Marstons /Manchestergate

[tomtubby]

The definition of Paranoia (from Wikepedia):

 

Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g:"Everyones is out to get me").

 

Paranoia is distinct from phobias which also involve irrational fear, but usually no blame.

 

Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as a coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional.

 

 

PS: This is a very important thread and I will say no more on the subject matter.

[caledfwlch]

Is there any sort of campaign underway to protest the fact and to inform MP's etc that there is no longer any standardised/uniform (if any now!!!) To make a formal complaint regarding the conduct of an enforcement officer no matter how unlawful that conduct is, if the EA's company and the creditor they were operating on behalf refuse to deal with a complaint?

 

It seems like the Courts taking the right to access a long established system like the Form 4 complaint and turning it into extremely expensive "litigation" is perhaps an issue that should go to the Supreme Court, though I have the impression some of these claims were bought for spurious reasons I don't know if genuine victims of genuinely bad behaviour have also been hit with this whammy...

[Annie71]

I can only say poor Bobby. He has now been told he must verify his identity , stop using HMA and send a photo of his clamped vehicle.

Of course now he has bought the templates thriugh paypal he is stuffed or can he get his money back?

[GlennQ]

From BHF....

 

I am the Claimant in the above case.

 

Since the aforesaid Hearing much has been reported about the entirety of my matter with the Marston Group and this said Hearing.

 

 

The media via Panorama, Watchdog, The Mail and the Sunday Mirror amongst others have enquired about my story.

 

 

For the most part, I have stayed silent and have read with interest a plethora of forums alleging to be

'in the know' about both my Form 4 Complaint dubbed 'Manchestergate' and my recent Blackpool Court Hearing.

 

I am choosing to write on this forum because the Administrators of sites such as CAG

took it upon themselves to report all my issues with the Marston Group on their forums,

then blocked me to ensure I had no voice of reply.

 

Then in order to trawl for further information on my matter,

on the 19th of August 2014 I received a somewhat lengthy email from a TT,

whom I understand, is the Admin of CAG in addition to operating under numerous usernames/alias's on other Bailiff Help/advice forums.

 

I have not replied to TT's email as correspondence with this woman serves no useful purpose.

 

Because I have ignored TT said email,

I have now received an email from Ron Clarke of fair-parking.co.uk who is, essentially, reiterating the email of TT.

 

 

Clearly the two are in cahoots and somewhat eager to ascertain updates on my matters.

 

[For clarity both TT and Ron Clarke can obtain my reply to the many questions to me via this website

because aside from writing on my own Facebook page I have no intentions of replying on any other bailiff forum.

In the first instance I would like it known that when Jason reported on my matter publishing my full name, he did so with my full permission.

 

 

TT et al has criticised this openness.

I opted to let my full name be known for authenticity purposes

should any other victims of Marston Group choose to follow my lead and need details of my case.

 

For those of you interested in my much reported Form 4 Complaint against a Martson bailiff (aka 'Manchestergate')

and my Court victory against this company, here is the truth.

I hide behind no username and I report the facts as they are.

 

On the 6th of December 2012 a female bailiff arrived at one of my rental properties to seize a work vehicle.

The vehicle in question was a 3yr old Vauxhall Corsa SXi with 12k milage and one lady owner, me.

 

The car had been purchased new for my business and was sign written with the Company logo.

Due to a disability, I was unable to drive the vehicle, in fact at this juncture,

I had no licence due to the disability and was reliant on another driving me in the car.

 

The said car was often parked overnight at this property because it is secure due to the geography of it,

it also has a large garage; the garage is used to store business equipment.

 

On the day the bailiff arrived, the car was parked outside the garage.

The garage is clearly marked as being owned by myself.

Due to the fact one of my employee's had pulled the garage door off its runner,

most of the items inside the garage were visible...ie commercial fridges/freezers/ovens/microwave/furniture.

 

Notwithstanding the aforesaid chattels,

the Marston bailiff wanted the car and so seized this by clamping it.

She then contacted me on my work mobile which was on the car's logo.

 

It transpired that the reason for this bailiff visit was an unpaid speeding fine.

 

Apparently the work car had been clocked by a traffic cop hiding in an unmarked van.

..the car had been going 5 miles or so over the speed limit.

 

 

Being the registered keeper, I finally received the fine of £60.

I duly informed DVLA I was not the driver & as such sent an alternate name.

 

DVLA informed the above information came too late and the matter had been passed to the Magistrates Court.

 

I attended the Magistrates Court and in essence as I was the registered keeper the fine was mine.

..plus an extra 65 quid in Court fees etc now making the fine £60 fine + £65 costs

Total payable = £125.00.

This was the summer of 2012.

 

Annoyed at the above decision I made an Appeal.

 

 

My Appeal was listed to be heard at Preston Court.

 

 

However, due to bereavement, my work schedule and other matters,

I decided to cancel the Appeal and just pay the £125.00 fine and be done with it.

 

My working life means I am in Preston Court on a regular basis, so,

whilst at the Court I went into the public office and handed over a company cheque for £125.00,

got on with life and thought no more of this matter.

 

Fast forward six months or so to December and outside one of my rental properties stands a Marston Bailiff clamping my work vehicle

and now demanding in excess of £600 or 'the car goes'.

 

 

The Bailiff alleged many visits had been made by her to the rental property...each visit adding to the debt.

The fact she had been attending the wrong property as could be proven, was irrelevant. Ditto all Court correspondence on the matter.

At this juncture I was not in the North West of England but on business in the South.

 

The Marston Bailiff was told that the fine had been paid but, she said it hadn't so I checked with the Preston and Blackpool Courts,

in addition to our book-keeper. The cheque had not been cashed.

 

Despite the fact of there being sufficient items in the garage to satisfy the Warrant, this bailiff seized the work vehicle.

Long story short, she clamped it and left the premises vowing to return the following day with a tow truck.

 

As the clamped car could not be moved the garage was blocked preventing use of it.

Upon inspection, the female bailiff had not fitted the boot on the car properly

thus allowing the car to be moved some 200 yards so my employees could place further items in and out of the garage as we do on a regular basis.

 

The Marston bailiff returned the following day with a tow truck.

The tow truck reversed 300 yards or so down the large drive with all it's sirens beeping.

..only to discover the clamped car was not there.

 

 

World War 3 ensued.

 

In her fury, the bailiff constantly rang my mobile leaving one abusive message after another.

 

I was then sent a plethora of texts informing me how I had 'stolen' my own car and that the police were now on their way.

I was informed a locksmith had also been deployed and would now force entry into my tenants home to remove her goods.

 

The bailiff was told that the tenant in situ at this address had nothing to do with this matter.

The tenant was now in a panic that all her worldly goods were to be removed and so rang the bailiff to explain the situation.

 

 

The Bailiff called my tenant a 'lying ' and told her she wasn't the tenant at this address and a locksmith would be breaking entry within the hour.

 

My tenant then rang Marston Group and spoke with the bailiff's manager.

The lie that a 'locksmith was on route to break into the property' was reiterated by the bailiff's manager.

 

Thankfully, the bailiff and her entourage finally spotted the vehicle parked happily across the road and so removed it with the waiting tow truck.

 

 

However, clearly still miffed she then took it upon herself to place a large red and white Marston sticker

on the front door on the tenants home informing bailiff's had called and the vehicle had been seized and removed.

 

The bailiff signed her name on the sticker and drew a smiling face next to it such as this

This was glued to the front door for all the neighbours to see.

 

The car was removed on the 6th of December 2012.

 

 

On the 7th of December 2012 Marston Group wrote to me informing that unless they were in funds the car would be sold at auction in 7 days.

Marston Group then held onto the letter until after the 14th of December 2012.

 

 

The said letter was received just before Xmas....after the '7 day' period had lapsed.

 

On receipt of this letter, I contacted Marston Group to ask if my car had been sold.

I was told 'dunno...maybe'.

I asked to speak to someone of authority but was told most were at their office Xmas party.

 

Xmas 2012 and New Year came and went.

 

In 2013 I anticipated receiving a substantial cheque from Marston Group for the balance of my car after their deductions.

This did not happen.

Again I contacted Marston.

Again I was stonewalled.

 

in mid March 2013,

I received a letter from the DVLA saying someone was trying to register my car as the keeper.

Clearly, my car had been sold.

 

In April 2013 I finally received a letter from Marston Group.

This long awaited correspondence informed how my 10k car had now been sold for an alleged £3,100

and that I now owed Marston Group in excess of another thousand pounds in storage fees.

This was in addition to the several thousands they were already charging me for alleged 'storage fees'.

Clearly Marston Group were doing this in order to keep for themselves every penny from the sale of my work vehicle.

After due consideration I instigated a Form 4 Complaint primarily against the unprofessional behaviour of the bailiff in question.

This was made to Altrincham Court where she obtained her licence.

The Court considered the Complaint serious enough to warrant a Hearing and as such a Hearing was listed at the Manchester Court.

 

However, in the meanwhile, my health took a downturn and I was admitted to The Christy Hospital in Manchester.

Despite not being well, the date of the Hearing approached and I wanted to attend this Hearing rather than have it dismissed or adjourned.

 

Marston Group sent to the Hearing their top barrister so at to defend them.

 

The Hearing continued all day until the Court time was exhausted.

Marston's barrister placed me under oath in the Witness box all day so as to interrogate me.

By 5pm or so I too was exhausted.

 

The Judge asked all parties to return to the Court the following day.

However, the following day I was too unwell to attend and sought an adjournment.

As the case was part-heard, an adjournment was not possible and the only option available to the Judge was to dismiss the matter.

 

It has been reported on numerous other websites that Marston Group 'won Manchestergate'...

..it has been reported that I received a bill of costs.

...it has also been reported that Jason acted as a Mckennzie friend after being 'rumbled' by the Judge.

 

 

All of the aforesaid are untrue.

 

 

The latter was reported by TT, who, it is noteworthy to state, even knew what both myself and Jason wore to the Hearing,

something only those connected to myself or Marston's would have known..

.and neither I nor Jason informed of this.

 

Jason did attend the Manchester Form 4 Complaint Hearing with me,

but this was solely to offer moral support as I was alone and he was aware of my ill health.

 

 

No other website offered anything, least of all worthwhile advice.

It is fair to say that no other website offered any help whatsoever,

in fact it is true that aside from this site and jason's, all other sites merely frustrated matters

and showed themselves to be in league on some level with the Marston Group,

albeit incognito so as to get debtors to enter into payment arrangements inter alia.

 

The Form 4 Complaint against Marston Group was dismissed for the reasons said.

 

I was not able to re-vent this complaint in sufficient time due to my ill health and work commitments.

However, entirely because of the Form 4 Complaint,

Marston Group were obliged to give me sight of the evidence on which they intended to rely.

This should be exchanged 14 days before the Hearing,

but, Marston Group handed me their 100 + pages of evidence as we entered the Court...

 

...and what did I find on Page 52 of Marston Group's own evidence?

 

 

A signed document from the auctioneer verifying that my car was actually taken directly to the auctioneer on the 6th of December 2012.

..the day it was seized.

 

 

Clearly, the car hadn't been stored by Marston Group Ltd at all.

A mute point perhaps as clearly some outfit stored it.

That said, storage cannot exceed 5 working days in accordance with the CPR on these matters.

 

Because of this I issued Court proceedings against Marston Group to recover their alleged 'storage fees' inter alia.

 

 

Again, rather than resolve the matter as amicably as could be hoped for,

Marston Group preferred to employ another expensive barrister,

 

The Hearing took place last week at Blackpool Court and was heard by the Honourable District Judge Bryce.

 

Again, on entering the Court, Marston Group handed to me their evidence.

..clearly this is a tactic of Marston Group and can now be expected *yawn*

 

After almost 3hrs the Honourable District Judge Bryce ruled in my favour.

Marston Group now have to return to me their 'alleged' storage fees.

 

Some have asked if this refund amounts to a £25, £30, or exceeds £100.

None are correct as what Marston Group have to stump up runs into the thousands of pounds they took from me.

 

The District Judge also awarded me my Court costs and loss of earnings for the day.

..though XXXX who no doubt billed Marston Group a few thousand pounds for a full day's work,

strenuously objected to me also receiving a full day's loss of earnings

hence the Judge allowing me just half a day.

As Tesco say's 'every little helps'.

 

It has been written on CAG and elsewhere that Marston may Appeal this Judgement.

...clearly CAG are in the know on such matters.

 

All I can say is that their Barrister did not request permission to Appeal from the District Judge.

The fact that she did not request permission does not mean that Marston Group cannot Appeal.

 

 

However, as they know, one cannot Appeal just because they fail in an action,

one can only Appeal if the Judge erred in law and, to my knowledge District Judge Bryce hasn't.

 

The Judgement is payable in 14 days and Marston's time is up this Thursday the 28th of August 2014.

 

 

Should Marston Group fail to pay up,

Judgement will be entered against them and I will then be at liberty to enforce the Judgement,

which, ironically includes the sending in of the bailiffs to seize their goods

though one must wonder which, if any, Bailiff Company or High Court Sheriff

would actually do this and if given the task would make a serious attempt to seize Marston's goods.

Only time will tell.

 

These are the facts thus far about my Form 4 Complaint in Manchester aka 'Manchestergate'

and my Court victory against Marston Group Ltd.

 

 

Apologies for the length of this comment but much rubbish has been written about my matter

and this at least for those interested, sets the record straight thus far.

 

Finally, all I can say to the plethora of various people reading this reply both for and against me

and/or the use/tactics of bailiffs, my matter with Marston Group is not over.

 

 

Marston Group have proven to be not only bullies in the extreme, but liars and cheats.

 

The ironery of it all is that these people are primarily employed by the Magistrates Courts.

..an Honourable body in existence to uphold all justice.

 

It is now high time the UK Government brought in an Ombudsman to regulate and oversee all bailiff activity

because in its current form, the system in situ is both unworkable and unacceptable despite the 2014 reforms.

[unclebulgaria67]

FAO CAG admin, please do not delete or amend the post from GlennQ, as it important to have the information that this thread relates to. I have taken it at face value that the facts stated are correct.

 

From what I can see the person concerned is due a big apology from Marstons and they should put right all their failings in this case. It would better for Marstons to fully resolve this by negotiation, rather than put someone with health issue through more hassle, in order to seek appropriate justice for what has happened.

[dx100uk]

we will decide whatever we wish to do thank you. UB67

 

 

however, minor amendments were already done for DPA reasons.

 

 

the other issue that needs pointing out is that TT is not ofcourse and has never been CAG admin that is marc.

 

 

neither has TT ever been a part of the siteteam either.

 

 

dx

[wonkeydonkey]

I am choosing to write on this forum because the Administrators of sites such as CAG took it upon themselves to report all my issues with the Marston Group on their forums, then blocked me to ensure I had no voice of reply to their diatribe.

 

I can appreciate the frustrations at not having a voice to reply....I have (as one of many) been a long running victim of 'that' site without right to reply.

[wonkeydonkey]

FAO CAG admin, please do not delete or amend the post from GlennQ, as it important to have the information that this thread relates to. I have taken it at face value that the facts stated are correct.

 

From what I can see the person concerned is due a big apology from Marstons and they should put right all their failings in this case. It would better for Marstons to fully resolve this by negotiation, rather than put someone with health issue through more hassle, in order to seek appropriate justice for what has happened.

 

 

It is said 'truth will out' lets just wait and see...

 

 

From Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice.

 

LAUNCELOT: Nay, indeed, if you had your eyes, you might fail of

the knowing me: it is a wise father that knows his

own child. Well, old man, I will tell you news of

your son: give me your blessing: truth will come

to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man's son

may, but at the length truth will out.

[unclebulgaria67]

It is said 'the truth will out' lets just wait and see...

 

I hope so, as I believe in the saying 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'.

 

If people don't have a right of reply on CAG to cases that involve them, then any thread that mentions the case should be removed altogether. Otherwise the site risks looking like a Soviet newsagency.

[wonkeydonkey]

Well, well, well, I can see the very same banned/blocked 'no voice' member logged in and viewing this very post?

 

 

• wonkeydonkey
  
• dx100uk
  
• Kari Anderson
  
• Michael Browne
  
• brassnecked+
  

[brassnecked]

Who is banned WD? What really kills my pig is that distressed debtors looking for help seem to be in a lottery dependent on which site they go to first.

 

All this in fighting hands the high ground to the bailiffs.

[wonkeydonkey]

Who is banned WD? What really kills my pig is that distressed debtors looking for help seem to be in a lottery dependent on which site they go to first.

 

All this in fighting hands the high ground to the bailiffs.

 

See post 21

"I am choosing to write on this forum because the Administrators of sites such as CAG took it upon themselves to report all my issues with the Marston Group on their forums, then blocked me to ensure I had no voice of reply to their diatribe."

[brassnecked]

See post 21

"I am choosing to write on this forum because the Administrators of sites such as CAG took it upon themselves to report all my issues with the Marston Group on their forums, then blocked me to ensure I had no voice of reply to their diatribe."

 

Thanks WD I think that EA companies are happy that advice sites argue amongst themselves.

[tomtubby]

 

the other issue that needs pointing out is that TT is not ofcourse and has never been CAG admin that is marc.

 

 

neither has TT ever been a part of the siteteam either.

 

dx

 

Wow...Having now read the 17th email this evening with a copy of 'Kari's' post I am very concerned as to why she would have thought that I was either a member of the 'siteteam' or CAG admin'.

 

Thank you DX to clarifying the position and big thank you to everyone who has taken the time on this bank holiday weekend to email me.

[fletch70]

Many people are denied the right if reply on some forums.

 

 

I can think of two if hand where that us true fir me. Clearly not here.

 

I think the whole issue is that the above account differs significantly from the one on another site.

 

 

If memory serves in that account it was manchestergate that was won which is clearly not the case

 

 

also it was stated that no appeal was allowed.

 

 

I do not recall anywhere seeing that costs were awarded against the form 4 complaint.

 

 

Finally in the past in the other site it was said that costs loss of earnings and storage charges were awarded.

Clearly inaccurate.

 

While i have no wish to know how much was awarded maybe we could be told what proportion of the total storage costs were awarded.

[tomtubby]

 

If people don't have a right of reply on CAG to cases that involve them, then any thread that mentions the case should be removed altogether. Otherwise the site risks looking like a Soviet newsagency.

 

.

.

UB.

 

I would firstly like to make clear that I have no issues at all with 'Kari'. None whatsoever !!! This is despite the fact that her emails to me last July are very much at odds with her lengthly post on the other forum today. There are a lot of discrepancies. However, I have no intention of embarrassing her in pointing these out. It would be most unfair on her to do so.

 

To clarify a second point:

 

The website in question are aware that approx 10 days ago I advised the site owner that I had registered onto their website under the user name of 'tomtubby'. I advised the forum owner that I had no intention of posting on the forum but merely used my registration to access any information that may have been posted about me as 'tomtubby' (in particular from posts 'hidden' in the 'flame pit'). It would seem that I am now under some sort of 'moderation'. Accordingly, I would not be afforded the opportunity to respond to 'Kari' on that forum.

 

I just wanted to ensure that the truth is known.

 

Thank you.

[GlennQ]

Well, well, well, I can see the very same banned/blocked 'no voice' member logged in and viewing this very post?

 

 

Reply from Kari on BHF:

 

To Wonkey Donkey c/o CAG.

I read your further comments on myself with some concern as it appears that you question by ability to post on CAG.

 

As is evidenced below by what I have copied and pasted, clearly I can view posts/comments on CAG but I am blocked/banner/barred/prevented (whatever terminology you wish you label it) from replying to anything on there.

To prove the aforesaid, I have madam taken the liberty of copying and pasting what appears on CAG when I attempt to reply to your diatribe.

Clearly, if I could reply to your aforesaid diatribe, I would do so instead of replying to your mockery via a reputable forum.

 

I rest my case so please refrain from perpetuating your untruths as this is now somewhat tiresome asyou are proving to be something of an ass...and a wonky one at that.

 

 

New Posts | Mark All Forums Read | Advanced Search

 

 

 

Message from The Consumer Action Group

 

.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

Message from The Consumer Action Group

 

 

 

Kari Anderson, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1.Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?

2.If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation. You may not have sufficient posts to permit you to carry out your intended action

 

Log Out Home

[wonkeydonkey]

Cag is not the place to discuss any issues you might think you have with me. Earlier I sent email to Amy and Mr B now has an email address for me, which you are very welcome to use to communicate direct.

[GlennQ]

Not a single word of congratulations from any of you - not one. Only pursed remarks of 'wait and see' 'the truth will out' 'discrepancies' or playground taunts regarding whether she was banned or not. Shame.

 

Congrats from me, kari.

[tomtubby]

Again, for the avoidance of doubt ( and as confirmed by 'Kari' ) I sent her an email last week. I stressed twice in the email that the contents were Confidential and I did not consent to the contents being discussed with the website. Despite this, the website posted details of its contents. The email is to the point and factual and the basis of it was to outline to 'Kari' my extreme disappointment that the website saw fit to entitle a thread as follows: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

 

Given that the website have made endless claims of so called 'successful legal actions' in the past they have never once provided so much as a claim number or details of the parties. Not once!!!

 

I advised Kari that the choice of title was almost guaranteed to resurrect this thread from a year ago and that my good name would once again be dragged into this case. I was proved correct.

[tomtubby]

Not a single word of congratulations from any of you - not one. Only pursed remarks of 'wait and see' 'the truth will out' 'discrepancies' or playground taunts regarding whether she was banned or not. Shame.

 

Congrats from me, kari.

 

Kari.

 

Before making such a statement I would have thought that you had properly read all posts by me. If so, you must surely have seen my post number 7 where I stated the following:

 

As I have said above....and am happy to repeat once again, if she has secured a judgment against an enforcement company then well done to her...and her alone.

[wonkeydonkey]

Below is the email Mr B denies having reciept to.....you now have the contact details first hand and CAG have my full consent to allow this email address to remain on pubic view.

 

• Maximize/Minimize
  

 

• 8/24/14 at 11:21 PM More Information From: daisydipper @ gmx.com (no spaces)
  
• Dear Mr Bennison/Bailey
   
  You have publically made repeated allegations to myself being the recipient of County Court Judgment(s) however since neither I, the registry trust or my solicitor can find these alleged Judgments, you are respectfully asked to provide evidence to the same.
   
  Yours faithfully
  Sue aka WD, wonketdonkey, pepsie
  

[fletch70]

I think I need all I need to know about side step freddie. he could not tell a complete truth if his life depended on it. On the odd occasion he does fess up if you dig around you will find something from him saying exactly the opposite

 

My ex flies to DXB next week, maybe he will get a certain Pilot. Maybe I will ask him to look him up in the Dubai phone book

[tomtubby]

I have been dragged into this thread when there was no reason to do so. I see that once again it is being written that I am some how 'associated' with Marston Group. The comments originate from one site and are aimed at damaging my good name. I have never before corrected this information and I am only now doing so because the comments from the website in question are becoming tiresome. I will make this one post only.

 

The person making the allegations is relying upon the Marston Group Annual Accounts for 2011 that are freely available from Companies House. For ease of reference a copy can be read here:

 

http://www.marstongroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Marston-group-annual-report-2011.pdf

 

Page 17-19 are entitled: Advice Sector Engagement and provides details of CCCS and Citizen's Advice and representatives from both organisations have provided quotes. On page 19 the following is written by Marston Group:

 

Bailiff Advice Online

 

Marston provides Bailiff Advice Online with direct access to our Client Services team, and it is therefore able to fast-track urgent cases.

 

Founder Sheila Harding has commented that:

 

“I’ve had many dealings with Marston, and I have been impressed with the quick and comprehensive responses received by my organisation in relation to our debtor queries. Their positive and helpful attitude is impressive, and it reflects well on the company.”

 

Firstly, I am the founder of Bailiff Advice Online and the comment above is mine. I have been posting on this forum since 2007 and have never advertised my business (or website) and have no wish to do so now or in the future.

 

I am happy to confirm that being afforded direct contact details for the Marston Group Client Services team has been invaluable when cases of 'vulnerability' have seen identified and has been of huge assistance to many debtors since 2011. It goes without saying that I am not employed by the company and neither do I receive any payment (or 'kick back')

 

I would also add that CAB and CCCS and others have direct contact details for the Client Services team as well.

 

I hope this clears up any confusion.

[tomtubby]

On a separate point, I am very interested to read pages 14 through to 16 of the Marston Group Annual Report for 2011. Of particular interest is the section on page 16 entitled:

 

The Marston ‘Compliance and Enforcement’ distress warrant process

 

 

Marston strongly believes that a simplified, standardised fee structure should be introduced across all types of enforcement. A Compliance Stage fee should be uniformly introduced, as this would motivate all enforcement companies to implement the Marston Compliance and Enforcement model set out above. In addition, a fixed Enforcement Stage fee should also be introduced for those cases requiring doorstep action (with a commission element only for high value cases). No other fees should be permitted.

 

The new regulations appear to have taken pages 14 and 16 of this Annual Report into consideration.

 

Goodnight everyone.