Legal Rights, Additional Fee's Added By Bailiffs, and misleading statements made By Bailiffs

[Marstons Slayer]

Hi everybody,

 

After going through a recent case with Marstons I thought I would post this to offer some help to people who are facing fines and possible removals from bailiffs.

 

If a bailiff comes to your house and tells you that they have a warrant to enter your house to remove goods do not be put off or made to feel intimidated because their is lots you can still do before they can even enter your home.

 

1) Immediately get the police to come to your property. Tell them you are being harrassed and threatened and that you are in fear for your safety. Remember the police will only be there to keep the piece and they cannot enforce entry into your property for the bailiff. The bailiff will tell you differently but this is only to scare you.

 

2) Do all your talking to a bailiff either outside your house, or from a window. DO NOT open the door or have door or windows unlocked and open that they can get in because given half a chance the bailiff will force their way past you to gain entry.

 

A bailiff will probably inform you that they have the right for a locksmith to legally enter your property. If this happens then ask the bailiff for a copy of the court order that states this as it will more likely be a lie. The reason it will be a lie is because in order for a court to sanction an order, the court has to have proof that the bailiff has already been to your property and that you have refused entry. This proof would have had to be signed by you.

 

3) Even though the situation you will be in will be stressful, make sure you DO NOT get angry with the bailiff even though they will do everything to intimidate you, including threaten you. The calmer you stay, the more control of the situation you will have.

 

4) Ask a bailiff for proof of ID. The reason for this will become more apparent when reading No7.

 

5) Ask the bailiff for proof of all documents that show that they informed you of the action that was going to be taken against you. This includes any letters that show that the case was being taken to court to have a distress warrant issues. It must also show dates and times that letters or phone calls where made.

 

6) Make it clear to the bailiff and police that you was never made aware of this and by not being given this information it prevented you from attending court and therefore stopped any fare hearing from going ahead as you was not represented. This is actually illegal as it is your human right that you are not made aware any cases that are against you.

 

7) Ask the bailiff if they where present at the time of the hearing? There are 2 reasons why this question SHOULD always be asked -

 

a) The lead bailiffs name has to be put on the warrant so if they where not at the hearing the likelihood is that it is not their name on the warrant and therefore it is not legal for them to collect a fine or remove any goods as the only person allowed to do this is the person named on the actual warrant.

 

b) If the bailiff says they where not present, you then have an right to ask how the warrant is legal as they where not present so they can not state whether or not the judge that signed the document was actually under oath when doing so. People think that Judges can do and say what they want but the law actually states that in order for things to be done correctly, a judge must always be under oath when signing documents as they have to declare that they are doing so with the full knowledge of the case, and as you was not present at the hearing this could not have been the case.

 

8) Tell the bailiffs and police that because you was never made aware of them going to court you are now going to apply to the court yourself for a 'Means Assessment Hearing'. This hearing will allow you to be able to have your say within this matter and allow you to set up a payment plan if necessary.

 

9) Ask the bailiff for a breakdown of all the charges. The reason for this is because all you will ever be legally obliged to pay is the cost of the initial fine. I have set out below a few points that highlight why this is the case so please read these next paragraphs and remember them because this will save you a lot of money.

 

a) When you look at the breakdown of charges that the bailiff gives you there is most likely going to be an 'ADMIN CHARGE OF £85, and another charge of £200 that they charge you for coming to the property'. Under no uncertain terms are you legally obliged to pay these extra charges, as these are ones added by the bailiffs to try and get more money out of you and are NOT set by the court as they will try to lead you to believe.

 

At no point will the court or bailiff tell you to ask a solicitor about the added fee's as they know your legal advice will tell you that 'Part 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011 only apply to - as it says at the top of the warrant - "ENFORCEMENT OF FINES AND OTHER ORDERS FOR PAYMENT", and the quoted sum of £85 and £215 are neither an order for payment, nor a fine.

 

b) Because of Part 52 of the Criminal Proceedure Rules 2011, at no point is the bailiff allowed to enforce a payment or remove good to cover their costs. If the bailiff does try to charge you for these fee's they are commiting an offence under "Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006, and Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, as all court fines are set by the Sentencing Council, and cannot be increased by a fines officer, HM Court Service or a Bailiff Company"

 

c) As the police should be present whilst this conversation is going ahead, if the bailiff does try to convince you that the fee's are set out by the courts etc and they insist that you will have to pay the fee's set out by them, you will then be within your right to ask the police to arrest the bailiff for 'Intent to knowingly fraud' under the sections of the law pointed out in the paragraph above.

 

10) If a bailiff offers you an alternate action that allows them to come in and do an evaluation of all goods within the property, do not allow this either. Once this evaluation takes place the bailiff then has the right to enter your property to remove the evaluated goods, as and when they like and without prior warning. They can are also legally then allowed to force entry.

 

Please remember that if an evaluation has been done, you cannot remove any of the goods from the property as this is then classed as breaking a court order and you will be arrested and prosecuted.

 

11) If for any reason bailiffs do start to remove your goods from your home, make sure that you get an evaluation from them because they are not allowed to remove anything that goes over the cost of the initial fine.

 

12) Also remember what the bailiffs are NOT allowed to take, these include items that:

 

a) Are on hire purchase or under a contract, ie mobile phones, tv's, laptops, furniture, catalogue things etc

b) Anything that is seen as essential for living, eg. Cooker, Fridge, Freezer

c) Beds

d) Clothes

e) Anything that belongs to your children

f) Anything that belongs to other people (Bailiffs try and make you believe that the fine is issued on the property but this is not the case, so if you have proof that goods do not belong to the person that the fine is issued, the bailiffs CANNOT remove them. If they try to do this then ask the police to arrest them for theft.

g) Anything educational

 

13) Finally. If you have already been unfortunate enough to have goods removed that cover over the amount of the fine, or have paid more than your initial fine that was set out by the Sentencing Council, you can claim this money back by contacting the bailiffs and telling them that if they do not pay the fee costs back, you will have no alternative but to take them to court.

 

I really hope this will help you in your battle against the bailiffs as it is about time people started standing up against them. If you quote any of this to bailiffs they will try and tell you that it is all wrong and bombard you with legal jargon to try and confuse you more, but I assure you that the things I have stated are true.

 

My partner and I have just been successful in our action against Marstons, who threw everything they had at my disabled partner. Yes you read right 'DISABLED PARTNER'. I think that just shows the morals these people have, as not once did they take her condition into account when threatening and intimidating her, in order to get her to pay for the outstanding fine as well as their added charges. This was despite my partner showing the bailiffs a letter from the benefits agency stating that the fine would be deducted directly from her benefit and that the reason it did not get taken was because something called an FSN letter was not filled in by the benefits agncy when my partners benefits got changed. The letter also stated that the FSN has now been done and the payments would start up again.

 

The total cost of the Fine left to be paid - £45. The total cost Marstons tried to intimidate my partner to pay - £345

[tomtubby]

Your post makes very interesting reading and thank you for providing details.

 

With regards to your partner disability; did you provide details of her vulnerability to the bailiff company when she received the initial letter or were the bailiff company made aware of her disability when an initial visit was made?

 

Unlike a lot of cases, it would seem that a Distress Warrant had been issued in error due to a mix up with the Benefits Agency.

 

It would also appear that the matter has been resolved and that payments are now being deducted by the Benefits Agency. Is this correct?

 

If an error had indeed been made ( which appears to have been the case) then clearly the bailiff fees would have been cancelled. Is this also the case?

[brassnecked]

Wouldn't be surprised if the bailiffs try it on for their fees anyway, as in nothing ventured.

[tomtubby]

Hi everybody,

 

After going through a recent case with Marstons I thought I would post this to offer some help to people who are facing fines and possible removals from bailiffs.

 

If a bailiff comes to your house and tells you that they have a warrant to enter your house to remove goods do not be put off or made to feel intimidated because their is lots you can still do before they can even enter your home.

 

A bailiff will probably inform you that they have the right for a locksmith to legally enter your property. If this happens then ask the bailiff for a copy of the court order that states this as it will more likely be a lie. The reason it will be a lie is because in order for a court to sanction an order, the court has to have proof that the bailiff has already been to your property and that you have refused entry. This proof would have had to be signed by you.

 

5) Ask the bailiff for proof of all documents that show that they informed you of the action that was going to be taken against you. This includes any letters that show that the case was being taken to court to have a distress warrant issues. It must also show dates and times that letters or phone calls where made.

 

7) Ask the bailiff if they where present at the time of the hearing? There are 2 reasons why this question SHOULD always be asked -

 

a) The lead bailiffs name has to be put on the warrant so if they where not at the hearing the likelihood is that it is not their name on the warrant and therefore it is not legal for them to collect a fine or remove any goods as the only person allowed to do this is the person named on the actual warrant.

 

b) If the bailiff says they where not present, you then have an right to ask how the warrant is legal as they where not present so they can not state whether or not the judge that signed the document was actually under oath when doing so. People think that Judges can do and say what they want but the law actually states that in order for things to be done correctly, a judge must always be under oath when signing documents as they have to declare that they are doing so with the full knowledge of the case, and as you was not present at the hearing this could not have been the case.

 

8) Tell the bailiffs and police that because you was never made aware of them going to court you are now going to apply to the court yourself for a 'Means Assessment Hearing'. This hearing will allow you to be able to have your say within this matter and allow you to set up a payment plan if necessary.

 

9) Ask the bailiff for a breakdown of all the charges. The reason for this is because all you will ever be legally obliged to pay is the cost of the initial fine. I have set out below a few points that highlight why this is the case so please read these next paragraphs and remember them because this will save you a lot of money.

 

a) When you look at the breakdown of charges that the bailiff gives you there is most likely going to be an 'ADMIN CHARGE OF £85, and another charge of £200 that they charge you for coming to the property'. Under no uncertain terms are you legally obliged to pay these extra charges, as these are ones added by the bailiffs to try and get more money out of you and are NOT set by the court as they will try to lead you to believe.

 

At no point will the court or bailiff tell you to ask a solicitor about the added fee's as they know your legal advice will tell you that 'Part 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2011 only apply to - as it says at the top of the warrant - "ENFORCEMENT OF FINES AND OTHER ORDERS FOR PAYMENT", and the quoted sum of £85 and £215 are neither an order for payment, nor a fine.

 

b) Because of Part 52 of the Criminal Proceedure Rules 2011, at no point is the bailiff allowed to enforce a payment or remove good to cover their costs. If the bailiff does try to charge you for these fee's they are commiting an offence under "Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006, and Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, as all court fines are set by the Sentencing Council, and cannot be increased by a fines officer, HM Court Service or a Bailiff Company"

 

c) As the police should be present whilst this conversation is going ahead, if the bailiff does try to convince you that the fee's are set out by the courts etc and they insist that you will have to pay the fee's set out by them, you will then be within your right to ask the police to arrest the bailiff for 'Intent to knowingly fraud' under the sections of the law pointed out in the paragraph above.

 

10) If a bailiff offers you an alternate action that allows them to come in and do an evaluation of all goods within the property, do not allow this either. Once this evaluation takes place the bailiff then has the right to enter your property to remove the evaluated goods, as and when they like and without prior warning. They can are also legally then allowed to force entry.

 

Please remember that if an evaluation has been done, you cannot remove any of the goods from the property as this is then classed as breaking a court order and you will be arrested and prosecuted.

 

11) If for any reason bailiffs do start to remove your goods from your home, make sure that you get an evaluation from them because they are not allowed to remove anything that goes over the cost of the initial fine.

 

 

13) Finally. If you have already been unfortunate enough to have goods removed that cover over the amount of the fine, or have paid more than your initial fine that was set out by the Sentencing Council, you can claim this money back by contacting the bailiffs and telling them that if they do not pay the fee costs back, you will have no alternative but to take them to court.

 

I really hope this will help you in your battle against the bailiffs as it is about time people started standing up against them. If you quote any of this to bailiffs they will try and tell you that it is all wrong and bombard you with legal jargon to try and confuse you more, but I assure you that the things I have stated are true.

 

 

The total cost of the Fine left to be paid - £45. The total cost Marstons tried to intimidate my partner to pay - £345

 

It would be of interest if you would reply to the query that I made yesterday. In the meantime perhaps you would address the following:

 

Firstly, as I had said yesterday, your post is very interesting and thank you for taking the time to post on the forum. However, given the you have only had one incident with a bailiff it would seem that you have managed to get a huge amount of background knowledge of how the court fine system works....judges and oath, bailiff fees etc etc and I would suspect that a lot of the info that you have obtained is not from personal experience but from taking bits of information from various websites and putting it all together. Sadly, a lot of it is not correct at all.

 

One point of interest relates to paragraph 7b concerning the Judge needed to be under oath. Could you provide further details of this point.

 

A further very interesting point is in paragraph 13 where you have said that if payment has been made or goods taken that the debtor can take legal action to recover to money or goods. Whilst taking legal action is everyones right, there has never yet been a poster on this forum ( or indeed on any other forum that I know of) who has yet provided any EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they have won in court. Some websites may claim that bailiff companies settle such claims beforehand in order to avoid a judgment but worryingly, these same people who make these "claims" fail to provide any evidence to support such victories.

[Mark1960]

It would be of interest if you would reply to the query that I made yesterday. In the meantime perhaps you would address the following:

 

Firstly, as I had said yesterday, your post is very interesting and thank you for taking the time to post on the forum. However, given the you have only had one incident with a bailiff it would seem that you have managed to get a huge amount of background knowledge of how the court fine system works....judges and oath, bailiff fees etc etc and I would suspect that a lot of the info that you have obtained is not from personal experience but from taking bits of information from various websites and putting it all together. Sadly, a lot of it is not correct at all.

 

One point of interest relates to paragraph 7b concerning the Judge needed to be under oath. Could you provide further details of this point.

 

A further very interesting point is in paragraph 13 where you have said that if payment has been made or goods taken that the debtor can take legal action to recover to money or goods. Whilst taking legal action is everyones right, there has never yet been a poster on this forum ( or indeed on any other forum that I know of) who has yet provided any EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that they have won in court. Some websites may claim that bailiff companies settle such claims beforehand in order to avoid a judgment but worryingly, these same people who make these "claims" fail to provide any evidence to support such victories.

TT at the risk of taking the thread slightly off topic,I would state that your comments re court cases are very worrying.

 

As you are probably aware,I am just about to embark on an attempt to gain a refund on illegal charges.Reading several threads on here,it seems to be the general opinion that some charges and some methods carried out by bailiffs in order to submit these charges are illegal.I have decided that I wish to pursue my claim in the County Court and am at present educating myself on what is required from me to instigate proceedings.

 

I will be happy to share my experience with the board,whatever the outcome as it may help people in the future when trying to make informed decisions-Just as I am happy to share with the board my success stories regarding ROIROA.

 

I think many people are getting confused between the recent batch of form 4 threads whereby it is claimed that the claimant had to pay costs of £thousands.It should be noted that this is completely different to pursuing a case in the small claims court where costs are rarely awarded against the claimant.This mistake was made by one poster in the now locked ROIROA thread recently.

 

I think it is a very sad state of affairs if you are suggesting that bailiffs charge illegal fees yet the victim is not able to reclaim these fees in a court of law as it is effectively a kangaroo court.

[tomtubby]

Mark,

 

As many people will know, there has been a lot of problems recently with the bailiff section of the forum that have led to threads being closed. The problems seem to stem from some posters who will try to encourage viewers to display the Removal of Implied Right of Access notices. In your own particular case you are adamant that the notices have worked for you.

 

I do not want this particular thread again being disputed by going "off topic" and therefore I will respond to your post on this one occasions only but I will not respond a 2nd time on this thread.

 

You may care to note that yesterday, we received 3 enquiries from debtors where they had displayed such notices and they were ignored by the bailiff and in 2 cases, a motor vehicle was removed.

 

Looking back at last week, we received 16 identical enquiries. I am sorry to say but when it comes to BAILIFF enforcement, the notices do NOT work and debtors are frankly being hoodwinked and almost always; by websites that have Freeman on the Land connections. As you have said, you are happy to share your "success stories" regarding "ROIROA". What people fail to understand is that is that with council tax ( as an example) if a bailiff is unable to gain "peaceful entry" into the debtors property or to levy upon a car the bailiff will most likely RETURN the debt to the local authority in any event and the "reason" for returning it is because he cannot charge any further fee ( as there are no goods on which he can levy).

 

What is actually required is NOT "success stories" but EVIDENCE by way of correspondence from the local authority or bailiff company that all enforcement has ceased as a result of a Removal of Implied Right of Access notice being displayed.

 

Let me make it clear that it is NOT so much that bailiffs are charging "illegal fees" but more commonly, that the bailiff companies "interpret" the statutory regulations in such a way so as to ensure maximum financial benefit for themselves. To make matters worse, many of the statutory regulations then make matters even worse by stating that if there is a dispute regarding the LEVEL OF FEES that the debtor must apply to the court for Detailed Assessment. The court "fee" for such an application is currently £300. The entire system is complete and utter nonsense.

 

My personal opinion...is that with regards to a disputes regarding the level of fees charged then the CORRECT route is to make a Stage 1 Formal Complaint to the relevant local authority and; if the debtor is not satisfied with the response then the matter can be referred to the Local Government Ombudsman. In your particular case, this would be the correct route in any event given the highly critical LGO report regarding "Head H" fees. Also of course with council tax, the local authority are "wholly responsible" for the levy and fees charged by their agent.

 

A "Form 4 complaint" is very different indeed from making a claim in the County Court.

 

A very worrying point however relates to one particular Form 4 complaint that I posted details about which concerned the level of the fees charged and where the court ordered that the litigation should NOT be a Form 4 Complaint and should INSTEAD be listed as a Detailed Assessment. Sadly, even though it was a small claim...the court ordered the debtor to pay the bailiff companies costs !!!!

 

What I have provided on this site is EVIDENCE of costs being awarded against the person making a a Form 4 Complaint and further evidence of costs being awarded against a debtor when a case is listed for Detailed Assessment.

 

I would like to see EVIDENCE where bailiff companies have paid out a fee to the debtor to "avoid" a Form 4 Hearing.

 

I would like to see EVIDENCE of court judgments made in favour of the debtor.

 

I would like to see EVIDENCE" where HMCS have repaid debtors fees when bailiffs have enforced unpaid court FINES.

 

I would like to see EVIDENCE from the local authority that all enforcement of a debt has ceased because a Removal of Implied Right of Notice has been displayed.

 

Until such time as EVIDENCE is provided...then any such apparent successes are just "stories".

 

As mentioned at the start of this post, I will not respond any further on this subject and would prefer to hear back from the original poster so as to ensure that the thread does not go "off topic".

Edited May 29, 2013 by ims21

[lamma]

"Sadly, a lot of it is not correct at all. " TT is, unsurprisingly, correct.

[Mark1960]

TT-I have always said that bailiffs will ignore the notice-Just as they will ignore A&ER,National Standards & the LGO report that you refer to.The secret is to post a notice to the company as well-Whereas an individual bailiff may ignore,or be encouraged to ignore removal of implied right of access (just as they do when people open doors or ask them to leave),the company as a whole will not risk ignoring the notice as the implications are too great.I have repeatedly said that when my case is over that I will post relevant papaerwork & have also offered one of the admin to meet anyone in person to show them all relevant paperwork.

 

The real point that I was trying to make is that a county court case for small claims is not as risky as the form 4 complaints that have recently been highlighted.

 

I have weighed up the pro's & cons of either a complaint to the LGO or small claims and have decided that small claims is my preferred choice as the chances of compensation are greater,there is a low risk of costs being awarded against me & the process is quicker.I am not interested in either a detailed assessment,form 4 or complaint to magistrates as per section 46.

[MJack]

Hi...

 

I have now had 2 occasions where marstons have turned up on my doorstep,the 2nd being only yesterday when they tricked my 81 yr old father in law(whos had a stroke and recent heart attack)to let him in and got him to ring me...

 

I have paid the 300.00 twice now...and would like some clear layman advice as to what to do.....fight it..lor let the **** walk away with my money...

 

cheers

 

mjack

[lookinforinfo]

I see that the OP has only made this one post on the 28th May and has not posted anything since..........................

[MJack]

so is this post dormant.?

 

Mjack

[renegadeimp]

For now yes. It may be better creating a new one for your issue.

[melowyelow]

7 (b) sounds verry FMOTL to me , this would probably have worked 500 years ago but is a little out of date now and has been whitewashed by statutes & acts

[tomtubby]

The original post had all the hallmarks of an attempt to get viewers to the site to believe the hogwash that is commonly touted around by "advice sites" that have associations with Freeman on the Land movements. I will not be wasting any further time posting on this thread.

[citizenB]

This thread has been closed. This was a hit and run poster who was simply trying to drum up followers for sites that are used by Freedom of the Land movement.

 

The advice they promote is in my humble opinion dangerous.