Marstons ridiculous fees..

[brassnecked]

TT

 

Yes I agree that some of the information posted elsewhere may be wrong in some ways, but so far I have not come across any evidence that bailiffs are legally entitled to charge the £300 in fees. Because this relates to collection of fines on behalf of HMCS these fees must be covered by a relevant statutory instrument or act of parliament. If they are not, then parliament has not sanctioned that such fees can be charged when collecting fines. This is why HMCS when asked about this, won't answer the question.

 

Act of parliament or SI that allows these fees please ?

This is one that will never be solved at the moment as there appears to be no support for these fees in Statute, but their imposition on debtors seems to rely on a contractural term in a contract between HMCS and their appointed Bailiffcos.

 

We have gone round in acrimonious circles with this conundrum before.

[unclebulgaria67]

This is one that will never be solved at the moment as there appears to be no support for these fees in Statute, but their imposition on debtors seems to rely on a contractural term in a contract between HMCS and their appointed Bailiffcos.

 

We have gone round in acrimonious circles with this conundrum before.

 

Yes I had guessed that. It would appear that if the £300 fees are not paid, that often bailiffs will not continue to try to enforce these, because there is no legal basis to do so, once the fine is paid to HMCS. If someone pays the £300, they can challenge these if this wish to do so, but I suspect that most would not bother. If they issued a small claim it would be interesting what would happen. How likely is a Judge going to order a bailiff company to give back the £300, if it related to legitimate actions to recover fines for HMCS ? Pretty unlikely. Would have thought this would only happen if the fine was paid prior to the bailiffs being engaged by HMCS.

[MJack]

Ucle Bulg..I have written to them requesting under what legislation they have collected the fees..I have given them 14 days to respond to my recorded delivery.

[tomtubby]

Mjack

 

Was the letter that you sent a simple request to ask for details of the relevant legislation or was it a copy of the very lenthly letter that another forum encourage people to send.

 

Most importantly where was the letter sent to (ie: the Court, Ministry of Justice, or Secretary of State !!!

[MJack]

TT

 

It was a very simple letter to the bailifs asking them what legislation they where seeking payment of fees under.

 

should i have sent to courts etc too?

[MJack]

has any one any further advice...

[Fulhamboy]

Hello MJack,

If you get a reply from Marstons I will be very surprised. They will ask for a fee and the price of a

stamp first then send you a load of waffle. Could you clarify that a bailiff turned up purely to collect

his fees only ? You said the fine was paid off if so the bailiff could not of been acting under a distress warrant then thats fraud. As usual they have relied on shock and awe tactics to get you to cough up.

IE, threaten to have your kids taken into care , have your dog nurtured, your subscription to sky

cancelled, put a levy on your digestives, et al.

[tomtubby]

Can you post back when you receive a response to your letter.

[MJack]

Fulham boy....

 

yes,I paid the fine when they sent me the initial letter stating fine plus costs..

 

so,they turned up demanding costs plus doorstep fees....

 

TT-i have given them 14 days to respond,29/05/13.

[Fulhamboy]

Unless it is a letter from a solicitor a I doubt you will get a response .IF they respond stating that they

have no legal right to collect the fees then the flood gates will open and there will be a queue of people

in the small claims court claiming them back . Which if you would want to take it further is the next

logical step. This is Marstons your 'e dealing with so dont hold your breath, expect to be stone walled

[MJack]

cheers...I will wait for the set time,but I can only imagine you are right,I would like to therefore like to get ahead of myself with advice for the next move....

[MJack]

Good Morning

 

next instalment-

 

marstons have replied and have sent a general letter..stating that the charges have been calculated in accordance with the Mag Court act 1980,and agreed with the ministry of justice...

 

they havent really ans the question....

 

any suggestions....

[filrobbo]

They would say that .

[lookinforinfo]

I think your request was too simple which enabled them to answer the question without answering what you really wanted.

 

To get what you want you will need to write and ask them to break down all the fees and then to specify which actual piece of legislation applies to each individual fee.

[Fulhamboy]

Morning MJack.

This is like trying to catch smoke , they are entitled to their fees but not come up with or referred to any point of law or legislation. Some one on this site will know

how much and how to make a claim in the small claims court, and if so see if they

bother turning up. The irony is if successful you will have to send a bailiff to their offices to get your money back.

[MJack]

Hey Fulham..

 

your right mate....Ive read lots of threads and eventually they kinda spiral out of control and in the end a simple question turns into 10 complicated discussions,each one cross over themselves....I understand they are entitled to "some fees"however surely only proportionate to work carried out.........right/wrong?

 

Cheers

[Fulhamboy]

The contract they have with the courts covers their fees and when people cough up the letter and attendance fee

they effectively get paid twice . To spell it out I have a contract with you to repair your boiler, you pay me and I go to for eg your Uncle for payment as well. So I agree with the previous poster a specific letter with no wriggle room giving them 14 days to reply before you take legal action.