? How much are your goods worth second hand realistically?