Can I firstly apologise for bringing this up but I am trying to understand it.

On another forum there is a post about something that was allegedly referred to on here as manchestergate.

On the post there is someone bragging that the hero of the site has won a case over car storage fees.

I can find no mention of it here so is the person concerned unusually twisting the truth?

The claim is also that they are considering making a complaint before a magistrate under the fraud act.

I always thought that complaints such as that were made to the plods or is he talking about a private prosecution

and if so is the burden of proof the same as criminal court?

Thanks in advance

The post the OP refers to from the site in question is totally unrelated to the Form 4 complaint outlined in the link above????

I have had a read. Very interesting indeed. If however there is any connection with the 'Form 4' case then if the debtor has won an action that would have had nothing at all to do with the website owner for two reasons:

Firstly, after details of the 'Manchester' Form 4 Complaint had been revealed the man in question posted on his forum a denial that he had been in any way involved in drafting the Form 4 Complaint.

Secondly....and this is important:

the claimant contacted me after details of her case had featured on this forum a year ago. She wanted to stress that she had merely sought initial advice from him through the forum and that she herself had drafted her own Form 4 Complaint and that she would NOT use the gentleman's legal assistance given that she herself was fully versed in legal matters and had attended court many times in the course of her own work as an LLP.

Accordingly, if she has secured a judgment against an enforcement company then well done to her...and her alone.

Don't think we need another thread just about people involved, different internet advice sites etc.

It would be nice to just have some information about the actual case, what claim was made, why the Judge reached their decision. It appears that the case only happened yesterday, so it is abit early to have this information now. I guess that Marsons could appeal, if there were grounds for this, so perhaps the claimant may not want internet discussion at this stage, if it was not helpful.

From what I can work out and having read what goes as manchestergate this is totally different in that it is repayment of excess charges so not a form 4 at all. Thanks for the info though.

The case is clearly not that of a 'Form 4' Complaint as that was addressed over a year ago.

Reading 'between the lines' following the sale of her vehicle the claimant appears to have issued proceedings on the basis that she considered that the storage charges were too high and the court 'appears' to have agreed to reduce the 'storage' costs. It would seem from reading the post that further action may be pending regarding the actual sale price of the vehicle'.

What does surprise me is that from speaking with the lady in question she had not been at all pleased that the other forum had posted ANY details at all regarding her Form 4 Complaint last year and for that reason alone I am very surprised that she authorised the forum to not only publish details of the outcome of her case but also sanctioned them providing the full case reference on the website.

As I have said above....and am happy to repeat once again, if she has secured a judgment against an enforcement company then well done to her...and her alone.

I was wondering just how much has actually been awarded compared to the claim. We all know that you can go to court and win but actually get very little in the way of money.

I am still confused how it can be claimed that this is the manchestergate case when it seems totally different.

If anyone gets the judgement I would love to see it

I have been thinking about this matter quite a lot over the weekend and as I see it.... the claimant was awarded a refund (either in full or in part) because CPR states goods seized can only be stored for a maximum of 5 days before being sold, surely this has serious implications for debtors since it this means goods ie: cars, will just be sold on the 6th day regardless...this can't be right ...can it????

I have been thinking about this matter quite a lot over the weekend and as I see it.... the claimant was awarded a refund (either in full or in part) because CPR states goods seized can only be stored for a maximum of 5 days before being sold, surely this has serious implications for debtors since it this means goods ie: cars, will just be sold on the 6th day regardless...this can't be right ...can it????

The rules seem to say that the goods stay with the debtor until near to the point where they will be sold and then they are taken to be sold within 5 days. The max storage that can be charged for criminal related fines would therefore be 5 days.

So I would presume that the EA has the choice of taking the goods and making sure they are sold within 5 days or they seize goods (clamp a car) make arrangements for the sale and take them near to the time of the sale.

That is my reading. HCEO can probably offer their opinion on this, as they should know how this works.

I was wondering just how much has actually been awarded compared to the claim. We all know that you can go to court and win but actually get very little in the way of money.

I am still confused how it can be claimed that this is the Manchester case when it seems totally different.

If anyone gets the judgment I would love to see it

.

Annie,

Despite many requests in the past the site have never before provided any evidence whatsoever to substantiate a successful court claim (or redress). This is the first ever case and without doubt, (unless the claimant disagrees) a copy of the Judgment will likely be provided.

I was not all together certain that this particular case was the same as the Manchester Form 4 complaint but it would seem from looking at the site this morning that a few amendments have been made since first posting...one being that the debtors name has been published. It is the same person. I do not intend providing details of her complaint.

Well it will be interesting. All we can do is wait and see.

In response to both WD and Uncle Bulgaria:

Since the poster published my name on his thread I have received probably 25-30 enquiries since early this morning. It has been manic!! I am guessing that the reason why so many people have contacted me could relate to the site amending it thread over the weekend to provide the full name of the Claimant. I am as baffled as anyone as to why the website chose to associate the claim with this forum or me.

I have said on this forum many times that when I respond to queries I will tend to provide a substantive answer that is accurate. What I rarely ever do is to answer a question by simply providing a 'link' to statutory regulations. To my mind that is a very lazy way in which to answer a question posed by a debtor. Secondly, the vast majority of the public have rarely before read a 'statutory instrument' and most are baffled by the terminology.

I have been the subject of intense criticism from the site for a very long time as I frequently find myself on here correcting the poor advice being provided to debtors and in particular, when the site quote statutory regulations and 'claim ' that the regulations say something that it doesn't. Today would seem that I am having to do the very same!!

The website has made the following claims:

"The law says under the Criminal Procedure Rules that goods seized can be stored for a maximum of 5 days before being sold (unless the defendant gives permission otherwise)"

"The point of law is part 52.8 of the criminal Procedure Rules 2013 which sets Maximum of 5 days storage"

and:

"This is a benchmark case because this is the first time a judge has ruled according to the criminal procedure rules that storage of goods cannot exceed 5 days"

In fact, the site are once again providing very misleading advice. Not only have they provided the wrong part of the regulations (which should be section 52.9 and not section 52.8) but more importantly, the actual regulations state as follows:

"Unless the court otherwise directs or the defendant agrees, goods taken under a warrant must be sold:

"As soon as reasonably practical after the expiry of 5 business days from the date of execution of the warrant"

As readers will note the regulations provide the important words: 'as soon as reasonably practical" .

Also, the statutory regulations do not state '5 days'. Instead they provide for 5 'business' days. There is a difference between the two.

In response to both WD and Uncle Bulgaria:

 

Since the poster published my name on his thread I have received probably 25-30 enquiries since early this morning. It has been manic!! I am guessing that the reason why so many people have contacted me could relate to the site amending it thread over the weekend to provide the full name of the Claimant.

 

I have said on this forum many times that when I respond to queries I will tend to provide a substantive answer that is accurate. What I rarely ever do is to answer a question by simply providing a 'link' to statutory regulations. To my mind that is a very lazy way in which to answer a question posed by a debtor. Secondly, the vast majority of the public have rarely before read a 'statutory instrument' and most are baffled by the terminology.

 

I have been the subject of intense criticism from the site for a very long time as I frequently find myself on here correcting the poor advice being provided to debtors and in particular, when the site quote statutory regulations and 'claim ' that the regulations say something that it doesn't. Today would seem that I am having to do the very same!!

 

The website has made the following claims:

 

"The law says under the Criminal Procedure Rules that goods seized can be stored for a maximum of 5 days before being sold (unless the defendant gives permission otherwise)"

 

"The point of law is part 52.8 of the criminal Procedure Rules 2013 which sets Maximum of 5 days storage"

 

and:

 

"This is a benchmark case because this is the first time a judge has ruled according to the criminal procedure rules that storage of goods cannot exceed 5 days".

 

In fact, the site are once again providing very misleading advice. Not only have they provided the wrong part of the regulations (which should be section 52.9 and not section 52.8) but more importantly, the actual regulations state as follows:

 

"Unless the court otherwise directs or the defendant agrees, goods taken under a warrant must be sold:

 

"As soon as reasonably practical after the expiry of 5 business days from the date of execution of the warrant"

 

As readers will note the regulations provide the important words: 'as soon as reasonably practical" . Also, the statutory regulations do not state '5 days'. Instead they provide for 5 'business' days. There is a difference between the two.

So, does this mean the costs incurred for any car placed in storage, remaining unsold/without agreement, after 5 working days have to be met by the bailffs not the debtor? What about the cars we get to read about that have been left in storage for weeks/months and the debtor given the bill for that storage?

So what can be interpreted as being 'reasonably practical'? The wording covers a huge number of circumstances: For instance,

If a vehicle had been taken and the debtor were adamant that the vehicle is subject to finance and was needing to locate the original documents then surely it would not be 'reasonably practical' to sell the vehicle after 5 business days.

The vehicle seized may be subject to a 'third party' claim and again, it would not be 'reasonably practical' etc.

Another scenario would be where the debtor is claiming that the vehicle should be 'exempt' then again, it would not be 'reasonably practical' to sell the vehicle.

The importance of the wording of 'reasonably practical' cannot be understated.

Yet again, debtors need to act with caution and check that the statutory regulations actually say what the website claims they say.

"As soon as reasonably practical after the expiry of 5 business days from the date of execution of the warrant"

Q. What is the legal definition of when a warrant is executed ? Does this mean when goods are seized to cover the debt ?

 

So, does this mean the costs incurred for any car placed in storage, remaining unsold/without agreement, after 5 working days have to be met by the bailffs not the debtor? What about the cars we get to read about that have been left in storage for weeks/months and the debtor given the bill for that storage.?

.

The position has changed significantly given that under Schedule 13 (not 12) of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 Magistrate court FINES are now included in the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and share the identical fee scale and with the exception of the 'forced entry' provision share the same 'method' of enforcement. Warrants of Distress have also been renamed Warrants of Control.

Importantly, the new regs have changed the number of days that need to pass before a vehicle may be sold but there are two significantly important changes regarding vehicles in particular; and this concerns 'Part 85' claims commonly referred to as "Interpleader" claim.

Most seriously this new provision provides that such 'interpleader' (or other) claims MUST be made within 7 days of the seizure. If it is the case that a Judge has ruled that storage cannot be charged after a specific number of days then creditors will almost certainly be instructing their enforcement company to ensure that the vehicle is sold on Day 8. This could have an utterly devastating effect on all debtors.

We only have the say so of a website as to what was said in court and, given the importance it is understandable why so many enforcement companies are today eager to get a full transcript of the hearing.

Given the importance of such a Judgment I am very surprised indeed to hear it said that an appeal cannot be made. I find this very difficult to believe as it is usually the case that an appeal can be lodged within 21 days.

For the above reason, I am very surprised that the website chose to publish so much detail. I would have thought it prudent to await a period of 21 days.

.

The position has changed significantly given that under Schedule 13 (not 12) of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 Magistrate court FINES are now included in the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and share the identical fee scale and with the exception of the 'forced entry' provision share the same 'method' of enforcement. Warrants of Distress have also been renamed Warrants of Control.

 

Importantly, the new regs have changed the number of days that need to pass before a vehicle may be sold but there are two significantly important changes regarding vehicles in particular; and this is regarding "Interpleader" and other claims to goods that have been 'taken into control'.

 

Most seriously this new provision provides that such 'interpleader' (or other) claims MUST be made within 7 days of the seizure. If it is the case that a Judge has ruled that storage cannot be charged after a specific number of days then creditors will almost certainly be instructing their enforcement company to ensure that the vehicle is sold on Day 8. This could have an utterly devastating effect on all debtors.

 

We only have the say so of a website as to what was said in court and, given the importance it is understandable why so many enforcement companies are today eager to get a full transcript of the hearing.

 

Given the importance of such a Judgment I am very surprised indeed to hear it said that an appeal cannot be made. I find this very difficult to believe as it is usually the case that an appeal can be lodged within 21 days.

 

For the above reason, I am very surprised that the website chose to publish so much detail. I would have thought it prudent to await a period of 21 days.

There could well be a great many third parties who have just bought the car and DVLA have not changed the details who will lose them for the previous owners fines with this then

I suppose a headline is a headline regardless of the actual facts. The headline is excellent however there is little detail. As far as it says the following is the judgement

Storage costs returned but is that all or some. It could be 1 day it could be all the days

All costs awarded- I am assuming it is the standard court fees which I think are awarded anyway

Loss of earnings - Is that for the hearing or longer

I wonder what the real answers are

 

Q. What is the legal definition of when a warrant is executed ? Does this mean when goods are seized to cover the debt ?

.

.

On 6th April 2014 the government finally introduced Part 3 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act 2007 that addresses the 'Taking Control of Goods'. The actual 'procedure' for 'Taking Control of Goods' is outlined in Schedule 12 of TCE 2007 and most importantly, Schedule 13 of TCE 2007 provides details of the statutory regulations that were amended or revoked on 6th April.

Under Schedule 13 it specifically provides that Warrants of Distress are renamed Warrants of Control and that enforcement of Magistrate Court fines is now governed in the same way as all other debt types using the 'procedure' under Schedule 12 and accordingly, enforcement of court fines now shares the identical fee scale of a Compliance Fee of £75 and Enforcement Fee of £235.

The new regulations have modernised the terminology previously used and the term "execution" has been abolished.

I suppose a headline is a headline regardless of the actual facts. The headline is excellent however there is little detail. As far as it says the following is the judgement

Storage costs returned but is that all or some. It could be 1 day it could be all the days

All costs awarded- I am assuming it is the standard court fees which I think are awarded anyway

Loss of earnings - Is that for the hearing or longer

 

I wonder what the real answers are

.

The regulations (Criminal Procedure 2012) are clear in that a vehicle should be sold as soon as 'reasonably practical' after 5 business days. There can be little doubt therefore that Parliament must have intended for storage charges to apply for some period of time and we will need to await further details. As always, the 'devil is in the detail' and given the possibility of an appeal I would much prefer to say nothing more on the actual case for the time being. Instead, an equally serious matter has arisen this evening regarding yet another person who believed the nonsense being given on the internet to 'cut the clamp' from a vehicle and he too was arrested early this evening.

It would seem that he believed that he was somehow protected by an 'unreported' legal case that is of no relevance whatsoever. I will be starting a new thread on this matter shortly.

Goodmorning Tomtubby . Apparently I am now talking to myself as you and me are the same person.

All I can do is repeat the old saying

Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean you aren't all out to get you.

Goodmorning Tomtubby . Apparently I am now talking to myself as you and me are the same person.

All I can do is repeat the old saying

 

Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean you aren't all out to get you.

Then I had better join in as it is also said tomtubby and I have been identified as the same person by the same person....you are excused for being confused.

PS what the definition of paranoia?

Hello wonkey nice to meet myself.

In my post number 13 I had outlined my disappointment that the site in question chose to associate the legal claim with this forum and with me. This was wholly and utterly unnecessary and 'Annie71' had merely posted details on here for information purposes.

As viewers will see I have discussed on this thread the subject of storage fees in general and the way in which the new regulations apply storage charges. I do not intend to discuss the case or any details of it.

For the avoidance of doubt I do not know 'Annie71' but it is good to see you posting on here.