This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This would really help. Here you are thanks again. Any comments would be much appreciated Statement Of Truth.doc

Thank you Tomtubby I was wondering why they are so coy about breaking down the charges, I must thanks the LA for being so transparent about what the fees were for. The LA also want to wash their hands of this matter and told me to contact Marston direct if I was still unhappy about the actions of their Bailiff. I will respectfully reply to them saying that they are fully responsible for Marston's actions and ask them to escalate the complaint to the next level whilst still trying to get a declaration from Marston's saying their charges are lawful etc.....It might be appropriate after this to point them to the Detailed Assessment judgement you so kindly mentioned. As I type this now I am on hold and have been for 20mins while the LA try and find the mysterious signatory on the Statement of Truth, at the very least I suspect he/she is not a Senior employee of the LA (title is Debt Recovery Advisor) but he/she does use their headed paper.Been cut off. Phoned again, no-one in the Debt Recovery section to answer my query but because there are notes on the system they assume the signatory must be an employee. I contacted HR and they did a search of the signatory's name and the name did not appear. However they did say their systems could be limited in scope. They will get back to me.Will keep you posted on the outcome.Could it be that the Debt Recovery team are Marston's themselves working out of a LA office and using their letterhead etc....? As regards the PE2/3 forms the reason I gave was simply that I hadn't received anything from the LA since the my Representation/Appeal in May until Marston turned up at the door. All the Statement of Fact details is the historical record process of what documents they sent to me and the fact that I hadn't responded to them not much else really. I can copy and post this taking out all the identifiers if it helps. All your help so far has been invaluable and I hope that this thread may help more people in the future.

Right then we have had some progress on this matter. The Council have confirmed that they are appealing the Out of Time Statutory Declaration on the grounds of they sent the letters etc......no surprise there I think.They have given me a copy of the Statement of Truth signed by them I will check to make sure the person actually is an employee of the Council I also sent a formal letter of complaint to Marston which they have responded to saying they have acted within the law but STILL not breaking down the charges interestingly enough. At the same time I sent a formal complaint to the Council asking them to investigate my complaint about Marston's. The reply is interesting Marstons now claim the Bailiff visited on the morning and left a letter PRIOR to the visit in the evening. As I work from home and my wife was at home all day until 3.00pm this is a lie. The charges have finally been broken down as follows in this letter from the Council NOT from Marston's. £403.71 (see breakdown) £185 for the PCN £218.71 for related charges,"...Letter from Marston's , one visit and Attendance to remove" (This was the amount he was going to "discount" to if I paid then and there.) £544.71 "As above with the addition of a van fee" which apparently can be charged even if goods are not removed.As they all drive around in Vans all the time does this mean they charge EVERYONE this fee £631.57 "The above fees plus second visit fees" Now according to the Council all the charges were ......"correct and in line with the guidelines approved by the Ministry of Justice for the Collection of Fixed Penalties under the Road Traffic Act 1991 and Traffic Mangment Act 2004." So are they right because I thought the fees were prescribed under the Distress for Rent legislation which were amended in 2003 with an increase in the percentages etc..... They also stated that the Bailiff called the Police ..."to prevent a breach of the peace..." another mistruth I called 999 when he wouldn't remove his foot from the door. There are a number of other things as well which I am seeking clarification on from the Council but I'm a little unclear as the what happens next Assuming the TEC uphold the Councils opposition are there any further grounds for appeal of the Ticket (which I feel VERY strongly about) i.e the Parking Adjudicator etc....or is this now too late and has to be done via a N224 Application to set aside In this case does the local County Court Judge look at the whole picture i.e the ticket itself ,my appeal etc, actions, charges of the Bailiff etc.... or is it simply just to check that the ticket issued was valid and what are the possible outcomes?

Just a quick follow up: All the forms were recevied yesterday TEC and they have processed the application (i.e its been "accepted" by them and all the forms are correct etc....) They immediately email the Council who then should suspend Bailiff action (tomorrow in this case) The lady said that if you have any trouble tomorrow to call them and they will contact Hackney.Looks like this system does work. Letters have also gone off to Marston as per Burp's suggestion (thank you). Hackney have received a formal complaint against the action taken by Marston as their Agent with a copy of the letter I sent to Marston's and the documents the Bailiff left with me. I'll keep you informed of what happens next.

I agree totally with Burp here.Can't say the Bailiff who turned up on the 1st visit was unpleasant or aggressive just charging for stuff which he had no right to charge for inm the first place. However that all changed on the 2nd visit when he sensed I wasn't going to let him in and began questioning the fees etc...... That's when the whole business of the foot in the door, Police called etc...occured...."Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" so anyone else BEWARE they can and WILL squirm their way in any chance they get. Take a look at the Marston website and see how "nice" and understanding they appear on the face of it especially in the "Debtors Guide" section (which makes even MORE mad). The REALITY is what I have experienced over the last few days. I will keep you all posted as to how all this pans out. The next installment is this Friday ,assuming they come back, unless Hackney tell them otherwise.

Voxter ....don't The trouble is that although in hindsight about as useful as a chocolate teapot the officers were quite pleasant after a while. Well one was from the start the other was somewhat aggressive in his attitude to start with wondering why I had called them out as the Bailiff had been here already on the Friday.....too much good cop bad cop and the Sweeney I think!

Hi Pizzamaker No documents 1&2 (the notice of Seizure and Table of Fess are the same document they come from Visit 1 on the Friday) Document 3 (Inventory) was what he left me on the 2nd visit after he entered my house whilst the Police were there. Incidentally where on the prescribed list of fees under the legislation does Van fee appear? However this is straight off the Drakes/Marston's Website: Scale of Fees. Right at the bottom is what I think they are charging for: Schedule of Non Statutory Charges (due if incurred) Description Maximum Charge £ Credit card handling fee 3% Debit card handling fee 1.00 HPI vehicle check Up to 30.00 Tracing Up to 40.00 Attendance to remove goods (ATR) Up to 120.00 Immobilisation - clamp Up to 50.00 Removal of vehicle (up to and including large van) Up to 150.00 Removal of vehicle (heavy goods vehicle) Up to 250.00 Removal of vehicle (cancelled tow truck) Up to 100.00 Storage of vehicle (per day) 20.00 So you're right he has charged an ATR on the first visit and then another on the second which bumps up his fees. Interesting that it states (due if incurred) seems like they ALWAYS are incurred regardless. The implication is that although not prescribed under the law this is what they charge The silly thing is that had the charges been reasonable at around £250 I probably could/would have paid him and continued the dispute I have with Hackney but his/Marston's actions and outrageous "phantom" charges have precipitated all of this. I think maybe a letter to Hackney in the same vein as to Marston's re the irregular charging is also appropriate as well so they understand exactly how these operate as their Agents.

Burp you won't believe how much noise I want to make, I am still seething at the injustice of all of this and how the Police just stood back and let it all happen. So to be clear the starting point other than TEC is to send the letter to Marston's. An email is on its way now along with a posted one tomorrow first thing with the threat of Form 4 to his issuing Court , might make them sit up a little and listen

Hmm an interesting development. Tried the Ministry of Justice number and they said he was Certified in a different CC and his Certification expired in 2005. However when ringing the CC on the Notice CC they confirmed he was Certificated until Aug 2010. Apparently the Certificates only run for 2 years and its up to the CCourts to notify the Ministry of Justice which it appears they don't seem to do very quickly. Its worth making sure that you contact the County Court if you know it before the Ministry and make sure you tell them you are checking on the Certification status NOT whether he is a Bailiff of the Court , I nearly made this mistake as the very helpful lady didn't really understand initially what I was asking for. I understand there is a huge difference.

Hi Burp Yes I'm sorry they are now Word Docs hence all the frantic edits.

Hi there Here are the documents I was talking about . The ONLY one that has a signature is the Inventory which has mine (twice) and the Bailiffs 1) Notice of Seizure left (visit1) 2) The reverse side of above where the WPA should be signed (visit2) 3) The Inventory which both he and me signed (visit2) Any comments on these would be much appreciated I just can't believe how unprofessional all of this is considering its legally enforceable. Notice Of Seizure.doc Table of Fees.doc Inventory.doc

Hi Burp Thanks for your reply , shall I post or PM you exactly what was left with me and that I signed? This looks very promising I just can't believe that these people can get away with this. I'm just cautious that the information I have given you is correct and that I may have misled you with the forms etc.....

Last Friday evening a bailiff from Marston turned up and handed me a Notice of Seizure showing my car parked on the drive and the sum of £544.71 (on a first visit!!!) with NO breakdown of costs just the Total Amount Due Today filled out. He offered to reduce this amount by approximately £100 if I settled there and then.I refused, he left saying he'll be back on Monday. I told him that I was still in dispute with Hackney about this and was waiting a response to my challenge/appeal which I had not received.This does go back to March this year and is a bit of a long story. On Monday he returned with another person who never introduced himself. I asked him to leave a number of times but he stuck his foot in the door and refused to move it. After about 10 mins of me standing in front of the open door I phoned the police Now I am quite a big guy at 6'5" but have never used violence unless defending myself so physically I did not do anything ,rather hoping that the Police would ask him to leave......surprise surprise they didn't they were only there to make sure a breach of the peace did not take place. I specifically told the Officers concerned that I did not want him in the house and had have asked him numerous times to leave. They said he was going about this lawful business. I said to them he was attempting an illegal entry.They said he had a Warrant I said it did not allow him to enter my house. They did nothing.This went on for around 30 mins me inside with one Officer and him outside with another Now all this time my wife was in our living room keeping our rather large dog quiet until she could stand it any more and came out in tears, I was still fuming. Eventually, and I'm not quite sure how it happened as I was in another room with one Officer. The door was left open by the Police and the Bailiff stepped "announcing I am entering the premises". With my wife in floods tears and the dog barking me in another room I was powerless to stop him coming in. He started completing an Inventory.He eventually finished and left me with a Goods Inventory to sign and the bill which now had gone up to £631.57 again with absolutely NO breakdown of costs.This I did sign on the front.Written by in hand b the Bailiff is Friday 14.00 for payment. He would not leave me with a copy of the Warrant (does this have to be stamped by the Court because his wasn't). Apparently he told the Police it doesn't have to be all he needs is knowledge of a Warrant.(is this true or is it a bluff?) I have NOT signed the Official Walking Possession Agreement on the back of the Notice of Seizure and neither has he, only the Goods Inventory. There are a few items on the Inventory that are not mine and can be provedas such, they are from my wife's grandmothers inheritance (a cabinet and plates etc...not of any huge value mostly sentimental) He has noted down my PC which as I work as a self employed IT Consultant I told him was a tool of my trade, all he said was that he is allowing me the chance to download everything to CD. This I find quite amusing as there is about a Terabyte of data stored which would take about a month to burn to a room full of CD's (I am exaggerating a bit here) So where do I go from here? I have completed the Statutory Declaration Out of Time for TEC and this will get sent to them today.Will this stop the action proposed on Friday even for a short time? Do I have an recourse for the actions the Bailiff took when entering, in my opinion illegally and non peacefully? Do I have any recourse that the Police unwittingly aided and abetted him in his actions? If his actions are indeed illegal does this mean that the whole process is now null and void? Help PLEASE I have a bit of time but not a lot

First of all further congratulations to both you and Neil P on this one , it gives us all renewed confidence in our claims. However in light of these successes should we really be concerned about going over the £5K limit if indeed these are the real figures and I suspect mine might be !! Surely the real big advantage is that there has to be full disclosure under Fast Track which it seems is a BIG no no as far as the banks are concerned and therefore they may even settle quicker In fact were you not being nudged in that direction by the judge ? I know that costs can be awarded if you lose but what chance is there of that particuarly in light of these recent and all the other victories...has anyone lost yet? Any opinions?

Well CONGRATS to you the long wait is finally over !!

Looks like the one I and a few others here got ...is it dated 24th May and the post mark 1st June from Pam Speed ? I sent my reply back to Milton Keynes to EXACTLY the same person Data Protection Manager Data Protection Team Regulatory Compliance Abbey House 201 Grafton Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 1AN Used Alan's template with some minor modifications specifically telling them not to use the £10 for anything else other than the original DPA request and pointing out specifically what was missing in terms of months etc..... Reminded them that they had X days left to comply and left it at that. Looks like there's a number of us all at the same stage, its going to be interesting comparing notes!!

Just go the Main Forum "the ConsumerActionGroup" top lhs of screen and then look for Bank Templates section they are all there Best of luck Ooops bit late there

No probs about hijacking , all this is relevant to us obtaining our information. Agree with your comments about Feb:rolleyes: Looking at the claims progress all they are doing is delaying the inevitable and its costing them more and more. All these claims they are fighting and eventually settling are a mere drop in their vast corporate ocean compared with them having to disclose their actual costs and profit structure. Imagine the inevitable fall out not just to the Abbey but the WHOLE of the banking industry once people realise they are being so badly ripped off. In the meantime the fact that we are all experiencing very much the same treatment means that the process here, if followed to the letter (sic) ,will lead to us all getting our money back. Let them put up any obstacle ,we will knock them down one by one........here endeth the sermon for today:D

Yep 4 to be precise covering March 2005. Interestingly they contain such information as cheque books being requested and statments being sent which do not appear on our statements that we receive evey month. I seem to remember in another thread that this type of enquiry is what anyone at any branch can call up on their terminals.

If the reference on the letter is anything to go by. MANINT**/ (Manual Intervention?)/***(number issued?)/**(no idea?) They have been busy/will get busier:D Wonder how much money they will spend on Solicitors/Barristers etc...before they get the idea that we will not go away:?: As for the post mark question its the first letter I've got from Bradford as all mine have been sent to Milton Keynes before. Not 100% proof but under a civil action combined with all the other correspondence regarding the delays ICO and Court actions etc... the "probability" is there. Also does anyone know which Branch 0836 is ? This is on the "Contract staff Movement enquiry " which they also printed off on 24th May and was printed on Dept C PO Box 382 Prescot Street London E1 8RP letterhead but actually posted on 1st June from Bradford again but in a seperate A4 envelope. Don't really know the relevance (if any) of this to our cases i.e the correct Depts to send all this stuff to get things moving quicker.

Hi everyone just a quick update and question. Received today the usual fob off letter from Pam Speed with the sneaky "we will use the £10 for the microfiche records etc......" So far a "text book case " as far as I can see judging by Abbey's replies. Any comments about this proposed reply before I send it off? Dear Sir/Madam LETTER BEFORE ACTION Section 7 – Data Protection Act 1998 Dear Sir/Madam ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxxxxxx I am in receipt of the documents that you have supplied in response to my Data Protection Act information request dated 4th May 2006. There a number of issues which need clarifying: 1) Your letter 0f 24th May 2006 was posted 1st June 2006 (post mark on envelope) and received by myself 3rd June 2006 can you please clarify why the delay of 7 days? 2) I am pleased that you acknowledge receipt of the £10 DPA fee.I expressly FORBID you to use this £10 for the microfiche records. This is STRICTLY to be used for the original DPA request and for NO OTHER purpose. 3) My original DPA request was actually signed for on 5th May 2006 and the 40 days for compliance starts from this day. 4) You confirm that there has been NO record of any manual intervention on my account The disclosure of personal data is incomplete in that at least the following documents are missing. 1) You have failed to acknowledge either letter of 4th and 24th May 2) You have failed to provide a complete list of transactions and charges.ALTERNATIVELY a complete set of statements would be acceptable. The statements which you have sent me only cover from April 2005 through to April 2006. therefore all the information from May 2000 as outlined under the DPA Subject Access request through to April 2005 is missing. 3) You have provided no notes, or documents relating to any legal action between you and myself. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, it is just an example of some of the information I am missing. Accordingly, I have to tell you that you have not yet complied with your obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. You have a further 7 days to comply.

Well after sending the follow up letter received 14 months printed statements (crossed in the post I think) with absolutely NO acknowledgement from Abbey of the original DPA and they haven't done anything with the cheque yet. At least its filled in a few more gaps in the figures. The total is beginning to astonish me.Nearly 3K and lots of months missing. No wonder we've been struggling for so long.Its like working for 12 months and only getting paid for 11 just because of their illegal charges This is making me even more determined to get the money back Sending reply today telling them whats missing and "thanking" them for the information to date 1) Acknowledgement of the original DPA and follow up 2) Requesting the info for a THIRD time 3) Reminding them of their obligations AGAIN under the DPA Will probably get the microfiche letter sometime soon This is ALL too familiar looking at this forum

Thanks Tom your advice has been duly noted and acted upon:) Not sure it'll make any difference with this lot though, i'll keep you all infomed

Will send them today recorded delivery this reminder, probably won't make any difference as they haven't even acknowledged the original request... par for the course looking at all the other threads: Data Protection Manager Data Protection Team Regulatory Compliance Abbey House 201 Grafton Gate East Milton Keynes MK9 1AN 24 May 2006 Data Protection Act 1998 subject access request Dear Sir/Madam ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXXXXXXXX On the 4th of May I sent to yourselves a subject access request on our account detailed above including the fee of £10.00 by cheque. I enclose a copy of the original letter. It was delivered and signed for on the 5th May As of today I have not received any information nor any acknowledgement from yourselves regarding this matter. As you are aware you have 40 days from the 5th May to comply fully with this request There are 19 days left until this deadline expires. I look forward to receiving this information within the statutory period. Yours Faithfully I suppose the more evidence you have to prove you've tried to get the information but they've stalled/cocked up the easier it becomes to pursue the claim in court . Does anyone think that there is any benefit to telling them at this stage that you WILL write to the ICO and go to court under section 7 of the DPA ?