Forced Entry (criminal fines) Not my property, Statutory Declaration of Ownership has been done.

[empty_cashcow]

ok, first of all I want to issue a warning to all who post on these forums, I have been on these forums before under a different account and I don't know how they did it but the bailiffs (marstons) knew that I had been on here, I thought I had been adequately vague in my posts but it seems I was not, so you will have to forgive my lack of detail in the following posts and I hope you are able to help from what I can (hopefully) safely say.

 

 

The other person who lives in the house with me owns all the items inside the property. (literally all items)

That person has done a Statutory declaration to declare just that.

Marstons have acknowledged receiving the statutory declaration via letter.

In the same letter they have indicated they wish to attend to "verify" details I am unable to provide.

Their rude employee on the phone informs me they will come with a locksmith to "verify" these issues, but doesn't know what it is that needs to be verified (the letter does not state it either)

 

They have not attended the property at all yet.

 

Now I have a few questions if anybody is able to answer I would be extremely grateful.

 

Now they have admitted receiving the statutory declaration, are they able to overrule what it says and remove goods anyway?

If not are they still able to force entry to the property even though they can't remove any goods?

 

 

 

And this is the most troublesome question, of which there seems to be very little specific info available...

 

How exactly are they allowed to "force entry"?

without going into detail, it would be impossible for a locksmith to open our front or back door without using some sort of battering ram to smash it through.

Are they allowed to smash windows?

 

 

This is for an unpaid criminal fine from a magistrates court which I received many years ago, and had paid most of it off before I became unable to continue to pay (i did inform the court at the time)

[brassnecked]

I would have thought they would be told that Noddy masquerading as a bailiff and their tame locksmith, who we will call Big Ears, who drilled and damaged someone else's property, viz a door lock, assuming you have no interest beyond a lodger, by Mr Plod that they had been "Very Naughty Indeed", and would feel their collars. Really on this one tomtubby may be your girl, but I'm sure others will know more also

 

If they have sent a letter of that nature, and they insist they need to drill someones lock to force entry to rifle though belongings looking for proofs of ownership and receipts in their name, in the occupier's absence, because they choose to ignore a Stat Dec, and Noddy, taking the stereo, and microwave and the laptop and bearing it off for auction in his little car, needs to be part of a letter to your MP and the Court manager imho

[empty_cashcow]

Thanks brassneck, They would need much more than drill to open any door to this house, after a spate of "smash 'n' grabs" being done by the local scrotes in the area during the middle of the night, the owner of this house, along with many other house owners in the street reinforced their doors and frames, I'm not sure if they all went as far as has been done to the doors here, but you would most definitely not be getting in via the use of a drill.

 

This house is NEVER unattended I certainly will not be leaving the house until this is sorted, and all the reinforcements are in place as long as somebody is inside. not to mention that 'reinforcement' will include me holding the door shut if needs be. (would I be breaking the law if I did this?)

 

But if they are allowed to smash windows and climb through then there is little I suppose can be done to stop them, for safety the owner had to stop short of barring all the upstairs windows.

 

I tried to contact the court about what the bailiffs have said, but they say "it is out of there hands now", and I really wouldn't bother wasting a stamp by writing to my MP. (won't go into detail, but he is not sympathetic of people who owe fines in the slightest)

 

I have arranged a webcam (with sound) in the front area of the house so everything will be recorded if anything happens, but I just can't find out exactly what rights they have when it comes to breaking in. If they can do it by any means they choose then I am surely fighting a losing battle.

[empty_cashcow]

Just for clarity, these are the specific questions that I am struggling to find an answer for...

 

Now they have admitted receiving the statutory declaration, are they able to overrule what it says and remove goods anyway?

If not are they still able to force entry to the property even though they can't remove any goods?

 

How exactly are they allowed to "force entry"?

Are they allowed to smash windows?

[ploddertom]

If they attend there is nothing that says you either have to deal or speak to them. Whatever happens do not answer the door - that then avoids the foot in the door trick. To force entry they would need the permission of the Court and I would imagine you are quite a way from that happening. As this is for a criminal fine(s) I would have thought you possibly may stand the chance of being lifted on an arrest warrant whereby you could be hauled back before the Court to explain your non-payment. If it is because you cannot afford to pay then I was under the impression you could attend under your own steam and tell them this - although I am of the ancient ilk I may have my wires crossed on this as time has marched on.

 

If at the end of the day they do eventually force entry then they have to make good any damage caused which is why they use a locksmith - then charge you for the privilege. If your Stat Dec has been done correctly then it should stand up OK as if proven otherwise you or the other person could be at risk of perverting the course of justice, obstruction or contempt - this procedure should never be done lightly.

 

HTH

 

PT

[empty_cashcow]

So if I'm reading your post right ploddertom, it seems that they can decide they don't believe the statutory declaration is true, and force entry to try to confirm this? (this would seem to render a Stautory Declaration of Ownership useless)

 

It is 100% correct and true that all items within the boundaries of the property belong solely to the person who sworn the Declaration. The solicitor helped them word the declaration, so I can only assume it is done correctly.

 

 

I would be more than happy to be arrested or go back to court under any circumstances, this is my debt and I fully accept that, I am just completely unable to discharge the debt and do not own any items that can be levied against. I am only concerned about the owners house and their possessions which are inside it.

I would imagine if the bailiff can ignore the statutory declaration and make his own mind up as to who owns the items inside, that he could quite reasonably assume some of the items inside the house are mine [although they are not] I do reside in this house and use some of the items that the owner possesses, in some cases as if they are my own. I thought the declaration took the decision making out of the bailiffs hands.

[ploddertom]

So if I'm reading your post right ploddertom, it seems that they can decide they don't believe the statutory declaration is true, and force entry to try to confirm this? (this would seem to render a Stautory Declaration of Ownership useless)

 

 

They would need to establish it was wrong first. The Stat Dec is a legal doc and they would need some very good grounds to question it. However if for instance you were driving around in a vehicle emblazoned with Joe's Builders on it and someone called Mionnie said it was theirs then yes it would be questionable. I think you are worrying too much and believing them, which of course is what they want you to believe. I assume you have read all the threads on here where this has actually happened?

 

PT

[fork-it]

 

The other person who lives in the house with me owns all the items inside the property. (literally all items)

That person has done a Statutory declaration to declare just that.

Marstons have acknowledged receiving the statutory declaration via letter.

In the same letter they have indicated they wish to attend to "verify" details I am unable to provide.

 

The request to "verify" can be disregarded because the statutory declaration is enough.

 

 

 

 

They have not attended the property at all yet.

 

Now I have a few questions if anybody is able to answer I would be extremely grateful.

 

Now they have admitted receiving the statutory declaration, are they able to overrule what it says and remove goods anyway?

 

Nothing legal can allow a bailiff to pervert a staturory declation. Its the law: Statutory Declarations Act 1835

 

 

If not are they still able to force entry to the property even though they can't remove any goods?

 

No.

 

 

And this is the most troublesome question, of which there seems to be very little specific info available...

 

How exactly are they allowed to "force entry"?

 

Police and others have different definitions of "Forced Entry"

 

To the majority it means "breaking and entering" under common law inflicting damage to property in the meaning of Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

 

Police define it a bailiff being able to enter a property without permission, and without causing and damage or coming into physical contact with a person.

 

 

without going into detail, it would be impossible for a locksmith to open our front or back door without using some sort of battering ram to smash it through.

 

They can pick the locks and get into property without damaging them. But a locksmith is not going to risk a criminal record interfering with the locks of someones property just because a bailiff has asked him. He could be liable for burglary because the locksmith does not carry a document saying he is authorised to enter a property without permission.

 

Are they allowed to smash windows?

 

No. To break into a property he needs a breaking in order signed by a magistrate. Ive never known a magistrate to grant one for a bailiff collecting a fine. These are for police officers to raid a property suspected in being involved in crime.

 

 

This is for an unpaid criminal fine from a magistrates court which I received many years ago, and had paid most of it off before I became unable to continue to pay (i did inform the court at the time)

 

It will probably come to nothing. Just dont confirm your name. Most unpaid fines that reach bailiffs are usually DOA cases.

 

You are not liable for any "fees" on court fines. There is no law setting them, and there is no contract between you and a bailiff saying you have agreed to pay him fees. They will always try on the £75 +£200 fees racket and that goes straight in his pocket.

[empty_cashcow]

I am indeed worrying, and I have read a lot of the threads on here (still making my way through some of them)

 

The one thing that I noticed in threads is as soon as it gets noted that it is a criminal fine, it gets said that "yes they can force entry" as this is a criminal fine, I thought I was being sensible in worrying, as it is not the normal case of the bailiff making up powers he doesn't really have, in my case they seem to have the power to break into the house. is that not so?

 

edit --> Thank you Fork it, your post makes me feel a lot better about the situation

[ploddertom]

I am indeed worrying, and I have read a lot of the threads on here (still making my way through some of them)

 

And in how many has entry been forced?

 

PT

[empty_cashcow]

And in how many has entry been forced?

 

PT

Touché

[empty_cashcow]

If they are not permitted to smash windows or use a battering ram against the door, I have no worries.

 

I would happily watch a locksmith try to pick the locks he thinks are holding the doors shut until he is blue in the face, I'm sure it would make a pretty good youtube video watching a locksmith fail until he gets bored and gives up.

 

But as PT points out, that seemingly has never happened.

 

[ploddertom]

 

But as PT points out, that seemingly has never happened.

 

 

Precisely. This is something that is a possibility but permission to do so is very rarely given if at all.

 

PT

[empty_cashcow]

So am I right in thinking that they would have to get further permission from a court before taking such actions, and it is not written into the order that has been issued to collect the debt?

 

Or is already there and they can escalate it themselves if they can justify taking such an extraordinary measure? (after reading what i just typed, im guessing it has to be the first one, or they could just concoct a story to justify it)

[empty_cashcow]

Does anybody have a copy of an warrant/order that has been issued to a bailiff over a magistrates fine?

or does anybody have the exact text that it would contain?

[rattlywelshboy]

Hi Everyone,

 

Need a little assistance with the Marston Group and a Magistrates fine. I had a fine back in 2008 from Sussex HMCS for not having any car tax (my bad and I accept it was wrong), the fine was for £191.25 of which I paid £140.00. I moved home not long after but before I moved I sent the remaining payment of £51.25 and details of my new address incase of any further queries. I have received nothing for nearly 2 years until last week when I received a letter fromthe Marston Group Bailiffs demanding £326.25 for the unpaid fine, I have called them and questioned the amount and the have told me that it is made up of £51.25 passed to them by Sussex HMCS (as they say they did not receive my letter and final payment) a £75.00 acceptance fee of the case referred to them and also a £200.00 fee for visting my old address. I explained that I have never been visited by their bailiff but she just said that allthough I wasn't at the old address when they visited I still have to pay the attendance fee.

 

I have called Sussex HMCS and have asked them to recall the debt from Marstons and I will pay off the £51.25 left from the original fine but she says that they are not allowed to do this as this is the Law and I cannot question the fees structure of marstons as it is a Magistrates Fine.

 

Is this correct or can I complete a form and ask for it to be recalled? I have until Friday to sort out..

 

Thanks

[empty_cashcow]

Well thanks for the questions you folks did answer, but it seems my latest couple of questions are too much.

 

 

welshboy, I think you would be better off making a new thread fro your problem.