This is standard practice with Marston Group and my belief is that this is a vein attempt to try and cover their tracks. There is no justification for the fees applied and they do not fall in line with the HCEO Regulations 2004. I received a similar letter when they defrauded me. I do however have a crime reference number from North Yorkshire Police. I put together a statement of case outlining to Police instances of various offenses that had been committed by Marstons. Prior to reading my letter I too was fobbed off by Police initially. I will be contacting the Met Police Fraud Line tomorrow in order to provide them with further evidence to support your complaint against them and to provide them with my crime reference number so they may correlate the two reports and the additional evidence to support a criminal investigation against them.

Cheers, I wish you all the best also. I will let you know when I have won my case.

I certainly do not need to take legal advice in this matter. The fact is that Marston Group holds both rights as HCEO and a Bailiff and they are using their status to charge extortionate fees that fall in line with neither the prescribed bailiff fees, or the HCEO regulations. It is the decision of the judge on the day whether or not to strike out my claim if he/she considers that there is no grounds from which to file a Form 4 complaint. Based upon the evidence provided there is no good reason why the complaint should not be dealt with under a Form 4, as well as any other standard civil litigation procedure as I see fit. If he was acting in the capacity of HCEO, which he may well have been upon arrival, his conduct was not appropriate in that he levied upon goods which did not belong to me. He never requested to see proof that the cars did not belong to me after I advised him to this effect. His intended action was to levy upon my goods, he had not done this. The Walking Possession Order is not valid as the goods levied upon did not belong to the debtor. To this effect Marston Group are carrying a worthless piece of paper and therefore had he been acting in the capacity of HCEO, his intended action of completing a Walking Possession Order was null and void. a HCEO cannot charge the fees which Marston Group charged me, there is nothing within the 2004 HCEO Regulations that makes provision for the fees Marston Group applied to the debt. The matter therefore needs to be raised as two separate issues, one on the bailiffs certificate and one via the Form 4, the N1 and a complaint to the court that issued their status as HCEO's. The evidence provided relates to matters arising as a result of their conduct both as HCEO's and as certified bailiffs. No I have no sealed stay of execution as I do not need one. The judgment debt, the execution costs and the court costs have been paid in full. Marston Group failed to inform me that that the debt had been satisfied and continued to apply extortionate charges in order to fraudulently obtain money from me. Marston Group charged me for work they never carried out and that I can prove had never been carried out. This case is far from isolated, this is being carried out en-mass by Marston Group and this activity has been going on for several years

This snippet was taken from Marston's website. I posted it so that the viewers of this thread can make their own dignified judgment as to whether Marston Group are in fact "doing the right things and seeking to do them in the right way" as they describe or if its more the case of "Using their status as HCEO's and Certified Bailiffs" to extort fees from the British Public", which I, after having studied the substantial evidence against them, strongly believe to be the case.

"We are doing the right things and seeking to do them in the right way" High Court Enforcement Officers and Certificated Bailiffs Marston Group now England and Wales' leading provider of enforcement services Marston Group is the leading provider of High Court and civil enforcement services throughout England and Wales.

Just going back to this.... Since Marston Group did not have a vaild Walk in Possession Order they cannot be acting in the capacity of a HCEO in this specific matter, therefore a Form 4 Complaint as well as the N1 Litigation form has been filed. The goods listed to be levied upon in the Walk in Possession Order do not belong to me and I informed him of this at the time. He told me that the goods would be removed regardless if the debt was not paid. He was informed that I can prove the ownership of the two cars he levied upon. One was a brand new Jaguar which was on HP, the other belonged to a visitor at my property. If he had, or does remove the goods he will be arrested for theft.

Not only outrageous, also unlawful. I have a case in progress via an N1 form, the Police and my M.P Robert Goodwill. Aside from the excellent advice given here by Tomtubby, Nintendo Pu and others I suggest you also follow suite and lodge a complaint with the Police in relation to fraud by misrepresentation. I dont like to make assumptions without knowing the facts, however I would hazzard a safe bet that Marston Group can be proven to be acting unlawfully in your case and that there is absolutely no justification for the extortionate fees. So as to link the cases together you are most welcome to forward Police my details as I would be willing to present further evidence to prove crimes are being committed and that your case is by no means iscolated. I can be contacted via PM in this regard and will provide my details in the strictest confidence to you for the Police.

I believe you are working on behalf of Marstons. I have seen you make direct reference to circumstances surrounding events that only a Marston Group officer would be privy to. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the debt it is apparent that Marston Group are continuing to trade fraudulently, using their status to extort fees which do not fall in line with the HCEO Regulations 2004. HCEO, why not do us the benefit of explaining how you can justify the fees applied to this account by Marstons? As Nintendo Pu quite rightly mentioned, the fees here seem to be extortionate and fall in line with several other cases whereby it can clearly be demonstrated to the courts that Marston Group Ltd and its serving Directors are guilty of offenses under the Fraud Act 2006 and that Marston Group are trading fraudulently and have been doing for a number of years.

Firstly its Marston not Martsons. Secondly, in what capacity do you have to make allegations that the judgment debt remains outstanding in my case? How would you arrive at this conclusion? Unless of course you are in fact representing Marstons in yet another mindless attempt to circumvent the matters in question, however transparant that may be to those that may be of a higher degree of intellect to see through this. Even if you are not working on behalf of Marston Group (which I doubt given your response) your allegations are completely incorrect and you are nothing short of foolish to make assumptions without knowing the full facts. Unless you have a constructive, factual argument for or against this case I suggest you refrain from getting involved with things that are beyond your capacity when you clearly do not know the facts.

Quite incredibly I received yet another call from a Marston Group HCEO this morning telling me the "Warrant is due for enforcement today as I have not kept up to date with payments and the matter remains outstanding" I received this message AFTER having informed them of my dispute in relation to their fees and AFTER having made contact with their Litigation Solicitor. Here is the E mail I have just sent to Marston Group's in house Litigation Solicitor in response to these matters: Mr. xxxx, I have today received another threat from your officer Mr. xxxxxx threatening to carry out enforcement action on my account ( xxxxxx ). You were made aware of my dispute in relation to the excessive and unlawful fees yet this action is still continuing and Marston Group has no grounds from which to action enforcement against me. This action is nothing more than unlawful harassment which shall also be made public knowledge and bought to the courts attention. It is Marston Group that owes me money. If I do not receive the fees unlawfully applied to my account within 3 working days I will instruct the bank that issued the credit card to charge back the transactions. I have over 20 witnesses willing to present evidence to prove Marston Group are committing various offenses relating to the Fraud Act 2006 and fraud by misrepresentation. You have not responded to my question in relation to trying to substantiate the fees, nor as to why Marston Group ever showed me a balance of account, if you had it would have shown that this judgment and its court fee and execution costs had been settled a long time ago and that Marston Group were purely holding on to this debt in order to extort money from me which I do not owe. Unfortunately for yourselves you have chosen to extort funds from the wrong person this time. I understand UK Law and having fully investigated this case there is very substantial evidence that Marston can be proven to be trading unlawfully, using its status as Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Officers to extort excessive and unlawful fees. I draw your attention to several previous cases in similar regard where judges ruled in favor of the complainants against Marston Group/Drakes and my Statement of Case which is in the hands of Police, Northampton County Court, the Financial Ombudsman and the press. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/231468-problem-marston-group-2.html I ask you to immediately refund me the fees excessively applied and that you answer my questions in the regard of the fees. I draw your attention to the attached document. I ask for a written notification, as I previously requested that I will not be contacted in any way by Marston Group enforcement officers whilst the case between I, Marston Group Ltd and all of its serving Directors is in process at Court. Failure to do this will result in immediate action to remedy these unlawful threats through the courts and this action will be served in addition to the intended proceedings. Yours sincerely,

Without doing a credit check on them I believe Marston Group Ltd must have a whole string of previous judgments for applying unlawful, excessive fees. In my case against them I will ensure that these previous matters are bought to the court's attention as evidence to prove that civil enforcement does not seem to be adequate remedy in preventing this company from continuing to trade unlawfully. The matters relate to offenses under the Fraud Act 2006, Sections 1 - 5. Offenses of Fraud and obtaining money by deception are criminal matters which should fall under the jurisdiction of a Magistrate or the High Court. NEWS FROM THE COURTS - From Bailiffaedviceonline 2009 Marston Group and Detailed Assessment. Ref: Judgement by District Judge Avent. If a debtor considers that he has been overchared by a bailiff, he can apply to the court for Detailed Assessment. This will involve a Cost Judge closely examining the charges applied by the bailiff against the statutory fee scale as laid down by Parliament together with Case Law. In the Legal Cases section of our Downloads area we are providing a full copy of a Detailed Assessment Judgement following a complaint by the claimant concerning disputed fees of £200 relating to a "clamp fee" of £100 and a further fee of £100 for “attending to remove” when enforcing an unpaid PCN that had been issued by London Borough of Camden. This Detailed Assessment is vitally important as District Judge Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is therefore not part of the cost of removal. At Paragraph 50 of his Judgement District Judge Avent stated that: "Accordingly, in my judgement the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so, I cannot see that Form 7 (Notice of Seizure of Goods & Inventory) can or should include any costs of removal" On the matter of the charge of £100 for "attending to remove" (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at the Claimant’s home, District Judge Advent confirmed that: "This amount (£100) cannot be recovered because the defendant (Marston Group Ltd) have produced no evidence whatsoever as to how this charge has been arrived at and therefore they are unable to show that it is reasonable”. He also confirmed that: "A bailiff does not have free rein to charge what he likes because the schedule of charges does not stipulate a sum but rather provides for "reasonable charges" The District Judge in his conclusion further stated that: "I am also conscious that my findings in this case may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress. To do otherwise would, in my judgement, be unlawful “I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgement now continued to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgement it would be unlawful....". What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed. The bailiff company obtained permission from the court to appeal this Judgement, and in granting this, District Judge Avent stated that: "The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheel clamping before. My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking” "Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard" If Marston Group had appealed, the case would have been referred to the Court of Appeal and, if the Lord Justices agreed with the Judgment this would allow a precedent to be set and this landmark ruling could have led to significant claims being made against all bailiff companies by debtors. Marston Group advised the court shortly afterwards that they had decided to accept the Judgement of District Judge Avent and accordingly they advised the Court of their decision not to appeal. Note: Since this Judgement, many people have relied upon this document when writing to the bailiff company to challenge "attending to remove....clamping or immobilisation fees" and it is also an important document to rely upon in the event that a small claim action in the County Court is being considered. MARSTON GROUP and a FORM 4 COMPLAINT. This complaint was made to Middlesborough County Court in February 2008 by a disabled lady, who is confined to a wheelchair. Following this hearing the bailiff's certificate was revoked and compensation awarded to the lady from the bailiff's bond. A parking ticket had been incurred and a bailiff from Drakes Group ( now Marston Group) had visited her home early in the morning and clamped her car BEFORE knocking at the door. The car was clearly displaying a disabled blue badge and the warrant in the possession of the bailiff was in the name of Motability Finance. It was therefore clear to the bailiff that the vehicle in question was a disabled vehicle. The bailiff charged her £553.36 before releasing the clamp. The bailiff also maintained that he had visited the house the previous afternoon which was denied by this lady as the family run a business from their premises with approx 8 staff. Drakes Group, in attempting to prove that a previous visit had taken place provided satellite navigation print outs which the court dismissed as they only proved the bailiff had been in the vicinity....not at the house. At the hearing, the Judge was critical of the bailiff, but in particular was most critical of the company; Drakes Group Ltd ( now Marston Group) for the following: RE: THE CAR BEING CLAMPED BEFORE KNOCKING AT THE DOOR. "There appears to have been absolutely no reason to do that except to bump up Drakes' fees.....which had already been bumped up, it seemed to me, by a heavily unjustified charge the day before". RE: THE ALLEGED VISIT THE PREVIOUS DAY. "I regard it as significant that there is no copy of the letter left (the previous day). I am told that this is a system of Drakes, but Mr X is the only person who can carry the can for an unsatisfactory system." RE: THE CHARGES OF £553.36 "Looking at that document ( breakdown of fees) which contains five figures, there is a maximum of one which is accurate , all the others are excessive". He also said that "it seems to me that Mr X is trained to seek excessive amounts by is employers". The Judge confirmed that the "correct figure would probably have been something under £200 made up of the original £95 (PCN), letter and two visits if one took a favourable view about the first visit, certainly not £553.36" RE: SUMMING UP, THE JUDGE SAID THE FOLLOWING: "All in all, this is a disgraceful performance, which I find particularly disturbing since it seems to be in accordance with the policy of the employers Drakes Group Ltd. I find it a matter of considerable regret that there is no body which governs the company rather that the individual bailiff. If there had been, it seems to me that Drakes Group ought to be taken before it and deprived of any licence it had". "It seems to me that it is perfectly clear that firms of this sort ought to be licenced and ought to operate under a statutory code of conduct rather than regarding themselves as......having a licence to rip off debtors". PS: I will ensure that details of this case and indeed many others that our office have copies of are sent to Jack Straw's office today.

Thanks guys for your support. I will keep you fully updated as this case progresses and will let you know when I get a hearing date. This hard line legal action should have happened to these fraudulent operators a long time ago. When I win this case it will open the floodgates for potentially thousands of others that have been defrauded by Marston Group to come forward and get a claim in against them. If anyone reading this believes they have suffered similar losses from Marston Group or any other bailiff company which could be deemed to be unlawful I encourage you to share these with us. There are many knowledgable and very helpful members here that will be able to help you get justice. As further evidence in my case I will draw the court's attention to the relevant threads in this forum and the number of complaints against them from a multitude of witnesses up and down the country. This presents the strongest evidence we could have in terms of proving that these offenses (both criminal and civil) are being committed en mass and that innocent members of the public are being defrauded. These public statements which have been broadcast to the public domain via this forum would present the judge with additional grounds from which to issue the restraining order I am seeking, as well as to shed light on the criminal matters to Police.

When I first contacted Police I was visited by an officer who told me that they could not do anything as the matters were of a civil nature. I explained to the officer that I could demonstrate that Marston Group had committed several offenses and that I have evidence in the form of a letter from them trying to extort from me fees which were not prescribed by the court and that the fees were not valid as they are charging for work that had not been carried out. I went on to explain that if I had set up a limited company and began issuing invoices for work that had not been carried out I would be committing offenses under the fraud act 2006 and these matters would obviously be treated as criminal offenses and I would be arrested. Why are the Police not arresting Marston Group Directors? They too are a limited company trading fraudulently, the only difference is the fact that they are using their status as HCEO's and bailiffs as a leveraging tool to extort these unlawfully applied funds. I also added that I would go directly to Scotland Yard if these matters are overlooked by North Yorkshire Police. On the day prior to contacting Police I had put together the following, which I forwarded to the most senior ranking officer: STATEMENT OF CASE I write with a crime report concerning Marston Group Ltd Bailiffs that have utilised their status as High Court Enforcement Officers to extort fees from myself and many others by deception. I am in a position to call upon several witnesses that have experienced similar unlawful activities stemming from Marston Group Ltd officers and aside from reporting the criminal matters to Police and bringing to light the grounds from which these offenses have taken place, the civil issues of recovering the funds unlawfully applied are being conducted by me in the Northampton County Court. I respectfully add that the matters are relating to criminal law as the offenses correspond with Sections 1-5 of the Fraud Act 2006. Upon contact with a Police officer in this matter I will provide the letter I received from Marston Group on the 21st December as evidence to support this case. The letter was received in response to my official complaint to Marston Group concerning these matters. I am being harassed by Marston Group officers in light of the fact that the judgment debt and execution costs have been paid in full. These bailiffs are threatening to remove my goods on the basis of trying to extort money from me which I do not owe and their letter is a vain attempt to cover their actions, which I can clearly demonstrate to be unlawful. The Walk In Possession Order assigned on the 8th of December 08 is not legally enforceable and no bailiff levied distress on any other goods at my property. Marston Group are unlawfully claiming fees for work that has not been carried out and that I am not liable to pay. This constitutes sufficient grounds to prosecute under Sections 1 – 5 of the Fraud Act 2006 and the infringements of law can be demonstrated on different counts and by several independent witnesses, witnesses that I have met through the Consumer Action Forum. The witnesses have experienced activities by Marston Group employees that is also deemed to be unlawful, unlawful in the context of criminal, rather than civil law. On the day the Marston Group officer visited my home I informed him that the cars he attempted to levy on do not belong to me and that I could prove this by showing the log books. The officer replied “If you don’t pay the debt we will be removing them regardless of who’s they are and I would have to pay the fees to have them un- impounded”. I understand that bailiffs or High Court Enforcement Officers cannot use another’s goods as collateral for somebody else’s debt, and by doing so the bailiff is committing an offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 and if he had removed goods, an additional offense under Section 12 of the Theft Act 1967. In this event the bailiff had no valid Walk in Possession order and no goods were seized, yet Marston Group are charging me for this work which has not been carried out. Marston Group charged me interest and “Enforcement Fees” which were not prescribed by the court. The law does not provide for bailiffs/High Court Enforcement Officers to charge fees or interest of any description that are not prescribed and I understand this is also an offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. Any police officer previously investigating criminal allegations surrounding Marston Group Ltd should have been sufficiently vigilant and knowledgeable in criminal law to prevent a such crime being committed. Marston Group are acting unlawfully, not only in my case against them but also on mass. I can substantiate my additional evidence against them by calling upon the independent witnesses that have suffered similar losses which are in contravention of the Fraud Act 2006. In the knowledge that matters of this nature have been reported to Police in the past and that Marston Group/Drakes are still acting unlawfully I believe the Police may be misinformed in relation to what a bailiff can and cannot do. I must stress that I intend to pursue this matter to the fullest extent and therefore ask for a dignified and thorough investigation into these matters. I have recorded answer phone messages left by a Marston Group officer stating that they will be coming TODAY with a removal vehicle to remove goods as I have not kept up to date with this High Court Writ. The last message I received was on the 18th December at a time when this debt had been paid in full. At no point did Marston Group provide me with a statement of account showing me that the debt was paid and instead continued to apply extortionate fees which I have not been made aware of and that were not prescribed by the court. I had waited indoors on six occasions after having received threatening messages from Marston Group, on no occasion did a Marston Group officer attend my property to levy open further goods or to remove the goods listed in the original (invalid) Walk in Possession document. The actions of Marston Group officers has put my family and I under considerable stress, causing harassment by making threats to remove goods unnecessarily and then not following through on their actions. I am now thankfully in full employment and I intend to seek a Temporary Restraining Order on Marston Group Ltd preventing them from trading whilst a civil investigation into these allegations is in process. May I suggest that Police seize Marston Group documentation in order to conduct an investigation into their criminal activities. These crimes are being conducted in mass, causing unnecessary and unlawful loss of revenue to many people, many of whom may be in financial difficulty or may not have a thorough understanding of UK law enabling them to recognise when offenses are being committed. I am happy to make a full statement to Police and to attend court in these matters.

Many thanks for this information Nintendo Pu. I have already started litigation and have completed the Form 4 Complaint to initiate the process and will follow your advice on the N! form in addition. I have been contacted by their litigation solicitor who provided me with a cock and bull document about how I supposidly threatened their staff. Its funny however that the first time they gave any indication that I have threatened their staff was AFTER I lodged my action against them. I have highlighted this in the Statement of Case I have put together which has also been forwarded to North Yorkshire Police, the court that issued the judgment (which I have paid in full) and my M.P. I will gladly provide you with a copy of this report to your private mailbox upon request as it may help to shed some further light on the matters and how I manaed to get Police to investigate this as a criminal matter, as well as my own action in the civil courts. I am no longer unemployed and I have some funds to allocate to ensuring Marston Group are exposed and dealt with legally for their actions (which are clearly unlawful) I have found the input from many forum members to be very helpful and would like to thank everyone for that and I wish you all a happy and prosperous (bailiff free) New Year.

I am taking Marston Group to court for applying unlawful fees which are not prescribed by the court. Marston Group in my instance have provided a false statement of account and the breakdown of their fees is not legitimate, they never even had a vaild Walk in Possession Order. I have involved the Police in this matter and offenses have been committed in relation to Sections 1 - 5 of the Fraud Act 2006. I suggest all that have had these unlawful fees applied by Marston Group do the same and be sure to lodge a complaint with the court that issued their status as Bailiffs and High Court Enforcement Officers. High Court Enforcement Officers are not permitted by law to add interest to a judgment debt unless specifically prescribed by the court. by doing so in full knowledge, the bailiff is committing an offense under Sections 1-5 of the Fraud Act and if proven guilty there is a sentance of upto six-months in prison and an indefinate revocation of the bailiff certificate if it can be proven that this group is trading unlawfully. I welcome input from other forum members that support these actions.