Jump to content


Marstons - Where do i go from here!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4497 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have enclosed links of communication with marstons, and my recent request. I would like to check if marstons claims are unfair and exorbitant, if so i would like to claim for some refund if possible were errors can be identified. thanks in advance.

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars1a.jpg

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars2a.jpg

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars3.jpg

http://s561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars4.jpg

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars5a.jpg

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars6a.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are no dates next to your charges

need more info did the bailiffs leave a walking possession agreement what charges are on this

when did they clamp your car

when did the remove your car

H P I charge i take it that this is to check if the car is on H P there is no legislation saying they can charge this

i would say your levy fee is wrong levy fee £177.43

The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) (Amendment) Regulations 2003

For preparing and sending a letter advising the debtor that a warrant is with the bailiff and requesting the total sum due, the fee is £11.20.

 

For levying distress, where the sum demanded and due does not exceed £100, the fee is £28.00; and where the sum demanded and due exceeds £100, the fee 28% on the first £200 and on any additional sum over £200, the fee is 5.5%.

Edited by hallowitch
Link to post
Share on other sites

this may also help you

 

In the Central London County Court - Case No 8CL51015 - Anthony Culligan (Claimant) v 1. Jason Simkin & 2. Marstons (Defendants). Before District Judge Advent 9th & 24th September 2008

 

Mr Culligan challenged the bailiffs fees & charges imposed by Mr Simkin and Marstons when levying distress and seeking to remove Mr Culigans car for non-payment of a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Camden.

 

The Judgment goes a long way to clarify exactly what a Bailiff can charge for levying distress. Bailiffs have always sought to charge for fixing an immobilisation device by clamping a vehicle, and an attendance to remove. These charges in Anthony Culligan's case were £200 (£100 for the clamp and £100 for attendance to remove). The Bailiffs have argued that the Fee Regulations permit them to make a charge for levying distress (that is 28% on the first £200 demanded, and for removing goods, or attending to remove goods where no goods are removed, reasonable costs and charges). Bailiffs have claimed that the costs of putting on a clamp, etc. are costs to be included in attending to remove where no goods are removed, if payment is made before the vehicle concerned is removed.

 

 

 

 

DJ Avent, after considering Case Law and Statute, has found that the purpose of putting on a clamp is to "impound" the vehicle and is not part of the costs of removal. This is because:-

 

1. The Bailiff's obligation is to secure the vehicle, and the simplest and easiest way to do this is to "immobilise" it so it cannot be driven away. This is effectively the equal of impounding the goods.

 

2. The Fee Regulations provide for a distinction between the levying of distress and removal of goods. There is a gap between the two stages. The purpose of this "gap" is to allow the debtor to make payment of what is due after the first stage.

 

DJ Avent says at paragraph 50 of his Judgment:-

 

"Accordingly, in my judgment the bailiff should not and, as a matter of law cannot take any steps to remove goods until he has given the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay what is due at the time of seizure. This being so I cannot see that Form 7 can or should include any costs of removal. Mr. Simkin included on the Form 7 he produced for Mr. Culligan the sum of £100 in respect of the immobilisation device. If, as the Defendants now argue, that was part of the removal expenses, it should never have been included in Form 7".

 

The District Judge went on to find that the application of the clamp falls within the act of levying distress and does not form part of the removal process, whatever the Bailiff's Contract with Camden says.

 

The Bailiff also charged Anthony Culligan £100 for the " reasonable costs " of removing the vehicle (although the vehicle was never actually removed) in that a tow truck was called and actually arrived at Anthony Culligan's home. Because the Bailiff produced no evidence as to how the charge had been arrived at he was unable to show that it was reasonable.

 

The District Judge in his conclusion says:

 

"I am also conscious that my findings in this case ... may have wider consequences and may cause problems for bailiffs because they will not be able to charge for immobilising a vehicle as a separate charge but must include it within the cost of levying distress. To do otherwise would, in my judgment, be unlawful... I would also add that if the Defendant or either of them in the light of this judgment now continued to apply such charges in the manner in which they have done up to now and, specifically, charge fees of £100 for applying an immobilisation device then that would amount to conduct which may well then found a legitimate complaint because in my judgment it would be unlawful....".

 

What this means in effect is that Bailiffs who continue to make unlawful charges may be guilty of misconduct and have their Certificates removed.

 

You should know however that Marstons obtained permission to appeal from the District Judge. His reasons for granting the permission were :

 

"The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheelclamping before.

My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking.

 

Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard"

 

 

Bailiffs chose not to pursue appeal of detailed assesment decision topics The baillif company having been granted leave to appeal the decsion have decided not to pursue the application

 

The Judge had specified in granting permission to appeal "The bailiff was following the practice in force for 15 years. No one has challenged the right to charge for wheelclamping before.

 

My decision that they cannot do so (at least to the extent that they have charged until now) not only affects the London Borough of Camden but also every Borough with de-criminalised parking.

 

Accordingly, it has significant local and possible National implications and that is a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for the info. my car was not clamped but was towed on 11/05/09 at 6.30am according to POLICE since TRACE could not get any info on thier system. My car is registered at eastbourne and towed from some london address. I made two different payments to marstons (1)580.20 on there website with receipt and requested for the car and was told i need another 152.56 which they could not explain reasons for extra cost. I obliged to realese the car to avoid more cost. I work in london and stay eastborne over weekends. have only received three letters from marstons noting more. Apart from the two above the third was sent a day after the removal.

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars7a.jpg. I would write using the dowloaded template from this site requesting more info, as my initial letter to marstons might have been vague.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have enclosed links of communication with marstons, and my recent request. I would like to check if marstons claims are unfair and exorbitant, if so i would like to claim for some refund if possible were errors can be identified. thanks in advance.

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars1a.jpg

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars2a.jpg

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars3.jpg

http://s561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars4.jpg

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars5a.jpg

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars6a.jpg

 

 

Thank you so much for posting this.

 

I am staggered that Marston Group are charging fees such as this. In particular in light of the ruling by District Judge Avent in the case of Anthony Culligan v Marston Group.

 

In addition, questions need to be asked as to how this company have calculated "levy charges" of £177.43!! What is this for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for the info. my car was not clamped but was towed on 11/05/09 at 6.30am according to POLICE since TRACE could not get any info on thier system. My car is registered at eastbourne and towed from some london address. I made two different payments to marstons (1)580.20 on there website with receipt and requested for the car and was told i need another 152.56 which they could not explain reasons for extra cost. I obliged to realese the car to avoid more cost. I work in london and stay eastborne over weekends. have only received three letters from marstons noting more. Apart from the two above the third was sent a day after the removal.

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss53/deepmind/mars7a.jpg. I would write using the dowloaded template from this site requesting more info, as my initial letter to marstons might have been vague.

.

 

 

I have just read the documents again and can you confirm that you wrote to Marston Group on 20th May AND 3rd June but that they failed to respond to both letters until 27th July.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to jump in on your thread, but my son received a letter from them in June for alleged "multiple offences" in 2005, to the tune of £285.00. I wrote back on his behalf, requesting an explanation of these offences.

They wrote back "Vehicle fail to comply with double white lines and using a mobile whilst driving". They refuse to enter further correspondence and say that are instructed to enforce entry. I have written again asking for make,model and registration no. of vehicle. My son has not had received any other notification of this fine. I have also taking the precaution of sending a letter from his girlfriend, who owns the house and contents as recommended on CAG, to protect her and her child

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to jump in on your thread, but my son received a letter from them in June for alleged "multiple offences" in 2005, to the tune of £285.00. I wrote back on his behalf, requesting an explanation of these offences.

They wrote back "Vehicle fail to comply with double white lines and using a mobile whilst driving". They refuse to enter further correspondence and say that are instructed to enforce entry. I have written again asking for make,model and registration no. of vehicle. My son has not had received any other notification of this fine. I have also taking the precaution of sending a letter from his girlfriend, who owns the house and contents as recommended on CAG, to protect her and her child

 

Taking the side of Marston Group for one minute they DO NOT have any obligation to write to you UNLESS your son had provided a Letter of Authority.

 

if your son has not received any notification of these fines then he simply needs to file a STATUTORY DECLARATION with the Magistrates Court that issued the original fines.

 

HOWEVER...

 

There is a STRICT TIME LIMIT in which this can be done. He MUST send this within 21 days of becoming aware of the fact !!!

Edited by tomtubby
Link to post
Share on other sites

mummybird,

 

The offences you mention sound like fixed penalties issued by a police officer. Is this is the case, a statutory declaration by your son suggesting he knew nothing of the offences will be useless as details of where to pay and by when are printed on the back!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...