Extorted by marstons bailiffs - help pls??

[tonyc123]

Thanks for finding that for us, I will get on to them in the morning & post back

 

im really astounded at the response & the advice given - thanks all

[old bill]

Okay. The behaviour of the bailiffs is unacceptable. Unless they have a Clamping Order, the clamping of your car is unlawful and, possibly, illegal. Having checked Chorley's geographical location, it is possible that it falls under the jurisdiction of Manchester as regards enforcement matters, in which case, you should telephone the Enforcement Office at Manchester Magistrates Court and ask to speak to the HMCTS Enforcement Manager who is Mr Scott Rennem. You should follow this up with a letter to confirm your conversation with him and also ask for the office address of the HMCTS Regional Contracts Manager. You should write to this person as well as the Enforcement Manager. The Regional Contracts Manager monitors the performance of bailiff companies under contract to HMCTS and calls their senior management to account in respect of serious complaints of misconduct and criminal conduct by certificated bailiffs employed by contracted bailiff companies.

[tonyc123]

we contacted the courts today & found that it my partners "hmcs issue"was indeed fine for failing to supply info relating to an old address council tax debt, my partner is due in court in the morning to give a statutory declaration - fingers crossed that will sort that!

 

I spoke to the "tec" and have filled in forms pe2 & pe3, so i beleive I have to go with my partner in the morning to have them sworn in by the court clerk & then I have to return those to the tec where they will make a decision - hopefully that will resolve my issue

 

is anyone aware of the timeframes I can expect to finalise these & get payment back etc?, & also how will I be reimbursed, by bailiffs?, will I need to chase them for payment etc

 

really sound advice from everyone, really pulled us out of the s**t

[TB Law]

You will need to recover the fees from the bailiff company but they will not refund you.

 

Their standard letter says "warrants cannot be un-executed..." so I am afraid you will need to file a form N1 to reclaim your money.

 

The Marston will send the long threatening letter (goes onto two pages) with legal nonsense, and if you ignore that and wait for the hearing date to approach, they eventually refund your money and say its a "mistake".

 

Regards the PCN, the council is contractually liable by for the bailiff company so they should be named as the first defendant and the bailiff company as the second defendant.

 

For the HMCTS fine, this is a government unit and cannot be sued, you need to name the first defendant as "the secretary of State for Justice" at their Petty France address, and they will issue directions to the court for their current service address, and the bailiff company as the 2nd defendant.

 

Marston use a PO Box address, but the court can look up the registered destination address which is Marston Group, 37 Sun Street, Waltham Abbey EN9 1EL and this should be your service and correspondence address.

[old bill]

You will need to recover the fees from the bailiff company but they will not refund you.

 

Their standard letter says "warrants cannot be un-executed..." so I am afraid you will need to file a form N1 to reclaim your money.

 

The Marston will send the long threatening letter (goes onto two pages) with legal nonsense, and if you ignore that and wait for the hearing date to approach, they eventually refund your money and say its a "mistake".

 

Regards the PCN, the council is contractually liable by for the bailiff company so they should be named as the first defendant and the bailiff company as the second defendant.

 

For the HMCTS fine, this is a government unit and cannot be sued, you need to name the first defendant as "the secretary of State for Justice" at their Petty France address, and they will issue directions to the court for their current service address, and the bailiff company as the 2nd defendant.

 

Marston use a PO Box address, but the court can look up the registered destination address which is Marston Group, 37 Sun Street, Waltham Abbey EN9 1EL and this should be your service and correspondence address.

 

Warrants can be cancelled and recalled by a court. If Marston Group has acted contrary to the conditions of the warrant and the law, their actions are totally ultra vires and they cannot wriggle out of it. However, it is the Original Creditor who is 100% vicariously-liable for the actions of their contracted enforcement agents. TB Law is absolutely correct in that the Secretary of State of whatever government department is the principal defendant in any civil proceedings against a government department or agency and the enforcement agent a secondary defendant.

 

Serve a Letter Before Action on Marston Group, affording them the opportunity to repay any monies they have unlawfully obtained from you before proceeding to the N1 as TB Law advise. At least then you can show you have made an attempt to resolve the matter before resorting to court action.

 

I would certainly pursue the matter with the Area HMCTS Enforcement Manager and copy the complaint to the HMCTS Regional Contracts Manager before you start the process of civil litigation through the courts. Again, this will count towards your attempts to resolve the matter before resorting to court action.

 

The next question is "Are the actions of the bailiff(s) involved sufficient to bring into question his/her/their fitness to act as a bailiff?" I would advise that, in the first instance, a letter is sent to the District Judge(s) at the court(s) that issued the bailiff(s) certificate(s), along with evidence, which should include all and any threatening letters from Marston Group, which will not go down at all well with a District Judge, asking whether he/she requires you to submit a Form 4 complaint. Please be aware, however, that the court has the power to discharge (cancel) a bailiff certificate without a hearing. So, if you do pursue a complaint against the bailiff(s), write to the District Judge and get a letter from the Court Manager, a few weeks later, advising that the bailiff(s) certificate(s) have been discharged, that is what will have happened.

 

If you already have the name(s) of the bailiff(s), the name(s) of the court(s) that issued his/her/their certificate(s) and the certificate expiry dates, write to the individual bailiff(s) advising them that steps are to be taken to determine whether their actions in your case bring into question their fitness to continue to hold a bailiff certificate. Expect a pretty nasty and threatening letter from Marston Group. That is what you want them to do as you then include the letter in the bundle you submit to the District Judge with your letter of enquiry.

[tonyc123]

I wonder if when we make a claim for our monies we are able to add on extortionate fees for our troubles

 

If im understanding you correctly re my partners issue, if they tomorrow accept & approve her "stat dec" that will then just reset proceedings against her?

where does the initial fine lie then, is it settled through the money ive paid to the bailiffs? and I must then file a claim through the small claims court for the extorted fees? (claiming against sec of state & marstons)?

[old bill]

Don't forget to claim for the damage to the car. If they have no Clamping Order, you could go down the criminal route as it would constitute Criminal Damage with Reckless Intent (Section 1, Criminal Damage Act 1971) as the bailiff caused the damage to the car, without lawful authority and reckless as to whether such damage be caused. You claim for the cost of making good the damage, including replacement of parts that are damaged beyond repair. Marston Group may try to argue, but they are not in a strong position to do so.

[BankFodder]

As people may know, Marstons - and many organisations monitor this website.

Marstons have contacted me about this thread and were wondering if tonyc123 could provide them with the reference number of this case as they would like to look into it.

 

I'm just running the message but I don't seem any particular disadvantage in not providing this.

 

If you would like to provide me with the reference number or address details - as you wish, I can pass them onto Marstons for you.

You can contact me by email on our admin email address. Please put "Marstons" in the subject line.

It would be useful if you could keep us informed on the forum as to what happens as a result of this contact if you decide to follow it up.

[TB Law]

I emailed Marstons. I thought they should be aware of an impending claiming against the SoS for Justice. Heads usually roll when it receives a DRP.

[old bill]

Encouraging, but Marston Group really do need to address and curb the behaviour of their bailiffs, otherwise I can see failure to do so costing them their contract with HMCTS.

[tonyc123]

re: pcn

attended court today, sent my "out of time stat dec" - had to wait 3 hours to have it sworn in by the court, + cost £25. sent off tO traffic enforcement - surely they will see sense?? I called and they did say it can take them up to 5 weeks to come back with a decision?

 

Also re my partners court fine she also submitted a stat dec which has been accepted, the ushers said the warrant will now be revoked & she will be re- summonsed to deal with the origanal issue at a later date. From what they where saying they will now contact marstons to recall the warrant so i know just need to work out recovering my cash from them

 

+ we do intend to follow this up with a formal complaint to the hmcts contracts manager

+ the local government ombudsman

regarding Marstons & their representatives misconduct,

 

going to draft my complaint over the weekend, seen as we are not really gonna be busy christmas shopping as been left skint by Marstons

 

Re marstons w"wishing to look into this for me" absolutely laughable, I sent a sar request & made a telephone call to them both on the morning of the incident and both have thus far amounted to nothing,

they must allready be aware of the case & are fully aware who i am. there cant have been that many tony c's who were robbed of £860 by them in chorley on the morning of 18/12 im relation to a pcn & his partners "hmcs" fine??

 

seems suspect?

[hallowitch]

did you check to see if the bailiff are certificated

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?210956-On-line-search-to-check-if-a-Bailiff-is-Certificated.....

[tonyc123]

I only Have the names on the receipts they are Mr xxxxxxx (not listed as being certificated or employed by marston group,

 

The other was Mr xxxxxxx, there are 3 listed as working for marston Gp -

Edited December 21, 2012 by tonyc123

[old bill]

If any bailiff is not certificated or has changed employers and not notified the court that issued their certificate, they cannot levy distress as their certificate is invalid. Marston Group could be in serious trouble with HMCTS over this in respect of a court fine and the local authority involved in the PCN case could be, too.

[hallowitch]

phone the Ministry of Justice Public Register of bailiffs on 020 3334 6355 to confirm whether Mr X is certificated

 

also e-mail marstons and the council and ask them to confirm Mr X certificating court and date of certificated if they have nothing to hide they should give you the information without a problem

 

 

we have had hundreds of marstons threads on here some truly shocking i wonder why this thread is important enough for them to contact GAG

 

Ive got to agree with you tonyc123 marstons know who you are

[ims21]

Might also be worth mentioning that failure to comply with the SAR is actionable in court for an order to comply and for damages.

[hallowitch]

I only Have the names on the receipts they are Mr xxxxxxx (not listed as being certificated or employed by marston group

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70420w0001.htm

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA95

 

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

• Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2745]
  

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss.

 

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

[old bill]

I only Have the names on the receipts they are Mr xxxxxxx (not listed as being certificated or employed by marston group

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70420w0001.htm

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA95

 

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

• Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2745]
  

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss.

 

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

Once a complainant submits a Statement of Complaint about a criminal offence to the police, the police have a duty to investigate. If a person acts as a bailiff, knowing they are not certificated to levy distress in accordance with the Distress for Rent Rules 1988, they commit an offence under Section 2, Fraud Act 2006 (Fraud by False Misrepresentation) and under Section 135, County Courts Act 1984 (Pretending to be Acting Under the Authority of A Court). The maximum penalty for Fraud by False Misrepresentation is 10 years' imprisonment, whilst the maximum penalty for an offence under Section 135, County Courts Act 1984 is 7 years' imprisonment. This means that both offences are Indictable Offences and that either a police officer or a member of the public can arrest a faux bailiff. This also applies to any Indictable Offence a certificated bailiff commits. However, there is a caveat to Section 2, Fraud Act 2006 in the form of Section 12 of the Act. This applies to offences committed by companies. In short, the company can be fined without limit and a company's directors, secretary, officers and managers can be sent to prison for the full penalty prescribed, if the court sees fit.

 

As to why Marston Group are taking an interest in this thread, take a look at what I have posted in Posts #24, #26 and #28. I can't help thinking what I have posted may have had some influence in making Marston Group get in touch. As a retired police officer who is not swayed by the lies certificated bailiffs come out with, I am very concerned about the conduct of Marston Group bailiffs, in particular, a case I am dealing with on another site I post on where an HMCTS Enforcement Team told Marston Group to cease all enforcement in the case of a woman with a brain tumour. Whoever they spoke to at Marston Group refused to accept the instruction to cease enforcement which allowed the bailiff, whose name is not on the MoJ register, to lie to the police that she had stolen her own car, had her arrested and then intimidated her son into paying over £400 HMCTS had told them not to enforce. I understand the lady is going to pursue this with HMCTS and I would not be surprised if HMCTS pursue the matter with Marston Group's senior management. What the bailiff did in that particular case is serious. He could face charges of Perverting the Course of Justice by making a false allegation to the police, as well as Making A False Report to the Police and Wasteful Employment of Police. Marston Group could also face civil litigation over this for Wrongful Arrest, Unlawful Detention and False Imprisonment. They may also have to repay the money their employee extorted from the woman's son. I also have a number of comments, referring to the actions of Marston Group bailiffs, on the petition at Change.org.

[brassnecked]

I think the realisation is dawning on Marstons that they are on borrowed time. Op must submit the claim for damages, and also notify that apparently the attending bailiff who executed the enforcement is not apparently certificated.