Our son owes many fines and court fees etc.

He hasn’t lived at our house for 6 years but always gives our address.

Today two people from Marston Holdings came round today with a court warrant to take goods to value of £550.

They accepted that he doesn’t live there but said as our address in on the warrant they will come back in the next two days (with a locksmith) and take goods to that value which will be stored for 5 days and returned only if we can provide receipts.

They said the only way we can stop this is to pay the fine.

Any advice on how to deal with this would be gratefully received.

Suggest you find out which Magistrates court has instructed Marstons and make a complaint to the courts enforcement manager, plus send a complaint to Marstons head office. You can get a statutory declaration done stating that all goods at x address are the property of the occupants x, y, z. No goods belonging to Mr O are kept at the address and you do not have a current resicential address for him. A local Solicitors can witness this declaration for a small fee or Magistrates can do this.

Because the warrant has your address and it is a criminal fine, they can force entry if necessary. They should not be expecting you to pay the fines, so that is very naughty and you should complain about this.

 

They accepted that he doesn’t live there but said as our address in on the warrant they will come back in the next two days (with a locksmith) and take goods to that value which will be stored for 5 days and returned only if we can provide receipts.

Can you post back to let us know how the enforcement agent was able to accept that your son does not live at your address?

Did the agent come into your home?

Did you provide evidence of any sort?

Looks like they were let in to discuss, and bailiff saw that son non resident when went round hose listing goods, as no evidence of his presence, as in clothes etc in a bedroom. But hey bailiffs being bailiffs want their money and don't care who pays. Re that report on the discussion thread.

Brownout, did you let them in and sign a Controlled Goods Agreement? If so look at UB's advice at post#2

My wife let them in. They saw papers in my younger sons room that showed it was his and the only other bedroom in use is ours, They accepted he didn't live here as there was nothing to show he does. My wife didn't sign anything.

We have been advised to get a statutory declaration but both both Barkingside magistrates court and London Collection Centre told me that only our son can do this - and obviously he won't.

I have got information from the electoral roll that shows he is not listed here and sent this to marstons but don't know what else we can do.

rubbish you can do the sd

dx

I have contacted the police to make sure they know our son does not live at this address next time he is arrested.

They have his current address but said that as we've found, he can give any address to the court and it isn't checked.

They said bailiffs cannot remove any goods from our property as our son does not live there and nothing in our property is his.

My wife let them in. They saw papers in my younger sons room that showed it was his and the only other bedroom in use is ours, They accepted he didn't live here as there was nothing to show he does. My wife didn't sign anything.

 

We have been advised to get a statutory declaration but both both Barkingside magistrates court and London Collection Centre told me that only our son can do this - and obviously he won't.

 

I have got information from the electoral roll that shows he is not listed here and sent this to marstons but don't know what else we can do.

With magistrate court fines a bailiff is permitted to force entry. The purpose is two fold:

Firstly, forced entry can be used in cases where the enforcement agent has good reason to believe that the debtor is inside the property and refusing to 'engage' with the enforcement agent.

More importantly, forced entry may be used to enable to enforcement agent to search for goods belonging to the debtor that may be sold at auction to recover the debt.

In your particular case, I am pleased to see that the enforcement agent was allowed into the property on a 'peaceful' basis (without the need to force entry) and secondly, that the enforcement agent searched for goods and was able to satisfy himself that there are no goods at the property belonging to your son.

So what should happen now? As the enforcement agent is now satisfied that your son does not live at the property or have any goods at the property that can be sold, he is supposed to either return the warrant back to the court or alternative, the account can be placed with Marston Holdings 'tracing department' (to find an alternative address for your son).

There should be no need whatsoever for you to submit a Statutory Declaration. It would be a pointless exercise.

 

We have been advised to get a statutory declaration but both both Barkingside magistrates court and London Collection Centre told me that only our son can do this - and obviously he won't.

Can I ask you who advised you to get a Statutory Declaration?

Two solicitors who I've asked informally, but neither of whom are experts in this field. Our normal solicitor cannot advise us as the represent my son so it would be conflict of interest.

Two solicitors who I've asked informally, but neither of whom are experts in this field. Our normal solicitor cannot advise us as the represent my son so it would be conflict of interest.

The Statutory Declaration suggestion would be on the basis of swearing on oath that all goods in your property belong to you and your wife. This declaration is not required for the simple fact that the enforcement agents have already been into your home and satisfied themselves by searching your premises that the goods do not belong to your son.

But according to the OP Marstons agents said that they would be back to take goods, unless proof of purchase by other family members was provided or the fines paid. A threat was apparently made to increase pressure.

We know that enforcement agents acting on behalf of a court have legal protection against criminal charges, provided they operate within the law. If they have been to the house and made these threats, after having looked around, then if they came back again as suggested, then i would call the Police to make a criminal complaint. They would be operating outside of their legal requirements and would not have protection against criminal charges being laid.

I hope you don't mind me butting in but the original question asked has not been answered. Or can Marstons do this. I am sure this is not right but don't have the knowledge to advise them.

"Today two people from Marston Holdings came round today with a court warrant to take goods to value of £550.

They accepted that he doesn’t live there but said as our address in on the warrant they will come back in the next two days (with a locksmith) and take goods to that value which will be stored for 5 days and returned only if we can provide receipts.

They said the only way we can stop this is to pay the fine."

It would appear that the bailiff who called may well be ultra vires his powers if he/she continues to enforce and take third party goods for sale as he knows the named debtor is non resident, and it is accepted by the bailiff as so; again it is obnoxious that they should be continuing to threaten on pain of receipts or else if the named debtor is obviously non resident. Another one indicative of misbehaviour as per that Report.

BA, I think the Stat Dec advice was given due to probable inability of the family to provide receipts for all the third party goods the bailiff was/is going to take and sell to pay the fine and fees.

I concur with UB as to calling police, bailiff and court know named debtor non resident so bailiff should return the warrant.

Wonder what Grumpy's take is on Brownout's case?

I spoke to the bailiff this morning who was quite reasonable and said he had put in his report saying that he could see that my son did not live at the address.

He said he was waiting for instructions as to how to proceed from Marston’s’ office.

I rang the office and was told they could not discuss the case due to ‘data protection’ but that the bailiff (who is self-employed) has full jurisdiction and will not be given instructions by the office.

When I asked for an explanation as to why data protection was an issue she put the phone down (as another person at Marstons did yesterday when I asked questions).

Take that conversation as fictional. All they will have in their mind is collecting the money due, so they get paid.

If they do come back, suggest calling the Police to make a complaint.

I spoke to the bailiff this morning who was quite reasonable and said he had put in his report saying that he could see that my son did not live at the address. He said he was waiting for instructions as to how to proceed from Marston’s’ office.

 

I rang the office and was told they could not discuss the case due to ‘data protection’ but that the bailiff (who is self-employed) has full jurisdiction and will not be given instructions by the office.

You will probably consider my suggestion odd but it is the right one.

I think that you will find that the bailiff will very likely be returning the warrant. I would suggest that you do not call him or the office anymore. The individual agent is in charge of the warrant and I would leave matters at the moment.

I called the bailiff again before I saw the advice above.

He said he needs to see the evidence that my son doesn’t live here.

That I have sent it to Marsden’s office seems irrelevant.

He suggested a Council Tax bill but I don’t think they list all members of the household (and I don’t know if we have one).

He has given me his private email and I have sent copies of the information from the electoral roll.

We agreed that we will speak tomorrow but he may come back to our house to discuss.

We may however not be there.

I don’t think I will let him in anyway.

I get the impression that he is being fair and will return the warrant – or am I too trusting?

I think it has been resolved.

Marston Holdings office were completely unhelpful (twice people there put the phone down when I asked too many questions) but the bailiff turned out to be helpful once he realised we were genuine and reasonable.

He gave me his personal email address and I sent the extracts from Electoral Roll, which along with his report of checking our house, gave him the evidence to return the warrant to the court.

I’ve sent letters to the three courts and two collection agencies that my son is currently involved with the same evidence that he doesn’t live here.

Another final warning letter (for another fine) had arrived yesterday.

Many thanks to everyone who gave me advice.

Why don't you just tell them where your son lives.

That way they won't have to bother you again.

I've done that.

The bailiff said he couldn't go there as the warrant was for our address but I've given his address to the courts & collection agencies.

However the problem (which both the police & bailiff confirmed) is that whatever address he gives in court, the court don't check it. How much time, money & stress it would save if only they did.

I've done that.

The bailiff said he couldn't go there as the warrant was for our address but I've given his address to the courts & collection agencies.

However the problem (which both the police & bailiff confirmed) is that whatever address he gives in court, the court don't check it. How much time, money & stress it would save if only they did.

Shocking!

Considering that it's not compulsory to carry any id, anyone stopped by police and prosecuted can give any name and address.

Mickey Mouse of 22 Disney road must be the most wanted man in UK

Shocking!

Considering that it's not compulsory to carry any id, anyone stopped by police and prosecuted can give any name and address.

Mickey Mouse of 22 Disney road must be the most wanted man in UK

A guy called Donald Duck gave his name to police who promptly arrested him, They looked rather silly when he produced the ID they prevented him from showing them at the stop when they got to the police station. Desk Sergeant was in stitches probably.