Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If you are flying away tomorrow (or rather this) morning I'd just forget about complaining to the police now.  As BF said earlier it's probably just a waste of your time anyway so I wouldn't worry about it.  Forget it for now.  Have a safe flight and concentrate on your other thread against Aviva.
    • I'm afraid you won't get a complaint drafted before tomorrow morning - and I think most others here think it would be a waste of time anyway and that the police decision won't change.  I would ask for a review and make a complaint on principle, but I suspect you are better off concentrating your effort on your other thread and direct complaint against Aviva.   Unless you are out of the country for an extended period I'd wait until your return before considering futrther whwther to complain about the police.   [ By the way, just so that you don't mislead yourself as it's a mistake many people make, ALL agreements are "verbal" in that they are composed of words.  Some agreements are in writing and others are oral, spoken or vocal.  The law recognises oral or spoken agreements just as much as ones that are written down.  The only practical difference is that oral agreements can be difficult to prove in a dispute]
    • Just to add there is a scheme called the Victim's Right to Review.  It basically applies to decisions made by the CPS not to go ahead with a prosecution.  It doesn't apply to decisions made by local police forces, but it does say:   19.  Decisions that are not eligible for VRR include: ... iii where the police or other investigator exercises their independent discretion not to investigate or not to investigate a case further (whether in consultation with the CPS or not) and the CPS have not been requested / have been unable to make a final decision to charge. Requests for review of such decisions should instead be addressed to the relevant police force/other investigator; [My bold] Victims' Right to Review Scheme | The Crown Prosecution Service WWW.CPS.GOV.UK   I'm not familiar with the scheme so can't advise - but other posters here may know about it or have experience of it.  You need to read the above link but note that it talks about things that seem to fit your situation.   eg a victim is defined as ‘a person who has made an allegation that they have suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by criminal conduct’.   If you have not already requested that the police review their decision not to pass the case onto the CPS, then I would do so.  If you are not happy with the outcome of that, complain.   I can't advise you definitely to go ahead and ask for a review or complain, but if I were in your situation that is what I would do.  But I tend to agree with BankFodder that you'll get nowhere and, if you are sick and tired of all this and just want it to go away, then just drop the police.  However, if you don't try...   [Apologies for the italic typeface/font - it's the above link causing it.  The italics should have stopped at the end of the third para above ending ' ... criminal conduct'.  I can't change it.  Very annoying]
    • @Manxman in exile I eloped to get with my husband si my husband and siblings never sat together in the same room .   Hes claiming a verbal agreement was made but a verbal agreement doesn't hold any water in the eyes of the law..no agreement was made I was in Leeds with my toddler.    He has made use of the policy , had the luxury of the insurance and reversed the money back and now Aviva are coming after me.   You've summed it up well is there anyone in the group that can help me draft the complaint to the police as I'm flying out first thing tomorrow and my head is all over the place.   My husband me Mr z , my late father and eldest brother were at this meeting supposedly when the verbal agreement was made but yet the officer took a statement off the eldest brother and didn't take it off the husband and based the final decision on the eldest brothers statement and Mr Z and all other evidence which is in written form has been completely dismissed    I'm fighting it all alone coming from an Asian background I am getting taunts and salt is bring rubbed on my wounds its not been a pleasant experience yo say the least trying to prove my innocence and having to listen to the b******* being spouted out by everyone whilst Mr Z is walking away not guilty 
    • I would complain to the police - even if I thought it would go nowhere.  I can't see that you have anything to lose.   I can't tell you the grounds of your complaint because I don't know the details of everything that has happened (you know better than I do)  and because I've found much of the story too difficult to follow.     But - based on everything you have told us - it seems to me that your brother has clearly committed fraud by obtaining the benefit of an insurance policy by falsely misrepresenting that he was opening the policy on your behalf and also by falsely misrepresenting himself - or a third party - as being your husband.  If your brother could not have taken out that policy without making those misrepresentations, then he has committed fraud.  It doesn't matter whether the victim was Aviva or you  and it doesn't matter if the victim realises they've been defrauded or not - the police should investigate it properly.  In this case you are the ultimate victim of the fraud because Aviva are saying that you owe them for the premiums on the policy your brother fraudulently took out, so whether Aviva consider they were the victims of fraud or not is irrelevant - they don't care because you end up as the fall guy.  Point out that this may have ended in a civil dispute over a debt between you and Aviva, but that that debt directly arises as a result of your brother's fraud in claiming to be acting on your behalf and by impersonating your brother.   One of the reasons the police seem to have dropped this case (and this needs to be one of your main grounds of complaint I think) is that they have accepted without question your brother's statement that your husband was somehow involved or in some way agreed to your brother taking this policy out in your name, and the police have simply and uncritically accepted your brother's word on that without ever speaking to your husband, who would vigourously deny it.    (I can't make any better suggestion than that because, to be honest, I don't follow what has happened.  If you never authorised your brother to open this insurance policy at all then I don't understand why the police would place any importance at all on your husband being present at a meeting with your brother.  What did your husband's presence have to do with the insurance policy?  Even if he had been at such meeting (which you say he denies) then how could he authorise anything on your behalf?  None of it makes any sense to me and I can't see why the police would think it did.)   Challenge the police to explain to you why they believe there is insufficient evidence to pass this on to the CPS   I would follow the published complaints procedure of the police force in question and I would also send a copy to your local Police and Crime Commissioner.   I think the main problem here is that (despite what the nice woman PC may have suggested to you) the police have never considered you to be the victim.  You need to demonstrate to them via your complaint that you are the victim here.   One other question: is your husband and are your family supporting you through this, or are you going it alone?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3734 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

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

and the one I looked at a minute ago is just gone offline: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex345.pdf It might come back up.

 

Do a search on the forums too. theres several posters the same as you who didnt have to pay the fees.

Entitled to charge for services is not the same as being ordered to pay them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, conflicting evidence. Do you fancy being a Guinea Pig?

 

Start the official court service complaints procedure: and read this taken from another post.

 

This poster contacted the Magistrates court manager about a bailiff (Phillips) who charged her "fees" for collecing an unpaid fine - and if by magic, the fees disappeared,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ml#post2547500

 

This poster recovered his fees from the bailiffs for a Bus Lane fine after filing a Form N1 in the county courtlink3.gif naming the bailiffs as the defendant. The bailiffs refunded all the fees, but only on condition of NO ADVERSE PUBLICITY against them.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-action-2.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bartok.

 

For the past 2 years either you or another poster have been stating that a debtor is not responsible for paying fees to either Marston Group or Philips in relation to court FINES.

 

I have a copy of the Contract between HMCS and the relevant parties and this does allow both companies to charge fee to the debtor. The letter from HMCS also states the same.

 

Lord Lucas kindly raised this query in the House of Lords and April 2009 and response can be seen in the follwoing link:

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2009-04-02a.261.4&s=Criminal+procedure+rules+2005+speaker%3A13301#g261.5

 

On a personal basis, [EDIT]. I have come across many people who have taken the advice on here and refused to pay the fees to either company and enforcement has continued against them. I cannot and WILL NOT advise a debtor not to pay the fees. That is their choice.

 

Behind the scenes I have written many letters on this subject as like you, I have had doubts but I have not received anything yet that PROVES that the fees are not chargeable.

 

Also, I have not as yet seen ANY PROOF that either company will walk away if the debtor refuses to pay either the admin fee of £75 or the visit fee of £200. If PROOF is provided, then the position may well be different.

 

A previous poster ?? had frequently listed 3 cases here on CAG where fees had been "apparently" been written off. None of these relate to an unpaid court FINE and furthermore, I posted on here approximately 3 months ago to dispute that the fees had been written off (this was on the basis that I have assisted 2 of the 3 debtors , and in once case, her complaint is ONGOING!!).

 

If these were CIVIL debts the position would be far simpler as the debtor could simply refuse to allow the bailiff entry into the property. These are CRIMINAL offences and whether we like it or nor, they attract the right of FORCED ENTRY.

 

Care must be given with the advice on here as to whether to pay the admin or visit fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The links above are both fines, one is a bus lane fine. What kind of proof are you looking for?

 

Have you been telling posters to pay fees on fines then? and discovered they didnt have to pay them after all. Quite a responsibility for your company professional indemnity insurance policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for starting a dispute, I read extensive threads on here, and there seemed to be a contradiction in advice. Certainly if you read Form EX345, it states (contrary to what people think) that CEO's are fully entitled to charge for their services.

 

So whats your advice Tomtubby (feel free to preface it as without predjudice!) - Pay the fine and the fees? or dig my heels in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toms link above is a good source, follow it to the legislation quoted and it says a costs order or a Fees Order is needed, and gives the procedure that must be followed. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/39/section/92

 

So far we only have a contract between bailiff and court. Nothing to do with the person paying the fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The links above are both fines, one is a bus lane fine. What kind of proof are you looking for?

 

Have you been telling posters to pay fees on fines then? and discovered they didnt have to pay them after all. Quite a responsibility for your company professional indemnity insurance policy.[/QUOTE]

 

Both links are NOT OK !!

 

In one case, the fees were cancelled AFTER the poster had made a complaint to the HMCS Contracts Manager concerning the MANNER in which the enforcement was undertaken.

 

In the 2nd case, I have actually been assisting this person and know the case VERY WELL. The case involves an unpaid PARKING TICKET issued by Reading Council !! It is NOT and let me repeat ONCE AGAIN...... a Court FINE.

 

This case that both you, Happy Contrails and Fork-It are quoting on endless posts is NOT relating to a Magistrates Court FINE !!!!

 

This is giving the wrong impression to poster here on CAG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually read this stuff?

 

Philips are employed by the courts to collect the fines

 

which are handled by the magistrates court.

 

bus lane contravention.

 

Which is handled by TFL and it doesnt set a statutory Fees order.

 

Since when has Philips been instructed by a court to collect parking tickets?

 

Since 1992 its councils that instruct the bailiffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BARTOK

 

Let me repeat ONCE again, you are wrong.

 

Philips have a Contract with City of Westminster to enforce unpaid PARKING TICKETS.

 

In addition, they ALSO have a Contract with HMCS to enforce unpaid Magistrate COURT FINES.

 

A Transport for London Bus Lane Contravention is merely a civil debt and is enforced like all other local authority issued parking tickets under the regulations set by the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in view of all this we must be Absolutely sure under which head, a company are collecting, Bailiff for HMCS on a criminal matter, TFL or Council PCN or even if Phillips or A.N.Other bailiffs are actually just acting as a Debt Collection Agency and inferring they are coming in as bailiffs. we must also remember if it is a civil case at county court it will not be precedent until confirmed at a higher court, so could be disregarded in a similar case elsewhere.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BARTOK

 

Philips have a Contract with City of Westminster to enforce unpaid PARKING TICKETS.

 

and there is a schedule of statutory scale of bailiffs fees: 28% plus a letter fee about £12'ish.

 

In addition, they ALSO have a Contract with HMCS to enforce unpaid Magistrate COURT FINES.

 

Correct. Its a contract. There is no statutory Fees Order for bailiff fees payable by defendants.

 

I am privvy to knowledge why HMCS will not prescribe a bailiffs Fees Order on court fines on the statute book. Long story, but HMCS favoured (for political reasons) setting a contract instead that allows bailiffs to ASK defendants to pay their fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and there is a schedule of statutory scale of bailiffs fees: 28% plus a letter fee about £12'ish.

 

 

 

Correct. Its a contract. There is no statutory Fees Order for bailiff fees payable by defendants.

 

I am privvy to knowledge why HMCS will not prescribe a bailiffs Fees Order on court fines on the statute book. Long story, but HMCS favoured (for political reasons) setting a contract instead that allows bailiffs to ASK defendants to pay their fees.

 

If that's the case they can ask, but cannot Enforce for their fees alone after the fine amount is settled? This gets more muddy post by post. As under a contract, the contracting parties are the bailiff and HMCS, the debtor is not party to a contract, as a fine is a statutory obligation, and not contractural unless there is something set down absolutely in the STATUTE that a debtor must pay the consideration, in the discharge of the contract between HMCS and the bailiff to which the debtor is obviously not a willing party, then it cannot be enforced. that would be the inference from the contract law lectures and cases we studied in Uni

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speak to your MP and explain the above points of argument. See if he can get the official position whether a defendant has a statutory obligation for bailiffs fees without a magistrate odering costs against him.

 

Meanwhile I'll ask if the information can be posted in a forum, it did come from up in the heirachy of MoJ several years ago when it was Lord Chancellors dept. I dont work for government so I am not bound by OSA 1989.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bartok,

 

For 2 years either you, Happy Contrails or Fork-It have been CONSTANTLY saying on this site that there is no legal obligation to pay the fees to either of the enforcement companies on the basis that the Contract is between the enforcement company and HMCS.

 

In 2009, HC posted a most powerful explanation and following this, Lord Lucas raised a PQ in the House of Lords. I can ASSURE you that the matter has not been left there and further letters have been written but to date....I PERSONALLY do not know of anyone who has been successful in refusing to pay the charges.

 

Of the three cases that either you, HC or Fork-It have CLAIMED to have had the fees written off, your are wrong. There may be others, but if there are, you have NOT provided details.

 

Let me repeat....The argument given by HC two years ago and which is still being repeated by you today is an excellent one and I would be delighted to find that it is correct....however, HMCS say different.

 

I have read so many articles on this matter and for what it is worth, I do belive that the enforcement company can charge fee BUT, that these are to be deducted from the amount paid. In other words, if the fine is £500 and bailiff fees £275, then the bailiff will take his £275 and pay the balance of £225 to HMCS.

 

To now say that you are "privvy to knowledge why HMCS will not prescribe a bailiffs Fees Order on court fines on the statute book" is interesting, but cannot be relied upon as it is merely hearsay.

 

If you can get further information on this then please for everyones sake, provide the information.

 

Finally, I really have spent a lot of time looking at this matter and if you are right, then I would be DELIGHTED. Please do provide the info or even send me a pm so that I can also do some hunting around.

Edited by tomtubby
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do belive that the enforcement company can charge fee BUT, that these are to be deducted from the amount paid. In other words, if the fine is £500 and bailiff fees £275, then the bailiff will take his £275 and pay the balance of £225 to HMCS.

 

Can I ask what leads you to believe that tomtubby?

 

That would seem to be a very bad deal for HMCS, also how would it work if the fine was less than £275 (or £475 if they make a second visit, which considering they pulled a ninja worthy effort of getting a letter through my door at 6am which allowed a second visit and subsequent £200 charge, is a likely scenario)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask what leads you to believe that tomtubby?

 

That would seem to be a very bad deal for HMCS, also how would it work if the fine was less than £275 (or £475 if they make a second visit, which considering they pulled a ninja worthy effort of getting a letter through my door at 6am which allowed a second visit and subsequent £200 charge, is a likely scenario)

 

Anything they pull in that keeps the Treasury off their backs regarding unpaid fines is good as far as they are concerned I would think.

 

One thing is certain, we need a definitive answer so that correct advice can be offered especially as bailiffs are not noted for scrupulous adherence to law or guidelines when they sniff a fast buck from a clueless debtor.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, assuming the bailiffs get their two visits in that would mean they get £475 - I find it hard to believe that a sufficient majority of fines are above that amount. (even at the initial £275 it would be a push)

 

It just doesn't seem logical that they would pay the bailiff out of the amount owed to the courts, with a view to actually recouping any money owed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As per my post above - I am basing my posts on the experience I have had, where they sneaked a letter through the door at 6am, that put £200 in fees on the amount owed, which then enabled them to call again which added another £200.

 

And the letter I have from the courts which I posted earlier states that their contract allows for a £200 charge per visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as stated, my fine was £150, but Marston's charges are £275. I guess thats my biggest reason for complaint - If a defendant is struggling to pay £150, how do they think that £425 is going to be achievable?

 

I also would still be interested in whether it is legal for a Bailiff to try to get you to borrow the money, as I think this is classed as incitement to commit fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as stated, my fine was £150, but Marston's charges are £275. I guess thats my biggest reason for complaint - If a defendant is struggling to pay £150, how do they think that £425 is going to be achievable?

 

I also would still be interested in whether it is legal for a Bailiff to try to get you to borrow the money, as I think this is classed as incitement to commit fraud.

 

I don't think the bailiff is concerned about the legality of exactly HOW you get the money to pay him, so long as you pay him what he wants, the rent/mortgage/council tax food kids dinner money can go swing and the electric or gas meter money, can go to him leaving someone with no gas or electric in a prepay meter shivering for a fortnight till giro or payday. He doesn't give a stuff

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...