Marstons Bailiffs - DVLA 'fine' - help!!

[Bailiff Advice]

 

TRACE were the ones who said Marston had stolen it as had it been done legitimately it would have appeared in their system. Therefore it was reported stolen and he was forced to return it.

 

I am genuinly very concerned at what advice your partner has provided to his solicitor as this above comment by you is again at complete odds with the discussion that I had with your partner yesterday.

 

As I stated in my detailed post, your partner advised me that Camberwell Magistrates (or LCCC) had telephoned Marston Group to ask them to return the vehicle on the very simple basis that the court were to consider a Statutory Declaration the following day (11th September). If I misunderstood your partner in this respect then I do apologise.

 

As I hope I made clear in my detailed post, it would seem that there was a genuine misunderstanding about the application to court in 2013 and in no way at all was I blaming your partner. If the application was for a Statutory Declaration (which I believe that it was) then such an application would confuse most individuals. All of us on the forum are here to help and to provide accurate advice and assistance. That is what we all do very well.

 

I am sure that I speak on behalf of all regular posters on here by saying that we wish your solicitor good luck in pursuing this complaint for your partner and I do hope that you will update the forum as and when this matter is resolved.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[Bailiff Advice]

A last final post (I hope).

 

Your partner also stated that he had been unaware that a bailiff enforcing a Magistrate Court fine can force entry and furthermore, that an argument had broken out at the property because the bailiff has not provided him with a copy of the warrant from the court.

 

On the subject on whether or not a warrant needs to be shown, the legal position is that it DOES not need to be shown to the debtor and the reason for this is outlined in the following link which exhibits a copy of official guidance from Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunal Service:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?444839-Ministry-of-Justice-amends-contracts-for-court-fine-enforcement-with-new-fee-scale-and-updated-Forced-Entry-Provision.&highlight=forced+entry+procedure

 

I advised your partner that I was very suprised indeed to hear that your solicitor had been unaware that a bailiff is legally permitted to force entry to enforce non payment of a cout fine. In this respect I advised him that the Ministry of Justice had updated their Forced Entry Procedure guidance in July 2014. A copy of that document is displayed here:

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[unclebulgaria67]

GHMummy

 

Rather than spend time arguing over misunderstandings, perhaps better to spend time getting the evidence together and trying to resolve with the court and DVLA.

 

Sounds like it was not your fault and you need to deal with why the DVLA still had you recorded as responsible for Insurance, when your Insurance company had taken over ownership following the claim settlement.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[Bailiff Advice]

I do not believe that any more comments need to be made on this issue on the forum and I will not comment further either.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[doggone it]

What confuses me here is someone coming to ask for help when they already have engaged a Solicitor to act for them. Is the case therefore subject to Sub Judice and should we really be making comment? Secondly it appears to me the OP has come to pick a fight with some - I do find it all rather strange and think there must be more than meets the eye to all this.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[unclebulgaria67]

What confuses me here is someone coming to ask for help when they already have engaged a Solicitor to act for them. Is the case therefore subject to Sub Judice and should we really be making comment? Secondly it appears to me the OP has come to pick a fight with some - I do find it all rather strange and think there must be more than meets the eye to all this.

 

Think you could well be right. Not sub judice really as it has to be a current case in front of a judge. Not sure it is currently with a Judge. The OP needs to get hold of evidence that the error is not theirs and then appeal using it.

[GHMummy]

You were asked not to post anymore yet you have continued to. I only managed to secure a solicitor yesterday hence why I asked for help. Now some Marston's employee is trying to make me look bad when the last time I posted was around 11! Yeah he told me!!! Point is we are right they are wrong end of discussion!!! Those who have genuinely helped (instead of picked a fight like some keyboard bully) I whole heartfelt thank-you. Oh further more get a life a real one!!!

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[GHMummy]

Admin remove thread please

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[honeybee13]

Admin remove thread please

 

Hello there.

 

We don't normally remove threads unless there are legal reasons for doing so. You may wish to contact our admin people [click on the word admin] with your reasons.

 

HB

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[citizenB]

Thread has now been closed.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB