marston Marstons calling for there fees

[chickaroo]

Hi need some advice please

 

I had a 82.00 parking fine that I didn't pay (stupidly)

I was unemployed for over 4 months

had letter from marstons with 70 fees on top.

 

 

Seeked advice from cab and Baines & Ernst ,

emailed marstons to offer £5 a week repayment ignored!

 

 

Then got a 2 nd letter from Marstons debt now 397,

which I rang and complained as to why they didn't accept my repayment offer to which they replied was withb bailiff!!!

And to speak to him which was a waste of time he wants all the money...

 

I'm now working so I paid my original fine of 82.00 via website which I was suprised I could do

 

So now a week later a baliff has been posted a FINAL NOTICE to pay £310 today

 

Do I have to pay these fees?

[Bailiff Advice]

The amount being requested is due to Marston's as payment of the amount of £82 has been paid after the warrant has been issued and enforcement commenced. The way in which the fee scale works is that from any payment made (whether to the council or Marston's) the Compliance fee of £75 is deducted at source and the balance of payments is apportioned on a pro rata basis between the amount of the debt to the council and bailiff fees (approx 60/40 split).

 

The payment of £82 will therefore be notified to Marston's and the Compliance fee of £75 deducted. The balance of £7 will be apportioned as outlined above an approx £4 would be allocated towards to debt to the council. Until full payment is made the warrant can continue to be enforced.

 

The problem that you will have with a parking ticket is that the warrant has upon it the number plate of the car involved in the contravention.

 

Is the car still in use and if so, is it subject to any forms of finance as this could make it exempt from being taken.

[chickaroo]

Hi the car is currently sorn

[chickaroo]

So does that mean I still have to pay 310 to marstons? ( not marathon)

[brassnecked]

Hi the car is currently sorn

 

What is it worth? does it have MOT? I am asking as Marstons may still try to thteaten to take the vehicle even though it is scrap value to pressure you some more

[chickaroo]

Hi no mot apparently only worth 50 to them

[dx100uk]

Baines & Ernst ?? hope you are not in one of their fee paying schemes!

watchout.

 

 

dx

[lookinforinfo]

The sad fact is that you probably do have to pay the extra costs.

 

 

When you first got the ticket had you contacted the parking authority and explained you were out of work

and could they delay or accept notional payments until you were back in work,

yor request would have been granted most likely.

And would have prevented the situation you are in now.

 

As it is you would have received several letters from the parking authority with each letter

advising you how much the debt was now and that if you further failed to pay, the debt would go higher

and then bailiffs would be involved.

 

 

Once they become involved a further £75 is added to the amount outstanding.

 

There are those on other forums who would advise you that you do not need to pay these additional costs

once you have paid the original amount but they are wrong.

 

 

Should you fail to pay, the bailiffs will call at your property

and that will add a whopping £235 to the bill so you do need to come to an arrangement with them and quickly.

Yes all they will talk about is money because that is their job-to collect money from people who have not paid so far.

 

I am sorry if what I have said is a harsh but it is the reality and many of us on here [including myself] have done what you are doing.

Fortunately when I did it the bailiff costs were much less than now and you do have a large cost of £235 about to be added.

 

What you could do is send a payment to the bailiff company [and no £10 will not be enough]

to acknowledge that you will pay the rest but need time to pay and request a breakdown of all the costs involved.

 

 

Once you have that let us know what has been charged in case they have overcharged in some way.

[chickaroo]

I offered repayments I but I have literally only just returned to work and don't get any money till the end of April which is irrelevant to those people

I didn't think they could add anymore costs now?

[sideaways]

Im Sorry but I am very new to this.

 

If the original debt has been paid off the the creditor does that not make the warrant void? I mean the bailiff is allowed to recover all charges upon execution of the warrant but if the goods weren't seized or sold, and the bailiff didn't get the money from the debater but the creditor has the money how much power does the warrant have?

 

I don't know the legal know how just trying to follow the issue through with logic.

 

Am I just being ignorant?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Im Sorry but I am very new to this.

 

If the original debt has been paid off the the creditor does that not make the warrant void? I mean the bailiff is allowed to recover all charges upon execution of the warrant but if the goods weren't seized or sold, and the bailiff didn't get the money from the debater but the creditor has the money how much power does the warrant have?

 

I don't know the legal know how just trying to follow the issue through with logic.

 

Am I just being ignorant?

 

Most warrants will retain their entire authority. So goods can be removed. Fees can continue to ba added, and in extreme cases, the courts will authorise the forced entry and removal of goods on fines warrants.

Paying the original bill does not void a warrant.

[sideaways]

Oh ok, I thought the point of the warrant was for the bailiff to recover the fees, and if the fees were recovered through them or not there would be no point in the warrant.

 

Must have completely misread what the point of the warrant was.

 

 

Something else, just want to get know:

 

I know someone who appealed a pcn of his after they siezed his goods, but they refused to give him his goods (his motorbike in the case) until the appeal has gone through the TEC. In the end the PCN was taken off him and the tax payers ended up paying the storage fees (as the council had to pay them).

 

Does that sound right?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Oh ok, I thought the point of the warrant was for the bailiff to recover the fees, and if the fees were recovered through them or not there would be no point in the warrant.

 

Must have completely misread what the point of the warrant was.

 

The point of a warrant is to collect an outstanding court ordered debt. The fees charagable to that enforcement/warrant are added to the warrant balance and the collection of the fees is part of the enforcement process.

 

 

Something else, just want to get know:

 

I know someone who appealed a pcn of his after they siezed his goods, but they refused to give him his goods (his motorbike in the case) until the appeal has gone through the TEC. In the end the PCN was taken off him and the tax payers ended up paying the storage fees (as the council had to pay them).

 

Does that sound right?

I would need far more detail than that on the case in question, but its possible. Its also possible the person you know lied to you and said he had appealed it and low and behold it got thrown out and he had got his bike back when low and behold, he just paid his debt. We see cases like that day in day out where the other half thinks the matter has been sorted only to find out the husband/wife/gf/bg/sister/brother had lied to hide their mistakes. You need to quote a specific court reasons for dissmissing a fine for answers on something like.

 

 

Hope that helps

[Bailiff Advice]

Oh ok, I thought the point of the warrant was for the bailiff to recover the fees, and if the fees were recovered through them or not there would be no point in the warrant.?

 

It is the warrant itself that actually provides the POWER to enforce the debt and in so doing, the bailiff may only enforce (the debt) in line with the PROCEDURES outlined in Schedule 12 of the Tribunal Courts & Enforcement Act and its supporting secondary legislations , the most important being:

 

The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013

 

The Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014

[sideaways]

I fully understand that it gives them the power to do enforce the collection of the outstanding debts.

 

And I understand that they can charge the fees as outlined in the Regulations.

 

My question is that if the debt it paid directly to the creditor, how can the bailiff charge their fees?

 

So even if they don't collect a debt, they can still charge their fees?

 

So what happens in the instances when the bailiff are unable to recover the fees and it goes back to the council?

 

 

I've had one like that, with Jacob Bailiffs and then I've paid the council off once its gone back to them.

 

 

Even the council themselves advised that I had the option to wait until the debt was passed back to them and then pay it off.

 

 

I was then NOT REQUIRED to pay any fees to the bailiffs.

 

Isn't that the same thing? Because I was not required to pay the bailiffs fees.

[dx100uk]

but was the above example pre the new regulations?

 

 

dx

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I fully understand that it gives them the power to do enforce the collection of the outstanding debts.

 

And I understand that they can charge the fees as outlined in the Regulations.

 

My question is that if the debt it paid directly to the creditor, how can the bailiff charge their fees?

 

So even if they don't collect a debt, they can still charge their fees?

 

So what happens in the instances when the bailiff are unable to recover the fees and it goes back to the council?

 

I've had one like that, with Jacob Bailiffs and then I've paid the council off once its gone back to them.

 

Even the council themselves advised that I had the option to wait until the debt was passed back to them and then pay it off.

 

I was then NOT REQUIRED to pay any fees to the bailiffs.

 

Isn't that the same thing? Because I was not required to pay the bailiffs fees.

 

You are correct.

 

 

If the bailiffs can find assets to enforce upon then you will lose the assets or pay the fees.

If they give up and hand it back, then the fees get written off.

 

If, due to the bailiff being involved and pressuring you to pay, then they have done their job,

no matter whether you pay direct or not, they will go for their fees.

 

Should you pay BEFORE they even send the notice of enforcement, then you wont have to pay fees.

 

If you are to be made bankrupt by the client, they can, and do, add the bailiff fees to the bankruptcy amounts if they feel you have assets and its worth the time and effort.

[outlawla]

...If, due to the bailiff being involved and pressuring you to pay, then they have done their job,

no matter whether you pay direct or not, they will go for their fees...

 

This statement serves to highlight misleading news reports which are the consequence of lazy reporters accepting what they're told by bailiff firm

s and councils when they claim 'x' or 'y' amount of £millions have been recovered by bailiffs.

 

 

Just because £x million was recovered in respect of accounts that have been instructed for enforcement

does not mean £x million was recovered by the bailiffs.

 

 

The majority of that £x million will have been paid regardless of enforcement.

 

 

People in highly paid positions within local authorities are just too thick to realise.

[sideaways]

Morning

 

Thanks for the replies grumpy. I understand that and it makes perfect sense to me. Even thought the bailiffs and councils tell me otherwises, only a manager told me the correct thing.

 

One question. How does a bailiff prove the below:

 

If, due to the bailiff being involved and pressuring you to pay, then they have done their job,

no matter whether you pay direct or not, they will go for their fees.

 

Surely there is no way to prove that, it could all be circumstantial.

You could have had the money then, or got into a job at that time...see what I mean?

Seems a bit dubious.

 

 

Also, if a bailiffs job it to "pressure" you into paying, how are they any better than loan shark

or a "thug" for a gang going around "pressuring" people to pay for their protection etc.

 

Just makes them sound like absolute bullies, and its a bit strange that people now a days still have a job like that.

It must take a person of a certain mindset to become a bailiff.

 

Now if you do pay the council directly and then they pass it on to the bailiff, then it can be hard I understand.

But what about in those instances when the council keeps it?

Or even actually returns the funds to you (when you have not requested to do so)

[Coughdrop]

Im Sorry but I am very new to this.

 

I don't know the legal know how just trying to follow the issue through with logic.

 

Fast learner!

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Morning

 

Thanks for the replies grumpy. I understand that and it makes perfect sense to me. Even thought the bailiffs and councils tell me otherwises, only a manager told me the correct thing.

 

One question. How does a bailiff prove the below:

 

If, due to the bailiff being involved and pressuring you to pay, then they have done their job,

no matter whether you pay direct or not, they will go for their fees.

 

Surely there is no way to prove that, it could all be circumstantial.

You could have had the money then, or got into a job at that time...see what I mean?

Seems a bit dubious.

 

 

Also, if a bailiffs job it to "pressure" you into paying, how are they any better than loan shark

or a "thug" for a gang going around "pressuring" people to pay for their protection etc.

 

Just makes them sound like absolute bullies, and its a bit strange that people now a days still have a job like that.

It must take a person of a certain mindset to become a bailiff.

 

Now if you do pay the council directly and then they pass it on to the bailiff, then it can be hard I understand.

But what about in those instances when the council keeps it?

Or even actually returns the funds to you (when you have not requested to do so)

 

By pressuring, I'm on about the threat of removal of goods to provoke a payment.

 

Prove what? Once the compliance letter has been sent, any payments made after that date are said to be made under compulsion of a warrant or writ.

 

Person of a certain mindset? So we are reduced to inferring that a bailiff must be someone with "issues". Or is that just an insult to get a rise. Nice try.

 

If the payment is made after we are involved, then we enforce no matter who you have paid.

If you have paid before we are involved, then we are withdrawn.

Its quite simple.

 

Unfortunately, some people will always refuse to pay what they owe and therefore, bailiffs are a necessary evil. Unless you want to bring back debtors prisons etc?

[dx100uk]

Jaejay sorry sideaways

 

 

yet another of mark1960's plants on CAG

 

 

thread closed

 

 

as spoof