Rude Marston bailiff clamped my car and charging excessive fees

[spitfire650]

I know exactly what you mean, bailiffs, wheel clampers, debt collectors and other worthless parasites of their ilk all originate from the same pit of human excrement and ought to be swiftly terminated on sight.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

The Troll has gone again, after spouting the usual B S or giving misinformation

[splackaveli]

About the finance agreement guys. it means nothing. All it is is a piece of paper. the bailiff can keep your car clamped while he checks with the finance company to see if it is on finance(this can take a number of days). the finace company will tell him yes or no and will also tell him if he can sell the car. i removed one the other day that was on finance. the finace company aggreed to the removal as long as they were paid what they were owed out of the proceeds of the sale. (it will only happen this way if the amount the car will fetch at auction will exceed what is owed to the finance company) and also will only usually happen if you have been had a poor history with the finance company.

 

With regards to the bailiff letting the tyre down, how did he let it down? if he punctured the tyre then yes it is criminal damage but not if he let it down via the valve. if he let it down so far that the rim crushed the rubber then again, that would be criminal damage but proving it is the problem.

 

as i said before, i am trying to help here(although it may not sound like it)

 

Actually your wrong, I spoke with the finance company and they said the bailiff could not remove the car, however they said it was ok for him to immobilise it.

 

Further more, I am not behind with my payments and I am not in any debt, apart from this fine which I was unaware about in the 1st place.

 

I have called Marston and asked for a breakdown, as well as having requested it in writing.

 

Over the phone they gave me a partial breakdown, apparently they have "visited" me 3 times:

 

£49.50 1st visit 17/06/2009 unknown time)

£58.60 2nd visit 26/08/2009 at 7.10am)

£59.90 3rd visit (18/09/2009 at 6.20am)

 

First of all, they have not visited me prior to 18/09/2009, as I have not had any letters through my door or any contact and there would have been someone home on those dates, I dont even leave for work until 8.00am and my partner would have been at home with our son as only started at school last week.

 

Secondly, he only knocked on my door on 18/09/2009 after 8am, which means he clamped the car at 6.20am and came back later, meaning that he deliberately clamped the car to bump up the amount outstanding and it is dubious whether he actually visited in June and August at all.

 

And if he did visit those days, why did he not clamp the car then? As it would have been on the driveway as it was on Friday when he clamped it, as I get public transport to work.

 

They have also included a £11.20 letter fee for a letter "sent" in April.

 

The woman on the phone told me the total outstanding was £355.40, I informed her that the bailiff was charging me £556.64.

 

She put me on hold for ages and came back and said the remainder was for clamp charges, which the judgement against the bailiff and his company specifically states is unlawful for them to charge.

[ambershadow]

Complain to the bailiffs office and if you get no joy file a form 4

 

They can't charge you al that and clamping fee's christ whats wrong with these parasites

[spitfire650]

Personally I would just cut their clamp off and throw it in the river.

 

Alternatively, if the vehicle is illegally clamped, which seems to the consensus of opinion, excepting Mr BS, you are entitled to hire a car and seek the costs from Marstons.

[Guest Thebailiff]

Personally I would just cut their clamp off and throw it in the river.

 

Alternatively, if the vehicle is illegally clamped, which seems to the consensus of opinion, excepting Mr BS, you are entitled to hire a car and seek the costs from Marstons.

 

lol be quiet and go somewher else to play please.

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

With reference to the clamping fee I expect Marstons do not know you are aware of the Judgement.

[Guest Thebailiff]

Actually your wrong, I spoke with the finance company and they said the bailiff could not remove the car, however they said it was ok for him to immobilise it.

 

Further more, I am not behind with my payments and I am not in any debt, apart from this fine which I was unaware about in the 1st place.

 

I have called Marston and asked for a breakdown, as well as having requested it in writing.

 

Over the phone they gave me a partial breakdown, apparently they have "visited" me 3 times:

 

£49.50 1st visit 17/06/2009 unknown time)

£58.60 2nd visit 26/08/2009 at 7.10am)

£59.90 3rd visit (18/09/2009 at 6.20am)

 

First of all, they have not visited me prior to 18/09/2009, as I have not had any letters through my door or any contact and there would have been someone home on those dates, I dont even leave for work until 8.00am and my partner would have been at home with our son as only started at school last week.

 

Secondly, he only knocked on my door on 18/09/2009 after 8am, which means he clamped the car at 6.20am and came back later, meaning that he deliberately clamped the car to bump up the amount outstanding and it is dubious whether he actually visited in June and August at all.

 

And if he did visit those days, why did he not clamp the car then? As it would have been on the driveway as it was on Friday when he clamped it, as I get public transport to work.

 

They have also included a £11.20 letter fee for a letter "sent" in April.

 

The woman on the phone told me the total outstanding was £355.40, I informed her that the bailiff was charging me £556.64.

 

She put me on hold for ages and came back and said the remainder was for clamp charges, which the judgement against the bailiff and his company specifically states is unlawful for them to charge.

 

most of the things like letter fee's and admin fee's willbe removed if you question them. some comanies try to add them in the hope they wont be noticed but will remove them if asked as they dont want hassle from you. (they know if you take em to court over those things, they will lose)

 

the finance comany will not allow him to remove the car if you are a good account holder as they will get their money so it no problem for them to tell the bailiff to go swivel. if you were behind on payments however, its an easy way for them to get there money. but like i said, only the finance company can authorise removal of that car. the bailiff can clamp the car as soon as he arrives as he is entitled to remove goods on the first visit. he does not have to give wp and let you have 5 days to sort it out.

 

with regards to the visits, ask for the bailiffs milage for the days in question along with visited postcodes for the day to see if it works out. also ask fgor a copy of his reports from the visits. If you have cctv in your street, ask the local authority for it (i only found out the other day that they have no problem releasing recordings from cctv and they hold no less than 3 months worth).

 

im not sure on charges for bailiffs collecting fines so i would be unable to comment on that aspect.

[Guest Thebailiff]

The Troll has gone again, after spouting the usual B S or giving misinformation

 

are you on about spitfire or someone else? (like me!)

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Spitfire is not a troll

[Guest Thebailiff]

Spitfire is not a troll

 

well today it seems, he is doing a pretty good job of convincing me he is!

[dawnwb]

the bailiff can clamp the car as soon as he arrives as he is entitled to remove goods on the first visit. he does not have to give wp and let you have 5 days to sort it out.

 

Well this isnt what Judge Avent thought when he made judgment againt Marston Group. He seems to think that on the first visit the bailiff should tell you what goods hes going to take, then go away and give you chance to pay.

I mean if you have never had the first letter (which seems to be common practice for Marston Group!) Then all of a sudden some chap claiming to be a bailiff turns up on your door step, in my case at 10am while i was at work, and then leaves me a bill for £525. Or in this case just clamps your bloody car! No wonder people are taking people like you to court.

Cant you understand that its totaly unacceptable behaviour, at least now we have a Judge who thinks it is!!

You say your here to help, take it from me......YOUR NOT!

[spitfire650]

So they stick a wheel clamp on someone's car then knock on the door, talk some crap for a few minutes, and walk away with £525 of their hard earned cash?

 

Aside from everything else, the amount these parasites charge is outrageous. Many people would have to put in a full weeks work to earn that and as the bailiff's would be strictly minimum wage material if they had a real job, £20 would be more than generous.

[ambershadow]

So they stick a wheel clamp on someone's car then knock on the door, talk some crap for a few minutes, and walk away with £525 of their hard earned cash?

 

Aside from everything else, the amount these parasites charge is outrageous. Many people would have to put in a full weeks work to earn that and as the bailiff's would be strictly minimum wage material if they had a real job, £20 would be more than generous.

 

 

Thats exactly what they did to me... and three years after the fact and I knew nothing about it but they said yes you do?????????????

[%Ostrich%]

The woman on the phone told me the total outstanding was £355.40, I informed her that the bailiff was charging me £556.64.

 

She put me on hold for ages and came back and said the remainder was for clamp charges, which the judgement against the bailiff and his company specifically states is unlawful for them to charge.

 

She probably phoned the bailiff and was told the extra charges were a result of the car being clamped. If you look at Marston's Fees...

 

Marston Group - Debtors help - Road Traffic Act 1991 and Traffic Management Act 2004

 

you'll see near the bottom the "ATR" of £175 which when VAT is added totals £201.25 (making the debt £556.64). Marston's would probably argue this fee comes under "reasonable costs" for "Attending to remove where no goods are removed" as per the fee regulations.

 

As such,I wouldn't bother contesting a supposed "clamp fee" based on DJ Avent's ruling as it will simply be dismissed with supporting evidence in relation to the ATR.

 

 

 

Well this isnt what Judge Avent thought when he made judgment againt Marston Group. He seems to think that on the first visit the bailiff should tell you what goods hes going to take, then go away and give you chance to pay.

I mean if you have never had the first letter (which seems to be common practice for Marston Group!) Then all of a sudden some chap claiming to be a bailiff turns up on your door step, in my case at 10am while i was at work, and then leaves me a bill for £525. Or in this case just clamps your bloody car! No wonder people are taking people like you to court.

Cant you understand that its totaly unacceptable behaviour, at least now we have a Judge who thinks it is!!

You say your here to help, take it from me......YOUR NOT!

 

 

While I don't have the benefit of his entire ruling in front of me, from what I've read here.....

 

London Motorists Action Group - Detailed assesment of Marstons Bailiff - National implications

 

the Judge is not saying that the bailiff MUST LEVY and THEN GO AWAY to allow time to pay. He merely points out that there is a clear distinction between levying distress and removing goods (a gap between the two stages). This is in relation to the charging of a "clamp fee" and that it shouldn't form part of the "removal costs" when "attending to remove where no goods are removed".

 

Regardless of your own feelings, a warrant of execution specifically states that if the respondent fails to settle the warrant along with the bailiff's reasonable costs), that the bailiff is entitled to remove goods to the required value. A warrant of execution does not state that the bailiff will levy your goods, go away and give you time to submit a late stat dec so Thebailiff is correct in the statement you quoted and dismissed above.

 

 

 

Short of dispensing with bailiffs entirely (which isn't going to happen) I see only one way forward and that is for the abolition of the present system of "visit fees" and "reasonable costs" which is open to abuse. Replace it with a simple letter fee and 1 attendance fee regardless of how many times the bailiff visits and it should cut the number of complaints ten fold over night.

[dawnwb]

So what happens if you never got the first letter? Its ok for them to come along and charge an ATR? Reasonable costs? What is reasonable about £175 for pushing a letter through your door by hand?

 

I also have a question.

When bailiffs are granted thier certificate is it the court in the area where they live that grant them?

 

If marstons dont knock off the ATR I fully intend to put in a form 4 to complain about excessive charges, I dont care what it says on thier website. I wasnt given the chance to look at the website before my bailiff pushed his ATR through my door as this was the first time I had EVER heard from this company.

Im sure some people reading this would think "yeah right, shes just saying that, of course she got the letter" Well i didnt, im not stupid, i wouldnt wait for some guy to come round demanding my car, i would have called them and sorted it out.

Ive never been in this type of situation before and ive been a single working mother for the last 7yrs, i know how to deal with problems of this nature.

[dawnwb]

Could someone tell me if this is right please?

 

 

"It is very common indeed to either receive an initial letter by post or hand delivered from the bailiff, informing you that he will return within a day or so, with a van, and sometimes even a locksmith to seize or remove your goods for sale. Hopefully by reading this part of our site, you will see that before a bailiff can remove your goods there are legal procedures that he must previously have taken. Please remember, the bailiff must first have been into your home, and seized goods before he is allowed to return to remove them....and before he can try to charge an "attending to remove" fee !!"

 

That is what I interprated that Judge to be saying.

[binded]

The only bailiffs as far as I can see from any information including on direct gov, that have access to enter at this point in time (as the current review to give all bailiffs the authority has been postponed for review in 2012) is those collecting for the Inland Revenue. The rest must gain peaceful entry to a persons home via being invited or an unlocked door or window. Hence everyone on here and elsewhere on the web advise keeping your house secure whether your out or at home. Once they've had peaceful entry its slightly different, and from the posts (theres one I think now on the next page from this) where they have done a walking possession means they have to state there intentions of visiting to remove and the day.

 

That said it sounds like its in relation to a walking possession rather than levying on a vehicle so possibly it is a completely different context as of course a car is far easy to access as I know and if they are to tell you they are returning on xyz date I never received anything other than a 48 hour notice of which they turned up well after that had passed. So I am assuming they don't have to tell you as the first I heard of the car being clamped (though I'm not convinced my landlords car was now) was a phone message left whilst I was at work stating they were sat at my house at lunchtime and it would cost me £60 an hour for the priveledge, hopefully the declaration that should arrive with them very soon will stop all that for me, sadly not that easy for you.

 

I've no idea about the fine side of things other than what can be gleaned above as its written everywhere including as said government websites. I'm sure someone far knowledgeable than me will come along and give better support.

 

Only replied to say you not alone and have waffled on an awful lot. Anyway from another working single mom, hang in there

[dawnwb]

Judge Advent ruled against Marstons when it came to £100 removal fee(paragraph 62 of the judgment) he said " The same reasoning applies, namely, that the defendants" (marstons)" have produced no evidence as to how the charge"(ATR)" has been arrived at and therefore are unable to show that it is reasonable"

 

Its difficult to understand the whole judgment but from what i understand about this judgment is that unless marstons can show evidence of how they arrived at £175 for attendence to remove goods, they are very unlikely to win in a court of law. The Judge also makes comments about what Marstons and the council have agreed to charge, he seems to be saying that its irrelivent.

If anyone wants a full copy of this Judgment PM me

[dawnwb]

 

Only replied to say you not alone and have waffled on an awful lot. Anyway from another working single mom, hang in there

 

Thanks and its nice to know there are people here to help x

[tomtubby]

I wouldn't take too much notice of what "TheBailiff" has to say - just read some of his other posts and you will quickly realise he should not be taken seriously.

 

This is NOT true.

 

There have been thousands of questions posted here on the forums and we are lucky to have the opinion from somebody within the industry. Clearly, a lot of people will not like that opinion..... whether it is right or not..... but this is mainly due to the fact that there is a great deal of anger directed at the enforcement companies.

 

I have read The Bailiff's answers and although I do not agree with some of his answers mainly they are correct.

 

PS: I will NOT waver from my previous advice that a bailiff CANNOT remove a vehicle that is subject to HIRE PURCHASE !!! This is different from finance as the vehicle is merely being rented and is therefore OWNED by the hire company.

[Guest Happy Contrails]

She probably phoned the bailiff and was told the extra charges were a result of the car being clamped. If you look at Marston's Fees...

 

Marston Group - Debtors help - Road Traffic Act 1991 and Traffic Management Act 2004

 

you'll see near the bottom the "ATR" of £175 which when VAT is added totals £201.25 (making the debt £556.64). Marston's would probably argue this fee comes under "reasonable costs" for "Attending to remove where no goods are removed" as per the fee regulations.

 

As such,I wouldn't bother contesting a supposed "clamp fee" based on DJ Avent's ruling as it will simply be dismissed with supporting evidence in relation to the ATR.

 

That couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Just because Marston publish its own ideas of a fee schedule on the internet, it doesnt make it legally binding on any party. Marston cannot rebuke a legal ruling - only an Act of Parliament can do that. Publishing documents like that only imcriminates themselves because they are admitting to intending to defraud people of money under a pretence of charging bailiff fees.

 

LB Merton published its own fee schedule for council tax bailiffs on the internet but quickly deleted it when somebody captured it and handed it in evidence before a Judge in a council tax bailiff fee reclaim. Mertons goose was well & truly cooked.

 

[dawnwb]

She probably phoned the bailiff and was told the extra charges were a result of the car being clamped. If you look at Marston's Fees...

 

Marston Group - Debtors help - Road Traffic Act 1991 and Traffic Management Act 2004

 

you'll see near the bottom the "ATR" of £175 which when VAT is added totals £201.25 (making the debt £556.64). Marston's would probably argue this fee comes under "reasonable costs" for "Attending to remove where no goods are removed" as per the fee regulations.

 

As such,I wouldn't bother contesting a supposed "clamp fee" based on DJ Avent's ruling as it will simply be dismissed with supporting evidence in relation to the ATR.

 

The Judge decided that clamping must come under levy, as to imobilise a car by putting a clamp in it is levy so therefore can not come under resonable costs to remove as clamping has got nothing to do with removing. So Marstons could only charge 28% off the debt for the levy fee and not £100 for clamping fee. He also dismissed the £100 for the ATR as marstons could not show evidence of the costs that amounted to £100

 

Please correct me if im wrong because its tough reading the judgement when you dont really understand what they are talking about

[splackaveli]

Hey mate, just got back in from taking my son to school by bus and noticed that the bailiff has come back and removed the clamp, he never knocked on the door as my girlfriend was in and he hasnt any notice whatsoever.

 

What should I do now? Play the waiting game as I have sent in an Out Of Time Declaration and asked Marston for a breakdown of the fees.

 

Anyone think he will be back to clamp the car? Should I hide it?

[ambershadow]

You will now get correspondence from the tec who will notify you of what the outcome is