Marstons Bailiffs - DVLA 'fine' - help!!

[GHMummy]

Please help running out of options.

Judge threw out our statutory declaration as out of time.

No one will overturn judges decision despite all the evidence.

 

We bought a car in 2011 from a neighbour.

Registered and insured it.

Two days later that car was stolen from us.

 

 

The police were informed and took a statement for it to be reported stolen.

They never found the car and it was never returned to us.

 

 

The police told us to write off what we had paid for the car and cut all ties to it.

We did this and cancelled the insurance we had.

 

 

Apparently the dvla took us to court ( without our knowledge )

have said the case was successfully prosecuted.

It was prosecuted because we never received the court summons so never turned up.

 

 

The case was for keeping a vehicle that does not meet insurance standards.

Our appeal was accepted in 2013 and the case was closed.

The same appeal was sent to the dvla but they didn't respond until 2014 and it was no comment.

 

 

Fast forward to Saturday 5th September baliffs banging down the door,

assaulted me by forcing the door back on me and used an illegal threshold manoeuvre.

 

 

Illegally clamped our (fully insured, fully taxed) vehicle and the police made us hand over our keys.

 

Thursday 10th September the baliffs steals our car without authorisation

and hits me side on with his vehicle when I ran out to get a warrant or authorisation from him.

Marston's baliffs seem to act like rabid dogs all the time!

 

 

Disgusting creatures to deal with.

He was forced to return our car and the keys on Friday September 11th which he did.

He also made a report against me for criminal damage.

Apparently I ran out into the road and struck his fast moving vehicle!

 

 

if I had been able to strike his fast moving vehicle the injuries to my arm would be on the inside of my arm not the outside.

Personal injury solicitor taking my case against him.

 

Same Friday judge threw out our statutory declaration as out of time.

We are not paying a debt we do not owe as we have no legal obligation to insure a car we do not own and was stolen from us.

The amount is £628 plus baliffs fees which they told us is triple the amount.

 

Where do we go next please?

[SabreSheep]

Moving thread to Bailiff forum

 

Regards

 

SS

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[unclebulgaria67]

If you had Successful appeal, why did Marstons visit ? Suggest you make a complaint to the court enforcement manager about what has happened. Also look to pursue a complaint about the enforcement officers who visited.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[GHMummy]

Because no action was taken on the case it was simply closed but the baliffs notice left live instead of closing it properly. Tried that the person responsible no longer works there. Three emails later no one will touch this case as the 21 days out of date was by a district judge so no one wants to go against her no matter the evidence

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[unclebulgaria67]

If you definitely won the appeal and there is nothing owing, then take this proof to the court to make a complaint. No district Judge is going to ignore such evidence and allow enfircement of a debt that does not exist.

 

Or you are mistaken about the appeal and you owe the money.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Apparently the dvla took us to court ( without our knowledge ) have said the case was successfully prosecuted.

It was prosecuted because we never received the court summons so never turned up. The case was for keeping a vehicle that does not meet insurance standards.

Our appeal was accepted in 2013 and the case was closed. The same appeal was sent to the dvla but they didn't respond until 2014 and it was no comment.

 

Fast forward to Saturday 5th September baliffs banging down the door, assaulted me by forcing the door back on me and used an illegal threshold manoeuvre. Illegally clamped our (fully insured, fully taxed) vehicle and the police made us hand over our keys.

 

Thursday 10th September the baliffs steals our car without authorisation and hits me side on with his vehicle when I ran out to get a warrant or authorisation from him.

Marston's baliffs seem to act like rabid dogs all the time! Disgusting creatures to deal with. He was forced to return our car and the keys on Friday September 11th which he did.

He also made a report against me for criminal damage. Apparently I ran out into the road and struck his fast moving vehicle! if I had been able to strike his fast moving vehicle the injuries to my arm would be on the inside of my arm not the outside. Personal injury solicitor taking my case against him.

 

Same Friday judge threw out our statutory declaration as out of time.

 

We are not paying a debt we do not owe as we have no legal obligation to insure a car we do not own and was stolen from us. The amount is £628 plus baliffs fees which they told us is triple the amount.

 

Where do we go next please?

 

I must confess to being very confused about the above and would be grateful if you could provide some further information.

 

It would seem from the above that you were prosecuted for not having insurance on the vehicle and that you were unaware of this and had not received a summons. I would assume that the reason for not receiving any documentation would have been because your name and address would not have been on DVLA records at the time. It is what happened afterwards that I am confused with?

 

You say that you appealed the court fine and that the appeal was accepted and that a copy of the appeal was sent to DVLA (in 2013) but they they did not respond until 2014. This 'appeal' that you refer to, an application for a Statutory Declaration? If so, did you attend the hearing?

 

Following that hearing, if as you say the court accepted that you were not responsible, the court would have sent a copy of their decision to the DVLA prosecution team and that should have been the end of the matter. The only way to have got to conviction revoked would have been by way of a Statutory Declaration. The court should have provided a copy of the order to you after the hearing and if not, you can obtain a copy from the Magistrates Court. If it is the case that DVLA had not received a copy of that order that does not explain WHY it was possible for a warrant to have been issued.

 

If you could respond that would help a great deal.

[Conniff]

 

Illegally clamped our (fully insured, fully taxed) vehicle and the police made us hand over our keys.

 

 

Complain to the police as well. This has nothing to do with them and thedy are only in attendance to stop any breach of the piece. They have no authority to get involved at all.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[GHMummy]

Sorry I think I have confused things here based on what the court admin told me. They said it shows on the system that our appeal was stamped and accepted but no hearing was ever set. They said the case was simply closed on the system but not done in the right way. Well got a Document that's stamped and dated with the appeal notice and full appeal on it.

 

No it's the right details the dvla have we just never received the court summons so I'm making a freedom of information request to them to prove that they actually sent one in the first place.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[unclebulgaria67]

Sorry I think I have confused things here based on what the court admin told me. They said it shows on the system that our appeal was stamped and accepted but no hearing was ever set. They said the case was simply closed on the system but not done in the right way. Well got a Document that's stamped and dated with the appeal notice and full appeal on it.

 

No it's the right details the dvla have we just never received the court summons so I'm making a freedom of information request to them to prove that they actually sent one in the first place.

 

You need to make a complaint to the court manager about this. If the appeal was rejected, why did you not receive notice. Sometimes if the appeal stands no chance of success, it is rejected without any hearing. You need the court to find out what happened.

[GHMummy]

Brilliant thank-you. Then how do we squash this nonsense? The 142 was denied so am I right in thinking its an n244 next and that can squash the conviction?

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[unclebulgaria67]

Brilliant thank-you. Then how do we squash this nonsense? The 142 was denied so am I right in thinking its an n244 next and that can squash the conviction?

 

To be honest i don't know and until you find out what happened to your last appeal why should you do this again. The court need to see if a mistake was made by them and do what they need to do to rectify the situation.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[GHMummy]

The mistake was the dvla bringing this nonsense to court and lieing under oath. We had insurance for the stolen car and only cancelled it when it was reported stolen and the police told us to cut all ties to the vehicle. So I really don't understand how this can happen. Someone somewhere along the line has been professionally negligent at the dvla that's for sure

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[Bailiff Advice]

Due to computer problems I had been unaware that GM Mummy had sent an enquiry about this incident through to me via my website. Yesterday I spoke at length to the debtor and it is fair to say that there has been a great deal of confusion about the 'appeal' and with his permission, I am updating the forum.

 

His car had been stolen two days after it's purchase in 2011. He reported the incident to the police and as the vehicle could not be found, he cancelled the insurance and advised DVLA. Ths in my opinion was the correct thing to do.

 

Fast forward to 2013 and he had a visit at his home from Marston Group in connection with a court fine for keeping a vehicle on the road without insurance. He genuinely did not know of the court fine given that the summons had been sent to a different address. Either Marston Group or the Magistrate Court had located a new address for him.

 

Following this visit in 2013, he made enquiries with the court and the court agreed that he could make a Statutory Declaration. The court sent him the forms to complete and return to the Magistrates Court. Regretabally, he did NOT return the forms to the court. This was a misunderstanding on his part as he thought that the court would first send him a hearing date. After receiving the application from the court he also wrote again to DVLA.

 

For reasons that are unclear, the Magistrate Court did not pursue the matter any further until last week (September 7th) when he had ANOTHER visit at his home from Marston Group. Following this visit he made enquiries with the Magistarte Court and they made an appointment for him to attend the court on Friday 11th Seotember. At the time of making the appointment, the court did not have the background paperwork available. Unfortunately, the court did NOT inform Marston Group of a forthcoming application for a Statutory Declaration (there is no legal obligation on them to do so) and accordingly, on September 10th Marston Group re attended his property and clamped and removed his vehicle. The debtor immediately complained to the Magistrate Court and it would appear that the court contacted Marston Group to advise them that a Statutory Declaration hearing was scheduled for the following day and that with this in mind, they should return the vehicle (which they did). It is important to stress here that his vehicle had NOT been stolen by Marston Group. It was taken legally.

 

The following day (Sept 11th) he attended the court and after reviewing the court file, the Magistrate REFUSED to grant permission for him to file a Statutory Declaration given that he had failed to return the documentation two years earlier and that he was therefore very much out of time. A statutory declaration must be filed within 21 days of becoming 'aware' of the fine .

 

Following this disappointing (but entirely correct ruling) he has been advised that the warrant is NOT on hold any longer and that Marston are perfectly within their rights to legally enforce the warrant.

 

I have advised the debtor that his only option is to apply to the court for permission to REOPEN the case under what is known as a Section 142 Application. This is NOT a statutory declaration application. Unfortunately the other problem that he faces is that he does not have any documentary evidence that the vehicle has been stolene in 2011. Accordingly, he has made a Subject Access Request to the Police for details. He must have this information if the court are willing to re-open the case.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[GHMummy]

I heard about you and we checked this advice with our solicitors and they said everything you have said is wrong. The appeal was stamped and received by two agencies and nothing asking us to complete any paperwork. The court made genuine errors which they have admitted to. We cannot be expected to mind read or know what to do when we hear nothing further. You also missed out the part where the two addresses they have are correct and neither address received a summons. We have also put in a request to see the original summons if there was one

 

We had never heard of a statutory declaration until last week so I have no idea where you got that from. We have been warmed about people like you that give out wrong advice intentionally. We have now found out what should have been done regarding this and it is undergoing judicial review.

 

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.

 

Also very conviently missed out the part where we haven't seen the vehicle since 2011 and have not been keeping an uninsured vehicle so being that all the allegations are false we have a strong case with our solicitors.

 

You also left out the part where the 142 was denied and the baliffs were forced to return our car based on false allegations that we are disputing. This is called professional negligence

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[unclebulgaria67]

At the time of the theft, was there no Car Insurance in place to cover the theft. If so, they will also have details of the claim and the period the Insurance was in force. With a theft claim, once a vehicle is not recovered after a period of time, the Insurers would pay for total loss. The Insurers would normally be sent the V5 registration document, as they would become the owner having just paid the claim. Would have thought that the Insurers would update DVLA, but it is sometime since I dealt with motor claims.

 

GHMummy should ask the Insurers about this.

 

From what i remember, the theft is reported to Police and Insurers. The Car Insurance remains in place until the Insurers have waited a period to see if recovered. Then if not recovered, the Insurers pay the total loss, take over ownership and the insurance is cancelled.

 

Is the no Insurance issue down to the Insurers not advising DVLA ? If this is the case, get a letter from them, provide to the court and they should accept it. Then it is about dealing with sorting out the issues that occured as a result.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[GHMummy]

Bingo you got it. There was insurance in place at the time of the theft and it was cancelled after a period of time when the police said they could not find it. So the insurance was cancelled. This is why we have gone back to the insurance company for evidence that we have received. Thank-you will do that

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[unclebulgaria67]

GHMummy, you mentioned the Statutory declaration in your first post. The situation is confusing and i hope your Solicitor has all the information clear about what happened.

 

Given that this relates to Insurance, you should look at my last post, as it could be key to sorting this out.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[unclebulgaria67]

Bingo you got it. There was insurance in place at the time of the theft and it was cancelled after a period of time when the police said they could not find it. So the insurance was cancelled. This is why we have gone back to the insurance company for evidence that we have received. Thank-you will do that

 

If the Insurers have made a mistake in not updating DVLA, you should be able to recover all of your costs from them, if you give them full details.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[Bailiff Advice]

I heard about you and we checked this advice with our solicitors and they said everything you have said is wrong. The appeal was stamped and received by two agencies and nothing asking us to complete any paperwork. The court made genuine errors which they have admitted to. We cannot be expected to mind read or know what to do when we hear nothing further. You also missed out the part where the two addresses they have are correct and neither address received a summons. We have also put in a request to see the original summons if there was one

 

We had never heard of a statutory declaration until last week so I have no idea where you got that from. We have been warmed about people like you that give out wrong advice intentionally. We have now found out what should have been done regarding this and it is undergoing judicial review.

 

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.

 

Also very conviently missed out the part where we haven't seen the vehicle since 2011 and have not been keeping an uninsured vehicle so being that all the allegations are false we have a strong case with our solicitors.

 

You also left out the part where the 142 was denied and the baliffs were forced to return our car based on false allegations that we are disputing. This is called professional negligence

 

Thank you for your response. The person that I spoke with yesterday was your partner (whose is the person whose name this fine is in). My post reflects my conversation with him accurately. In fact, I have just read again, your partners email to me and he states the following:

"My stat dec was turned down by Camberwell Magistratres because of the 21 day rule on 11/09".

I am therefore very confused by your above comment that the application to Camberwell had in fact been for a section 142 Application and NOT for a Statutory Declaration.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[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.

 

Also very conviently missed out the part where we haven't seen the vehicle since 2011 and have not been keeping an uninsured vehicle so being that all the allegations are false we have a strong case with our solicitors.

 

If you read my post you will see that I stated the following:

His car had been stolen two days after it's purchase in 2011. He reported the incident to the police and as the vehicle could not be found, he cancelled the insurance and advised DVLA.

With the greatest of respect TRACE are not qualified to state whether or not a vehicle had been stolen. They are merely an online service run by London Councils for anyone whose vehicle has been towed away for illegal parking by any council in London. TRACE will advise which pound the vehicle has been moved to and will provide information on the procedure for release.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[Surfer01]

The mistake was the dvla bringing this nonsense to court and lieing under oath. We had insurance for the stolen car and only cancelled it when it was reported stolen and the police told us to cut all ties to the vehicle. So I really don't understand how this can happen. Someone somewhere along the line has been professionally negligent at the dvla that's for sure

Did you notify the DVLA that the vehicle was no longer in your possession and you were no longer the owner? If not, then the DVLA would have been correct in prosecuting you.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[GHMummy]

We have done both and both have been denied. He already told me he told you that so don't try it! You are also well aware of the contract of sale to myself so again nice try. I was referring to our car that was stolen by Marston's. There is something called due process. There are rules and regulations they must follow they are not a law unto themselves like they seem to think. They were also caught out lieing yesterday. So again don't comment unless you know what you are talking about.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[Bailiff Advice]

Bingo you got it. There was insurance in place at the time of the theft and it was cancelled after a period of time when the police said they could not find it. So the insurance was cancelled. This is why we have gone back to the insurance company for evidence that we have received. Thank-you will do that

 

And if you read my post you will see that I had stated that the vehicle had been insured when it was stolen and that the insurance was cancelled after the vehicle could not be found.

 

It was for this precise reason that your partners application to court two years later (in 2013) should have been accepted (assuming of course that he had been able to provide evidence from the police that he had reported the car as stolen, and evidence from the insurance company of the date when insurance began and when it was cancelled).

 

Without such evidence any application (whether for a Statutory Declaration or a section 142 Application (to re-open the case) would be doomed to fail.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[GHMummy]

Yes they were notified and it shows on the system according to the police that searched the reg of the car. They even stated its got nothing to do with us

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB

[Bailiff Advice]

We have done both and both have been denied. He already told me he told you that so don't try it! You are also well aware of the contract of sale to myself so again nice try. I was referring to our car that was stolen by Marston's.

 

So again don't comment unless you know what you are talking about.

 

It is really unfortunate that you are responding in such a hostile way. I had not wanted to mention on the forum the matter of the Contract of Sale between you and your partner and I am only doing so now because of your above comment.

 

Your partner stated to me that he had transferred the car into your name a couple of weeks ago (after receiving notification of the recent enforcement by Marston Group). I correctly advised your partner that such a 'Contract' would sadly NOT protect his car from seizure given that goods belonging to the debtor become 'bound' from the date on the warrant and that this means that any 'transfer' or 'sale' of any goods (including a car) would be liable to be challenged.

Edited September 18, 2015 by citizenB