Help needed Marston bailifs robbing me

[kenny2044]

HI can anyone help as CAB refuse to deal with court fines.

 

My story begins with a magistrates court fine for breach of a restraining order by my ex

i went to see my kids last Christmas and her new fella called the police, i was arrested and given a £465 fine, i paid regular instalments until i lost my job.[ I had a nervous breakdown though all the stress of my 20 year marriage break up, and not seeing my children]

Anyhow i paid smaller amounts off my fine, as i was unemployed and could not claim benefits,because i had left my job voluntarily. i got a letter of the courts and i arranged to pay what i could afford they agreed to £5 per week. i then got a letter of marston bailiffs stating they had been instructed by the courts to collect the remaining balance £120 plus £75 fees.

I borrowed £120 and paid my fine direct to the courts the next day.

i then heard nothing from Marston for months but recently i have received a bill from the for £275

i rang and asked them what it was for they say its £75 for collecting my fine and £200 for a visit to my home.[they say i was out when they called].

Today i received another letter from Marston saying if i don't pay £275 within 14 days they will come and take my property to the value of £475 pounds . and each time i don't pay them they will add another £200 to visit me.

I am on ESA [ invalidity benefit at the moment], after my nervous breakdown and i am on tablets and consultation to get me through a dark time in my life.

These demands for money to collect a fine they know has already been paid are really getting me down, is there anything i can do.

Edited October 24, 2011 by kenny2044

[tomtubby]

I am assuming that you had failed to keep to the payment arrangement that you had with the court of £5 per week. Is this correct?

 

Had you made the court aware of your circumstances? If so, then a complaint should be made to them as to why they forwarded this account to a firm of bailiffs.

 

It would appear that you are classed as "vulnerable" and I would assume that you have some evidence of this. It is important that such evidence is brought to the attention of Marston's as this should be sufficient for them to return the account back to the court.

 

I have sent you a PM (Message).

[kenny2044]

Thanks Tomtubby i will send all details to your work email in the morning

[kenny2044]

Thanks Tomtubby for your invaluable advice and help your a star.

 

Tomtubby 1........ Marston Bailiffs 0

[kenny2044]

After Tomtubby took on my case, Marstons backed down and returned the warrant back to HMCS. forfeiting their fees and charges.

But knowing the way Marstons have no difficulty in bending the rules to make monetary gain i'm sure they will make up their loss off

some other poor unsuspecting person.

Don't forget to watch ITV Monday night , the truth about bailiffs.

And thank you Tomtubby keep up the good work.

 

:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

[tomtubby]

As many people on here are aware, I have a commercial business providing bailiff advice to the public. It may seem strange but a lot of people "claim" that they are "vulnerable" when calling a bailiff company and this is why bailiff firms need to have some sort of evidence to support this. Also, they cannot simply return a case back to the court to advise that the debtor is "claiming" vulnerability. They will need to confirm that they have seen suporting evidence.

 

I was happy to assist you with this problem ( no charge of course) but what I was not happy to hear was the the Magistrates Court had only advised Marston Group on 26th October that you had made payment to them on 1st October!!! The administrtaion at some of these Magistrates Courts leaves a lot to be desired.

 

The goods news is that when supporting medical evidence was submitted to Marston Group they confirmed this morning that they have RETURNED THE WARRANT BACK TO THE COURT.

 

Excellent result and hopefully, this will go some way towards improving your health etc.

[kenny2044]

Yes that is true once Marston were in receipt of the evidence of vulnerability they soon returned the warrant,

And i agree the Magistrates should have better administration.

My last post aimed at Marston was borne out of frustration at previously getting nowhere with them before your

intervention.

[ploddertom]

It's always pleasing to hear of a result and better still to get it on a Friday when the pressure can come off for the OP. large Nescafe's all round and a special jar of Gold Blend for TT.

 

PT

[wonkeydonkey]

Well done to you and TT on getting a good result, it just shows that they have to be pushed into following the guidelines they are supposed to follow as a norm. This particular case is yet another example confirming Marstons can be labelled as bad as the rest we are about to see exposed on Monday.

Local Authorities must take a tighter control of the leash when they let the dogs out and stop turning a blind eye to the situation and accept they are wholly responsible for the bailiff breeding programme, this means you never rely on using bad stock to improve the bloodlines.

 

 

 

WD

Edited October 28, 2011 by wonkeydonkey

[seanamarts]

Ahh! this is what I like to see on the forum, well done, good work TT

[%Ostrich%]

It may seem strange but a lot of people "claim" that they are "vulnerable" when calling a bailiff company and this is why bailiff firms need to have some sort of evidence to support this. Also, they cannot simply return a case back to the court to advise that the debtor is "claiming" vulnerability. They will need to confirm that they have seen suporting evidence.

 

I was happy to assist you with this problem ( no charge of course) but what I was not happy to hear was the the Magistrates Court had only advised Marston Group on 26th October that you had made payment to them on 1st October!!! The administrtaion at some of these Magistrates Courts leaves a lot to be desired.

 

The goods news is that when supporting medical evidence was submitted to Marston Group they confirmed this morning that they have RETURNED THE WARRANT BACK TO THE COURT.

 

Excellent result and hopefully, this will go some way towards improving your health etc.

 

 

For the forum members who appear not to have read your post properly, are the following statements correct?

 

1. The Court failed to tell Marstons they'd received a direct payment AFTER the warrant was issued?

2. Marstons pursued the admin fee and fine initially as expected of them?

3. After being informed the fine was paid direct to the court, Marstons pursued the admin fee which they're entitled to do?

4. After evidence of vulnerability was supplied, Marstons stopped enforcement and sent the warrant back to the court?

 

Am I missing something or has the bailiff company done everything by the book?

[Samantha72]

Excellent advice. it's great to hear a happy ending.

[kenny2044]

For the forum members who appear not to have read your post properly, are the following statements correct?

 

1. The Court failed to tell Marstons they'd received a direct payment AFTER the warrant was issued?

2. Marstons pursued the admin fee and fine initially as expected of them?

3. After being informed the fine was paid direct to the court, Marstons pursued the admin fee which they're entitled to do?

4. After evidence of vulnerability was supplied, Marstons stopped enforcement and sent the warrant back to the court?

 

Am I missing something or has the bailiff company done everything by the book?

 

 

%ostrich% Yes Marston did do everything by the book.

Edited November 1, 2011 by kenny2044

[Davidcl]

can u help me i have marstons on my back and i dont know what to do?

[seanamarts]

can u help me i have marstons on my back and i dont know what to do?

 

I have answered you in another thread where you requested help, please follow the link there to start a new thread.

[seanamarts]

can u help me i have marstons on my back and i dont know what to do?

 

I have answered you in another thread where you requested help, please follow the link there to start a new thread.