Rude Marston bailiff clamped my car and charging excessive fees

[splackaveli]

You will now get correspondence from the tec who will notify you of what the outcome is

 

Ok thanks, so I wont find my car clamped again then?

[HSBCrusher]

the bailiff has come back and removed the clamp, he never knocked on the door as my girlfriend was in and he hasnt any notice whatsoever.

 

What should I do now? Play the waiting game as I have sent in an Out Of Time Declaration and asked Marston for a breakdown of the fees.

Do you think that possibly, just possibly someone has been reading this thread

[dawnwb]

Hey mate, just got back in from taking my son to school by bus and noticed that the bailiff has come back and removed the clamp, he never knocked on the door as my girlfriend was in and he hasnt any notice whatsoever.

 

What should I do now? Play the waiting game as I have sent in an Out Of Time Declaration and asked Marston for a breakdown of the fees.

 

Anyone think he will be back to clamp the car? Should I hide it?

 

 

Thats good news! Well done!

From what I know Marstons cant do anything to your car at the moment untill you hear back from TEC, so it should be ok on your drive.

I hid mine and now ive sold it HAHA!! was selling it anyway so wasnt a problem.

Did you get my PM about the subject access letter?

[ambershadow]

You need to keep intouch with tec regards this give them 3 weeks then call them to see if their is an outcome as the fine normally goes back to the original with no fee's but I don't know anymore than that as mine was rejected and went back to 30.00 but the council droped the matter completely so I got all payments back.. But I also never got this in writting till I asked

[splackaveli]

Thats good news! Well done!

From what I know Marstons cant do anything to your car at the moment untill you hear back from TEC, so it should be ok on your drive.

I hid mine and now ive sold it HAHA!! was selling it anyway so wasnt a problem.

Did you get my PM about the subject access letter?

 

 

Yeah I did thanks, I sent you a reply.

 

I think I will wait to hear back from the TEC now as I dont want to give Marston £10 lol

[dawnwb]

Yeah I did thanks, I sent you a reply.

 

I think I will wait to hear back from the TEC now as I dont want to give Marston £10 lol

 

Well im hoping its going to be the best £10 ive ever spent, if it wpies the smile of thier smug faces!

 

I cant wait to see how they can explain £175 for posting a letter through my door, they have to comply by law when its a subject access

[liltings]

I am in the middle of a disupte with Marstons re: a parking ticket fine. I paid the fine on line (£122) and coincidentally when i got home the same day, i had received a note shoved through the door (removal notice) stating that i owed over £300. I politely called the bailiff and asked what the extra charges were, and he couldn't quite pin point it all to the penny. He argued that he came BEFORE i'd made the payment on line so therefore i needed to pay the extra £200, but unfortunately he had not wrote on his removal notice what time he had called at my property. To say i've paid what i had to pay, I don't see why i should be paying these extra costs. Yet another single mother being bullied and harassed by a very unprofessional bailiff. I've been to the courts and have a form 4 which i will be going through today with my local councillor.

[splackaveli]

liltings, their whole attitude and approach stinks, just ignore them, make sure you complete the Out Of Time declaration, call them on the following number to get the form:

 

0845 704 5007

 

More info

Info about - County Court Bulk Centre - Traffic Enforcement Centre

 

Once you complete and send the declaration (can be done by email), all enforcement action will stop and it will be referred back to the council, seeing they have got their payment, they should be satisfied.

[dawnwb]

I am in the middle of a disupte with Marstons re: a parking ticket fine. I paid the fine on line (£122) and coincidentally when i got home the same day, i had received a note shoved through the door (removal notice) stating that i owed over £300. I politely called the bailiff and asked what the extra charges were, and he couldn't quite pin point it all to the penny. He argued that he came BEFORE i'd made the payment on line so therefore i needed to pay the extra £200, but unfortunately he had not wrote on his removal notice what time he had called at my property. To say i've paid what i had to pay, I don't see why i should be paying these extra costs. Yet another single mother being bullied and harassed by a very unprofessional bailiff. I've been to the courts and have a form 4 which i will be going through today with my local councillor.

 

Yes send a statutory decleration by email today and also send a subject access request to marstons. Im going to fully fight the fees they are charging me for my parking ticket, i like you have paid my fine.

Lock all your doors and windows etc , dont let them in and sit tight.

 

Read this thread fully and my thread and then keep us upto date with how things are going for you. I think if we stick together and help each other marstons will pee thier pants

 

I think because its such a shock when they turn up because in my case i never got a letter from them in the first place. They use that to make you pay, your frightened, worried and dont really know your rights, they dont give you time to seek legal advise or find things out for yourself, so people panic and pay up and marstons get away with it.

We have to stick up for ourselves against these people

Edited September 24, 2009 by dawnwb
spelling mistake

[liltings]

Aww that's brilliant, thank you very much for your help. I'm just worried now they will come back and clamp my vehicle because i haven't paid their costs!!! I'll let you know how i get on... thanks again.

 

BBC are wanting to do a story on Marston's and their ridiculous costs etc.... so if you or anyone are interested in putting your side forward... please email your story or experiences to: sean.stowell@bbc.co.uk.

 

Thanks.

[dawnwb]

Aww that's brilliant, thank you very much for your help. I'm just worried now they will come back and clamp my vehicle because i haven't paid their costs!!! I'll let you know how i get on... thanks again.

 

BBC are wanting to do a story on Marston's and their ridiculous costs etc.... so if you or anyone are interested in putting your side forward... please email your story or experiences to: sean.stowell@bbc.co.uk.

 

Thanks.

 

Oh nice one! im getting intouch with bbc right now!

By the way they cant clamp your car once you file a statutory decleration, they cant do anything. But i would hide your car for now if i was you

[liltings]

Thanks guys... am i right in thinking i get the declaration form through phoning the 0845 7045007 number?

[dawnwb]

liltings ive sent you a Private message

[%Ostrich%]

That couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Just because Marston publish its own ideas of a fee schedule on the internet, it doesnt make it legally binding on any party. Marston cannot rebuke a legal ruling - only an Act of Parliament can do that. Publishing documents like that only imcriminates themselves because they are admitting to intending to defraud people of money under a pretence of charging bailiff fees.

 

LB Merton published its own fee schedule for council tax bailiffs on the internet but quickly deleted it when somebody captured it and handed it in evidence before a Judge in a council tax bailiff fee reclaim. Mertons goose was well & truly cooked.

 

 

You need to read the thread again carefully. I offered an opinion not "truth" or fact.

 

I posted in response to a query in relation to a 'possible complaint' in relation to a 'suspected' clamp fee when in my "opinion", no clamp fee has been charged.

[splackaveli]

How can you say in your opinion no clamp fee was charged, when the operator told me the bailiff was charging clamp fees?

[dawnwb]

They cant charge for clamping a car under reasonable costs to remove because clamping comes under levy and not removing. Levy can only be 28% of the debt in this case. Thats what the judge says anyway and if they try to charge a clamping fee other than the 28% for levy that would be demed as unlawfull

 

Of course thats only my understanding of the judgement against marstons. Please feel free to correct me

[dawnwb]

DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:-

 

1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods.

 

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

 

So i understand that they cant charge for clamping

 

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:-

 

"Accordingly, in my judgment 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 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7".

 

Now this bit is confusing me if the bailiff shouldnt take steps to remove goods how the heck can he charge "attendence to remove" on the first visit?? (especially if he gets no answer on the first visit and there is no car outside as in my case) and if the car is there then he cant charge for clamping?

 

We really need other peoples opinions on this please

Edited September 26, 2009 by dawnwb
im getting confused!!

[Slimrabbit]

The bailiff cannot charge you a fee to fix or remove a wheel clamp. In the case of Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2 others Marstons (Defendants). Before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008 - the court ruled that because the Bailiff produces no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived then he unable to show that it is reasonable.

 

It means that if you ask the bailiff for a breakdown for his fees and the bailiff does not give you one (or wants to charge you a fee under a pretence a breakdown of fees is a request for accessing personal data as defined under the data protection Act 1998) then reasonable costs = £0.00.

 

Borrowed from one of Happy Contrails earlier posts not sure if it helps

[dawnwb]

Thanks Slimrabbit i understand about the clamping bit but its the bit where the judge says

"Accordingly, in my judgment 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 can or should include any costs of removal. "

Does that mean that they cant charge you an attendence of removal fee untill they have seized your goods?

Im getting charged for attendence to remove £175 and i wasnt even in, it was his first visit and i didnt get the first letter, they didnt seize anything as my car wasnt there and they didnt enter my house.

Also what is a form 7?

Edited September 26, 2009 by dawnwb
addition

[Slimrabbit]

Of the top of my head i think a Form 7 is the gray Notice of Distress/Seizure and Inventory of goods form. Usually has a WPO on the other side.

 

Distress consists of three stages;

 

• the entry into your premises,

• the seizure of the goods

• the subsequent securing of the goods (generally called impounding).

 

I think there is a case quoted on here somewhere where the judge ruled that the distress was invalid as these three stages had not been followed.

 

For an "attending to remove" fee to be applied, case law provides that goods MUST have PREVIOSULY been levied. The legal ruling for this is Evans v South Ribble District Council and EVERY bailiff company is very aware of this case.

 

IF the bailiff had indeed previously levied upon goods and he was returning to REMOVE those goods then the statutory regulations provide that removal charges MUST be "reasonable".

 

Some of this relates to council tax debts so not sure how much is valid in your case.

You have played the hiding the car game .

Edited September 26, 2009 by Slimrabbit
Forgot to add bits

[dawnwb]

Of the top of my head i think a Form 7 is the gray Notice of Distress/Seizure and Inventory of goods form. Usually has a WPO on the other side.

 

Distress consists of three stages;

 

• the entry into your premises,

• the seizure of the goods

• the subsequent securing of the goods (generally called impounding).

 

I think there is a case quoted on here somewhere where the judge ruled that the distress was invalid as these three stages had not been followed.

 

For an "attending to remove" fee to be applied, case law provides that goods MUST have PREVIOSULY been levied. The legal ruling for this is Evans v South Ribble District Council and EVERY bailiff company is very aware of this case.

 

IF the bailiff had indeed previously levied upon goods and he was returning to REMOVE those goods then the statutory regulations provide that removal charges MUST be "reasonable".

 

Some of this relates to council tax debts so not sure how much is valid in your case.

You have played the hiding the car game .

 

Oh thankyou so much! I will have a look at those cases you have mentioned.

 

Yeah I played the hiding car game and then I played the selling the car game and now its sold!

I wanted to sell it anyway, ive got a new car coming soon and thats in my partners name

 

Thankyou again for taking the time to put me straight:D

[%Ostrich%]

How can you say in your opinion no clamp fee was charged, when the operator told me the bailiff was charging clamp fees?

 

I can say no clamp fee was charged because...

 

1. Bailiffs haven't been allowed to charge clamp fees in relation to PCN's since that ruling which was months and months ago, previous to which they charged £50 if you look back on old Marston threads.

 

2. The extra amount charged just happens to be the exact amount of Marston's ATR plus VAT.

 

As this is only opinion, only time will tell when you receive your break down of charges.

[danboy381]

Splacaveli,

 

make sure you pursue this idiot all the way and insist to the Police that they carry out their Duty in full. If this guy gets a record for criminal damage i dont think the court will renew his certificate again. That means his out of a job. THAT'S A NICE WARM FEELING ISN'T IT!

 

He should also be arrested for attempted fraud and obtaining monies by deception. If its further proved hes ripped people off in the past, then the Proceeds of Crime act can be used to frezze the scums assets. EVEN WARMER FEELING...

[jigaboojones]

He was chasing me - i found his name on the bailiff register and through a friend of a friend managed to get his address.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Ell-enn
Do not publish names and addresses of individuals on the site