marston Marstons wrongly executing warrant for paid fine - harassment of pregnant partner – chasing for refund and compensation

[Bailiff Advice]

No it was for their part of what was taken. I chased Marstons for 51 days to get my refund from them

 

And is this what you are waiting for?

[wjkafc]

And is this what you are waiting for?

 

Nope, I am waiting for my complaint to be investigated and subsequent compensation claim to be actioned

[Bailiff Advice]

Nope, I am waiting for my complaint to be investigated and subsequent compensation claim to be actioned

 

So am I right in that you have received a full refund?

[wjkafc]

So am I right in that you have received a full refund?

 

That is correct

[ploddertom]

 

In the first instance, you need to be aware that once a warrant is passed to an individual enforcement agent, he or she must obey by the precise wording on the warrant which COMMANDS that the enforcement agent must attend to 'take control of goods'.

 

 

Does the Warrant also COMMAND that the attending Officer must not question whether it is right or wrong and not use common sense..

[brassnecked]

Does the Warrant also COMMAND that the attending Officer must not question whether it is right or wrong and not use common sense..

No they must attend and use Common Purpose, common sense cannot apply to the letter of the law (so my law lecturers told me) execute and clear the house if they can gain peaceful entry for the non debt or so it would seem according to the wording of the Regulations. BA is correct, they are COMMANDED to attend and seize goods if they can get in.

[Bailiff Advice]

So am I right in that you have received a full refund?

 

Thank you for confirming that you have received a full refund from HMCTS and Marston Group. The reason why I was pressing you on this point is because the title of your thread includes the words: "Chasing for refund and compensation".

[wjkafc]

Thank you for confirming that you have received a full refund from HMCTS and Marston Group. The reason why I was pressing you on this point is because the title of your thread includes the words: "Chasing for refund and compensation".

 

I haven't received compensation from Marstons, just a refund which took them 51 days to get to me!!

[wjkafc]

I have received a settlement offer from Marstons which I am waiting to be paid to me today. Once this has been completed I will be in contact BankFodder

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Can you post up a copy of the settlement offer minus your personal details? This is almost unheard of.

What circumstances are they offering settlement for?

[ploddertom]

I'm surprised no mention of non-disclosure.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Yes, you would have thought that would have been a main clause.

[Peterbard]

Since April 14 last year it does not matter what they are commanded to do, they have to abide by schedule 12 procedures(section 62)

Regulations made under this schedule say this about vulnerable people

 

Circumstances in which the enforcement agent may not take control of goods

10.—(1) The enforcement agent may not take control of goods of the debtor where—

(a)the debtor is a child;

(b)a child or vulnerable person (whether more than one or a combination of both) is the only person present in the relevant or specified premises in which the goods are located; or

 

Although "vulnerable person" is not defined in the act itself there are guidelines in the 2015 national standards here :

 

76. Enforcement agents should be aware that vulnerability may not be immediately

obvious.

 

 

77. Some groups who might be vulnerable are listed below. However, this list is not

exhaustive. Care should be taken to assess each situation on a case by case

basis.

 

 

. the elderly;

 

 

. people with a disability;

 

 

. the seriously ill;

 

 

. the recently bereaved;

 

 

. single parent families;

 

 

. pregnant women;

 

 

. unemployed people; and,

 

 

. those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading

[ploddertom]

As has been pointed out on many an occasion they are just that - Guidelines. until such time they are enshrined in the Regulations then there are still many who like to pretend they either don't exist or don't apply. Even though everyone says they have signed up to abide by them many are still wearing blinkers. For me the Regulations are not tight enough.

[Peterbard]

Yes indeed but the regulations are, and it states what should happen if the EA encounters vulnerable debtors, so we are back to common sense and what it is likely a court would think, i defy anyone to say that a heavily pregnant women was not vulnerable.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Yes, but was is heavily pregnant? 8 months? 7 months? 6 months? 5 months? Where do you draw the line.... Oh yes, you cant! Every case MUST be treated on its own merits.

There are disabled people that would be EXTREMELY offended if you classed them as vulnerable. I suggest you wake up and realise you cant place a human in a "category".

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

They should be able to seek help by placing themselves in one of the categories though and that can then be looked into.

[tortle]

But you could take an official complaint against the court for breach of the guidance couldn't you? They are subject to the NS and it could go to the parliamentary ombudsman if you are not happy with there response,s I think section 4 makes them responsible as a creditor, and section 7 makes it clear they are responsible for the EA actions.

[Peterbard]

I thin most of use would recognise a heavily pregnant women Grumpy, that is unless we were asleep

 

As an aside like it or not everyone falls into certain categories.

[ploddertom]

It is all down to the attending Agents interpretation, and in this case they are saying any footage is lost. It has been compounded by the length of time the Enforcement Co has taken to sort it. In this matter they have been absolutely disgraceful.

[ploddertom]

Maybe it is about time Marston CEO observed some of his employees in action - and by that I don't mean going with them, should be done discreetly by people working undercover possibly as "debtors".

[Peterbard]

It is all down to the attending Agents interpretation, and in this case they are saying any footage is lost. It has been compounded by the length of time the Enforcement Co has taken to sort it. In this matter they have been absolutely disgraceful.

 

Problem with this is as far as I know there is no legal imperative for them to carry cameras in any case.

There is talk of SAR requests to obtain footage, as I understand it if they are not legally required to carry them let alone have them switchid on, all they have to say is we do not have the footage .

[ploddertom]

Problem with this is as far as I know there is no legal imperative for them to carry cameras in any case.

There is talk of SAR requests to obtain footage, as I understand it if they are not legally required to carry them let alone have them switchid on, all they have to say is we do not have the footage .

 

That's as maybe but they need to decide one way or the other or are they just going to pick & choose what they want. If so then little wonder there are those who are suggesting people do their own filming so a record can be kept. if they want to adopt a squeaky clean image then they have to be able to prove it otherwise instances like this will show them for what they really are.

[brassnecked]

It is all down to the attending Agents interpretation, and in this case they are saying any footage is lost. It has been compounded by the length of time the Enforcement Co has taken to sort it. In this matter they have been absolutely disgraceful.

Footage does seem to be conveniently lost where there is an issue with an EA.

 

Set it up with that Rogue Traders guy from Watchdog, Secret cameras at door, and in each room, should be interesting.

[Peterbard]

That's as maybe but they need to decide one way or the other or are they just going to pick & choose what they want. If so then little wonder there are those who are suggesting people do their own filming so a record can be kept. if they want to adopt a squeaky clean image then they have to be able to prove it otherwise instances like this will show them for what they really are.

 

Yes I agree currently there seems to be a case of, if it supports us we will show it if it doesn't, it is not available.