Marstons Bailiffs say vulnerable cases dont count if they have a warrant

[MARTIN3030]

Well this is news to me,but according to the Marstons bailiff who I spoke to following being called by a relative after they turned up to execute a MCW it is too late to even challenge.

On informing them that I did know about the rules given that I was a site team member of the CAG,the Marstons bailiff went on to say that this site is full of bad advice and wrong advice.

I had to think as to whether I had told him CAG or else something which sounds like CAG that I had not yet seen.

 

Here I am taking about a warrant that was passed following a fines order for no TV licence.

 

The person concerned was in hospital for a lenthly period at the time of both the Mags hearing,and the demand to pay the fine.

My understanding is that the costs/fine was around 120 quid.

Marstons paid a visit when there was no one at home.

After being asked to help out,Marstons was advised via their website (screenshot is available) that the person is on ESA benefits does not seek to evade paying the fine but that they should suspend action as notice was being made to the Court

seeking time to pay.

Yesterday Marstons turned up in a van with 2 bailiffs and a bill in excess of £500 quid.

If you are reading Marstons,you have not heard the last of this.

The 9 days you have given to pay your charges-will certainly be put to good use.

[dx100uk]

Department for Constitutional Affairs - Enforcement - National Standards for Enforcement Agents

.

Vulnerable situations

•

Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about how such situations should be dealt with. The appropriate use of discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance could cover every situation, therefore the agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern. If necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor if further action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to accusations of inappropriate behaviour.

•

Enforcement agents must withdraw from domestic premises if the only person present is, or appears to be, under the age of 18; they can ask when the debtor will be home - if appropriate.

•

Enforcement agents must withdraw without making enquiries if the only persons present are children who appear to be under the age of 12.

•

Wherever possible, enforcement agents should have arrangements in place for rapidly accessing translation services when these are needed, and provide on request information in large print or in Braille for debtors with impaired sight.

•

Those who might be potentially vulnerable include:

'

the elderly;

'

people with a disability;

'

the seriously ill;

'

the recently bereaved;

'

single parent families;

'

pregnant women;

'

unemployed people; and,

'

those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.

 

this applies to the whole HOUSEHOLD 'a' vunerable person resides there.

[brassnecked]

Agree DX Marstons are being very naughty indeed as they have signed up to those guidelines. they have by their intransigence and by actually turning up with a van, have breached the guidelines by obviously acting merely to garner fees, as if it is returned to court, marstons get diddly squat. The inference is they are scummy bailiffs attempting to evade their responsibilies to a vulnerable debtor, to get fees for themselves. It's complaint time imho, including MOJ and OFT as per old bills advice! :-x

Edited July 26, 2012 by brassnecked

[wonkeydonkey]

Recently heard of a case whereby the police were called to such an incident,, they aided the bailiff to enter the premises because they said the Bailiff had a warrant, what the Police could not grasp was the fact the Bailiff did indeed have a warrant but that warrant only allowed them to issue distress and it was NOT a warrant of ENTRY, That these officers are supposedly highly trained yet they cannot differentiate between a distress warrant and an warrant of entry, raises questions that are seriously in need of answers??

 

WD

[lookinforinfo]

Have they managed to levy on something on a prior visit or was the presence of a van merely to up their fees?

 

I never know how they justify their charges for a van as you can rent a man and a van for £13 per hour.

 

Sounds as if Marstons training is not up to scratch or they are not a fit and proper company to have a Licence.

[brassnecked]

Have they managed to levy on something on a prior visit or was the presence of a van merely to up their fees?

 

I never know how they justify their charges for a van as you can rent a man and a van for £13 per hour.

 

Sounds as if Marstons training is not up to scratch or they are not a fit and proper company to have a Licence.[/QUOTE]

 

The last part of your post is the correct answer imho

[ploddertom]

Have they made a levy, if so can we have a list of items exactly as described on the Notice of Seizure?

[brassnecked]

When they visited the first or second time did they seize anything such as a nearby car, and as mentioned by PT and lookedinforinfo, left a notice with goods listed?

[tomtubby]

Martin, I am so sorry to hear of this problem. As hard as it is to believe, HMCS in their contract with Marston Group and the other 3 companies that are used to enforce court fines DO NOT have the same category of "vulnerability" as those outlined in the National Standards for Enforcement Agent. It is truly beyond belief that MOJ are responsible for ensuring that everyone adheres to the National Standards and yet.....HMCS do not do so!!!

 

As your relative had been in hospital when the case was due to be heard in court, I would strongly suggest that contact is made with the court this morning to see whether they will allow her to file a Statutory Declaration.

[lookinforinfo]

Tomtubby, I thought that someone being hospitalised did come under the Vulnerable status with HMCS.

[brassnecked]

I thought that was the case also, best of it is all the fuss is for a non crime prosecuted by our buddy-pals (not) Capita for TV licence Didn't Eric Pickles have something to say about TV Licensing the other week?

[sgtbush]

Recently heard of a case whereby the police were called to such an incident,, they aided the bailiff to enter the premises because they said the Bailiff had a warrant, what the Police could not grasp was the fact the Bailiff did indeed have a warrant but that warrant only allowed them to issue distress and it was NOT a warrant of ENTRY, That these officers are supposedly highly trained yet they cannot differentiate between a distress warrant and an warrant of entry, raises questions that are seriously in need of answers??

 

WD

The right for bailiffs acting on behalf of the Magistrates Court the power to “enter and search any premises” for the purpose of executing a Warrant of Distress was granted under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4A of the Magistrates Courts Act 2004. This provision was also then inserted into the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.

The right to force entry however only applies to the collection of unpaid fines which are criminal matters.

The vunrability on the case is a different matter tho, you need to send proof to the bailiffs

[MARTIN3030]

Levy lists ;

Plasma TV

Sofas (2 of)

and PC system.

 

Total amount is £550.

£300 of which is listed as Bailiffs.

[ploddertom]

Levy lists ;

Plasma TV - make, model, screen size, how old?

Sofas (2 of) - does the furniture still have the safety labels attached? Would there still be sufficient seating if these were removed for each member of the household to sit down?

and PC system. - is this all it is listed as?

 

Total amount is £550.

£300 of which is listed as Bailiffs.

 

PT

[ploddertom]

Martin

 

Can you make some space in your inbox please?

 

PT

[brassnecked]

As per PT possible invalid levy, unless plasma is nearly new and top of the range, AND the bailiff has listed the correct details as to model etc, and listed the remote. PC is it an old one, as you can get a PC for £50 or so. Is there confidential data on the hard drive, as this would have to be removed, and a replacement drive fitted, remamber that the legal entitlement to use Windows dies with that hard drive, so it would have to be sold minus the operating system, or a new copy of Windows installed it costs around £80 or so for an OEM Windows Disk.

 

Might be worth a complaint to the court regarding their Bailiff and Marstons, copied to OFT under Credit Fitness.

[MARTIN3030]

Martin

 

Can you make some space in your inbox please?

 

PT

 

Sorry only just saw this and didnt know it was full.

Will do it now.

For ref you can also use this martinsiteteam@consumeractiongroup.co.uk

[MARTIN3030]

PT

 

Will call her in morning and ask.

[MARTIN3030]

Re: Marstons Bailiffs say vulnerable cases dont count if they have a warrant

 

As per PT possible invalid

levy

, unless plasma is nearly new and top of the range, AND the

bailiff

has listed the correct details as to model etc, and listed the remote. PC is it an old one, as you can get a PC for £50 or so. Is there confidential data on the hard drive, as this would have to be removed, and a replacement drive fitted, remamber that the legal entitlement to use Windows dies with that hard drive, so it would have to be sold minus the operating system, or a new copy of Windows installed it costs around £80 or so for an OEM Windows Disk.

 

Might be worth a complaint to the court regarding their

bailiff

and Marstons, copied to OFT under Credit Fitness.

 

Pc is old tower yes with 15" fs monitor.

Runs very slow...almost as slow as it takes Citicard to comply with a DSAR.

TV is 50" plasma she was sold it cheap from a relative who upgraded.

Sofas are quite new.These were bought cash from proceeds of a claim a couple of months ago.I think she paid quite a lot for them.

Will get more specific info in morning.

My understanding is that there was no breakdown supplied on the last visit so its hard to establish exactly where the £550 comes from.

I was informed that a locksmith as well as Police had been called,but no locksmith showed up.

I am inclined to think that these tactics are designed to keep the clock ticking down.

There are 2 rooms downstairs,kitchen and living room.

The sofas are used for the babies one is 5 months other is about 16 months,since as far as I am aware,there are no other seating.

 

[RaeUK]

... that the person is on ESA benefits ...

 

Is this income related ESA? If so, apart from all other lines of attack, this person should also sek to have the fine deducted direct from benefits...

[RaeUK]

... HMCS in their contract with Marston Group and the other 3 companies that are used to enforce court fines DO NOT have the same category of "vulnerability" as those outlined in the National Standards for Enforcement Agent ...

 

Apologies for the minor deviation. Do you know what the exact differences are, TT? I appreciate it's not everyone's cup of tea but I'm actually genuinely very interested in this detail ...

[brassnecked]

Looks like even though the sofas are nearly new, they and the other items wouldn't fetch enough at auction to pay all the debt, they wouldn't even clear a fraction of the potential fees the bailiff will eventually add, as they would likely only realise 10% of value at auction notwithstanding insufficient seating if the sofas were taken. If the sofas haven't still got the fire retardant labels attached it is illegal for the bailiff to auction them.

 

Pc value £50 tops, TV £50 ish tops sofas, no value without labels plus possibly exempt. Levy to gain pecuniary advantage for bailiffs imho

 

Before anyone starts rattling further about rights of bailiffs to steam in force entry etc in whatever case, what if the vulnerability was overt, as in wheelchair, obvious mental health issues, single parent, small baby should also be an OBVIOUS OVERT indicator of vulnerability. Should bailiff ignore clearly visible indicators and steam in. Obviously not but they still do, and continue enforcement to the nth degree as evidenced on CAG.

 

Proportionality and common sense are out of the window with current enforcement methods, Is it desirable and in the public interest that a confused pensioner or a young single mother has the house cleared out by greedy bailiffs for a Crapita prosecution, for no TV Licence and the subsequent fine? (yes it is Capita who prosecute in magistrates court on behalf of the BBC as TV licensing)

 

Someone may be vulnerable, but equally even with limited mobility, could attack the bailiff with a folding walking stick, used like nunchucks; an irate pensioner could run into them with a mobility scooter if he tried to seize it. So perhaps a debtor should inquire of the bailiff if they have done a risk assessment on the visit, in case they drop dead at the bailiffs feet, or the bailiff himself is attacked? If not report bailiff to HSE for breaches of the Heath And Safety at Work Act 1974, a valid option imho

 

What we need to do is see exactly where the HMCS take on vulnerability as excercised by their semi-tame rottweilers from Marstons, Phillips et-al differs from the National Guidelines as posted up earlier in this thread, as consistency in definitions would be useful.

Edited July 27, 2012 by brassnecked

[tomtubby]

HMCS Contracts do not have single parents and those out of work as "vulnerable".

 

Completely awful I know. They should abide by the NSEA like everyone else.

[brassnecked]

HMCS Contracts do not have single parents and those out of work as "vulnerable".

 

Completely awful I know. They should abide by the NSEA like everyone else.

 

They should but obviously it would impact on recovery rates, and nothing must get in the way of the bottom line, after all it is a government diktat.

 

Are pensioners vulnerable under HMCS contracts then TT?

[SWLABR9]

I someone on DLA classed as vulnerable? Is someone who uses a CPAp classed as vulnerable? Err.. a CPAP means a mask connected to an electrically powered machine that blows air into you to keep your airways open when you fall asleep. Continuous Positive Airway Pressure. You use them for sleep apnea.