troll posts

[Guest alreadyexists]

For the benefit of those who may be confused, here is a LGO decision that is relevant to this case. It is of course ridiculous to suggest that the LGO will not be interested in looking into a matter where injustice has occurred:

 

24. I have considered the actions taken by the enforcement agent. I consider that when the agent traced Mr D’s current address and noted that it had strong evidence of this, it should have written to that address. I have not seen evidence that it did. Shortly after this the agent received a letter returned marked “gone away”. It does not appear that the agent said it writing to the new address it had traced. However, in February 2016 the agent continued its action to the enforcement stage adding fees of £235 when it visited Mr D’s former address. In April 2016 the agent amended the address details to Mr D’s current address, the address that it had found in November 2015. There was no explanation in the agent’s notes why it changed the address at that point. I consider the agent’s apparent failure to pursue its own strong evidence was fault, which led to injustice in the form of the additional fees.

 

25. The Council responded to my draft decision and stated that its enforcement agent had not exhausted its recovery efforts using the original address given. However, I consider that in view of the strong evidence it had received, the enforcement agent should have followed this up by writing to the new address it found or calling the telephone number it traced. I consider that if it had done so Mr D would have paid or made an arrangement to pay following an explanation of the outstanding debt. This would have avoided the costs of £235.

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefit ... 16-008-217

 

Dave. This LGO decision is 100% relevant to your own situation. If Marston do not return your £235, this LGO decision should be bought to the attention of the council when you contact them regarding the injustice that you have suffered.

 

Bailiffs and their apologists will tell you that every LGO is case specific. Whilst this is true, it is 99.99% unlikely that the LGO would find any different in your matter and even less likely that the council would want to take the risk of a negative LGO decision against them just to line Marston's pockets.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Yes, I'm not sure why? I'll try again:

 

http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/16-008-217

 

It is a case involving Westminster City Council (16-008-217), Decision date 21st February 2017

[Guest alreadyexists]

This one does though http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/council-tax/16-008-217

 

Thank you PT and welcome back

[Guest alreadyexists]

Dave

 

Just to keep things into perspective here. it is highly unlikely that your request for a refund will require the intervention of the LGO. If Marston don't refund your money, I'm pretty sure that the council will, especially if they are made aware of that LGO decision.

 

It is also worth pointing out that you are in no way bound to submit an OOT and as I have stated previously, given that your records remained unchanged for two years prior to the offence, it is doubtful that an OOT will succeed (although you lose nothing by trying). If you are not disputing the parking penalty charges, you are fully entitled to challenge just the £235 enforcement fee, which is what you stated you wanted to do in post #1.

 

A common area of dispute for the LGO is the subject of costs and fees charged by bailiffs. I would urge you to completely ignore any suggestions that the LGO cannot investigate bailiff charges. This is a ridiculous thing to suggest, especially in the light of being provided a link in black and white to an LGO investigation regarding the very same fee that you are challenging. A very well known case from a few years back actually involved a lady who originally sought advice on this very forum regarding fees. it was a very serious incident indeed and certainly stretched the realms of LGO jurisdiction. Nevertheless, she (the LGO) was brave enough to consider the complaint as one of maladministration. By way of reflecting the severity of which she thought of the matter, she even suggested that the complainant be awarded a compensation figure of £300 for the alarm and distress which is fairly unusual in LGO cases. I have dozens of LGO decisions within my files of LGO investigations regarding bailiffs overcharging. All could have been resolved by instigating court proceedings but all were considered (and upheld) by the LGO.

 

Regarding a precedent needing to be set, that LGO decision is as good as having one as far as council tax and PCN enforcement is concerned. Although not legally binding, it is extremely unlikely that a council would be prepared to allow the LGO to intervene for such a small sum (of £235) that is being claimed by an enforcement agency. The unfortunate thing is that not everyone will have the presence of mind that you had and research the charges. Many just pay and move on.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Apologies

 

If anyone is interested, this is the thread connected to the serious incident mentioned in the above post. It is commonly known (even today) as the Blaby decision:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?358537-Local-Government-Ombudsman-Report-Issued-in-the-quot-public-interest-quot-........Bailiff-fees

[Guest alreadyexists]

Thank you Dodgeball

 

However, there are 3 very serious flaws in your silly theory.

 

First of all, a case will not be "very easily resolved" if the OOT involves the failure to notify a change of address for a period of 2 years. This was confirmed by your colleague who stated the following recently in a similar situation:

 

I'm sorry but I had not read your query properly. As you had moved 5 years ago, and not updated your V5C (Log Book) the council will very likely reject your application.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?479709-Equita-Warrant-of-control-re-bus-lane-fine-issued-late-2016 (post #4)

 

Secondly, the LGO will only refuse to consider a complaint when it relates specifically to a grievance regarding the validity of a PCN, and NOT when the grievance relates to injustice caused by excessive bailiff fees. She cannot force a person into taking different action that they do not want to.

 

Thirdly (and most importantly) the LGO would have no idea that a case would be "easily resolved by an OOT request" if the reasoning behind the complaint was connected to excessive bailiff fees. The LGO is neither a mind reader nor a fortune teller. Unless she is made aware that the complainant had moved address (which would not happen in a complaint regarding excessive bailiff fees), she would not know that the NtO etc had not been received.

 

Once again, your lack of experience in dealing with complaints and LGO investigations has betrayed you.

[Guest alreadyexists]

You and I both know that DB's only contribution to these threads is to seek conflict with me. Only recently, he stated on another forum that his plan was to provoke and antagonise me so that I would respond and get banned from this forum.

 

This is of course to the detriment of the person who is seeking help on any particular thread and shows a complete disregard for the person who is seeking help.

 

As you stated in post #24, correct information will likely assist those who visit this popular forum. Confusing issues with silly claims that the LGO will not look at complaints about bailiff fees is inaccurate and misleading. I urged you both to take your squabble to the discussion forum but both of you refused (in complete disregard to the OP)

 

Please don't try to make out that I am in the wrong here, my only motive is to help and support people who visit the forum for guidance on how to deal with bailiff matters.

 

I am more than happy to ignore yourself and your 3 colleagues. However, if misinformation is posted by you or any one of you, I will correct it. I'm sure that you will agree that this would be for the good of everyone?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Most days, I stay logged into the forum (having three monitors at work makes it simple). But in the past week, a new visitor has spent most of the day logged in as well (almost as if he is following me around). I wonder why he's not logged in any longer?.

 

A bridge seems to be missing its troll.

 

BA - I assume that you are referring to me?

 

Like you, I have 3 monitors so am able to stay logged in all day long. I am not following you around. How would you know that I was logged in most of the day, other than if you were following me around? Only yesterday, a member using the name "fattyfelton" spent some considerable time reading all threads that I have posted on. This person appears to be a solicitor who acts on behalf of bailiffs and also seems to be on first name terms with you. Even you must admit that there appears to be a conflict of interest there?

 

As for Dodgeball - He was always more interested in CCA matters before he discovered that there was far more scope for flame wars in the bailiff section and decided overnight that he was qualified to comment on matters connected to enforcement.

 

I am not "clintparsons" and don't wish to get dragged into this argument.

 

My personal feeling is that people should respect the intentions that this forum was set up for. Threads where people post seeking help should not be hijacked, no matter how a person may feel that they have been treated elsewhere. The forum does not exist to enable people to "extract revenge" for previous posts that have been made elsewhere and it is certainly not fair on the moderators who give up their time to expect them to have to continually monitor this area of the website.

 

If anyone has a genuine desire to help people by making informative posts then I applaud them. Comments about "them and us" only serve to highlight what some people desire. They don't want harmony and a combined effort to help people - They crave division and internal squabbling that ultimately ends up seeing thread after thread being locked.

 

If anyone has a genuine desire to help people who are experiencing difficulties in dealing with bailiffs, I would urge them to stop this childish bickering and work towards finding the best solution for the debtor. The most important people are those who visit the forum to seek advice, NOT those who give it.

[Guest alreadyexists]

My username is "alreadyexists" I wish to exercise my right to remain anonymous, pursuant to section 3 of the forum rules and would appreciate it if you would desist from your tiresome guesswork. You have no idea who I am or what usernames I may or may not have used in the past. I have not abused anyone on here since joining the forum.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Actually the site team will know as there are tools for vbulletin that can show which usernames you have used in the past. even if you think you are hiding by using a proxy etc.

 

Great

 

Given that I have never "hidden behind a proxy" in my life, I have nothing to worry about then do I?

[Guest alreadyexists]

In fact, you have done little else. You have repeatedly informed new posters to IGNORE advice given by respected and long time posters on here. You have tried ordering long time posters to start discussions thread.....you have frequently argued with others.

 

I have done no such thing.

 

You are extremely deceitful and dishonest in your posts - It may have worked 3 or 4 years ago for you but people know different now.

 

You stated recently that my advice to a debtor to raise concerns about the validity of a CGA was "lulling her into a false sense of security" This comment was laughable and even you must be embarrassed.

 

I have not "repeatedly" told posters to IGNORE advice. I told ONE poster to ignore the nonsense that Dodgeball had posted. Dodgeball, I might add is not respected (at least not by me).

 

I do not "argue" with others. Everybody knows there are 4 of you in a little group. Do you see me arguing with UB? LFI? BN? or even Leakie? The arguments are created by others which is reflected by their posts being constantly deleted.

[Guest alreadyexists]

You may think everything in the garden is rosy and perfect but that is only YOUR opinion .

They have removed the clamp from the car don;t know if that means anything.

 

Actually, I don't.

 

However, I cannot come up with a better solution, can you?

 

Should we ignore parking restrictions that may impede ambulances? Should we stick 2 fingers up to disabled persons and make them walk long distances?

 

I will fight anyone's corner who has genuinely been wronged by bailiffs but I absolutely detest those who think that they can park where they want and stick two fingers up to the law. It is an affront to the British public and way of life.

[Guest alreadyexists]

nice of you to ignore what i posted and just pick one part of it.

 

Given that you had stated the obvious, I didn't really see any point in commenting on the rest of it - Sorry.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Just for clarity, Section 3 of the forum rules applies only to posts made by YOU (that enable people to personally identify who YOU are). Section 3 does not apply to posts made by me or anyone else advising that your previous usernames were Mark1960, Tuco and more recently; JimUK1

 

And for further clarity, it took you nearly 2 hours since you last commented to think of that. Furthermore, it is only your opinion that I am all of those other posters. you have provided us with no evidence.

 

however, a quick search of CAG "Tuco" brings up this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?461393-JBW-visit-today-Council-Tax***Resolved***/page5

 

A complaint to the council about bailiff fees succeeding.

 

Rather than continually demonising anyone who suggests complaining to councils regarding bailiff fees, perhaps YOU may wish to consider practicing what YOU preach. I have located several posts made by your good self where you encourage debtors to make complaints to councils regarding the charging of bailiff fees. Perhaps you would be so good as to explain to the good people of CAG why you were able to encourage complaints to councils but if anyone else did, it should be frowned upon? What exactly do you think is so wrong in complaining to a council if you feel that the council have not acted correctly?

[Guest alreadyexists]

Heaven forbid people have lives away from an internet forum...

 

I agree. However, some people do not have lives away from an internet forum.

[Guest alreadyexists]

:lalala:

 

Quality post

[Guest alreadyexists]

depends if its private or public land

 

Does it?

 

So it is OK to obstruct ambulances and disabled people on private land then? You are failing to understand what is being discussed.

 

Even parking on private land is difficult to defend these days, given the decision in the Supreme court not so long back

[Guest alreadyexists]

Hi John, I am sorry to read of your problems.

 

Just to add to Andy's advice, I would actually allow 14 days for the builder to respond. (in practice, I would allow 16/17 days minimum, to allow for the postage time, before issuing proceedings)

 

Just be aware that if the builder is limited, then your chances of getting your money back will significantly fall. Also, be aware that if several people are in the same boat as you, it could be that actually enforcing the debt will be difficult.

 

As Andy stated, it is best to post back here prior to you issuing a claim.

[Guest alreadyexists]

We need to know exactly what it is that you wish to complain about.

Marston will almost certainly claim that a NoE was sent out and they were quite within their rights to visit today.

Furthermore, the amount outstanding has been paid.

All Marston visits are filmed so it will be a fairly easy task to verify conflicting versions of events.

 

There appears to have been an awful lot of letters not received here,

posted by your son,

the court & Marston.

 

 

It is also worth pointing out that it wouldn't have mattered what the garage did with their slip,

it was your son' responsibility to give details of the new keeper.

 

The only possible thing that may help is if the court paperwork was sent to an incorrect address but I really think that you are wasting your time complaining.

What do you seek to gain from a complaint?

 

 

You must appreciate that a visit from a bailiff is never going to be a happy experience and the bailiff's job is to crank pressure onto the debtor to pay the debt.

If there was a blue badge inside the car, then it shouldn't have been clamped.

If there was no blue badge then the bailiff was entitled to clamp it.

 

 

It may have been prudent to have made more enquiries about the disability and the blue badge but as the clamp was removed, it is hypothetical now anyway.

 

Had the money not been paid, you may well have had a good, strong argument to be allowed to make payments in installments but this issue is also now hypothetical.

 

I would check with the court to see what address all of their paperwork was sent to but as regards to complaining, I don't think that you have much of a case.

You will not get the money back, you will not be compensated and the bailiff is highly unlikely to be disciplined based on what you have posted.

[Guest alreadyexists]

so they can clamp a car not belonging to the debtor.....???

 

If they have reasonable belief that it belongs to the debtor then yes.

 

However, in this case, they clamped the son's car (the son being the debtor) so it is not an issue.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Or further fill up the jails ......

 

 

What are you proposing :

a) "3 strikes" and you get a "life means life" sentence? For fare evasion?? !

b) 3 strikes where one of the convictions must be for a "severe violent felony"? Considering the UK doesn't have felonies and misdemeanors, but instead summary only, either-way, and indictable only : which of these applies? One indictable only crime of violence and 2 other crimes?

c) 3 "violent crimes"? How would that stop this recidivst fare dodger?

d) 3 "serious crimes" : Ditto.

 

What of the effect of on the criminal who faces being caught for their "3rd strike"? They have nothing to loose by doing ANYTHING to escape... they are facing a madatory life sentence anyway, so why not kill to evade capture?.

 

What of the effect on rehabilitation of offenders?. Those 2 offences from years ago, all of a sudden come back to haunt them after a new offence ...

 

It is a great 'sound bite' for a right-wing politician showing how "tough on crime!" they purport to be, but the implementation brings a whole new set of challenges, not least the fettering of any judicial discretion.

 

I.m not sure what any of this has to do with bailiffs or why the OP chose to post the link on this forum but, on top of the excellent points made by azzas, I would add the following:

 

Is it in the public interest to jail someone for fare dodging? What about the effects that this may have on the person's job and/or children? What about if the guilty person was a single parent? Surely this would be a classic example of an adjournment so as to facilitate a pre-sentence report?

 

My personal feeling (although this may not have any bearing on decision making) is the impact of exposing a relatively harmless fare dodger to an environment in which hardened criminals occupy. It could well introduce an otherwise law abiding citizen to the temptation of indulging in more serious crimes.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Nobody suggested that the matter should go unpunished. This type of offence should certainly be punished by way of other means, rather than imprisonment.

 

This case is somewhat misleading as the convicted person appears to have received a concurrent jail term to run alongside a lengthier sentence of 13 weeks. I dare say that if the matter being dealt with was just that of a repeat offence of fare dodging, then custody would not have been considered - At least not until other punishment options had been implemented first, such as community work or a suspended sentence.

[Guest alreadyexists]

Most importantly, you need to find out what address the court sent the paperwork to because that determines whether a SD can be considered.

 

Given that the appeals were dealt with at the correct address , it's unlikely that a change of address has occurred unless its took place after the appeals.

 

I wasn't aware that the DVLA concerned themselves with insurance, they are normally involved in tax and sorn vehicles. If there is a discrepancy with the address, it might well be worth finding out what details you can about the actual fine

[Guest alreadyexists]

Well you definitely need a breakdown of fine, costs etc and bailiff fees I suggest that you deal with your son's matter first.

 

I presume that your son received payment by cheque for the car?

[Guest alreadyexists]

seanamarts, you have been going around in circles with this for a couple of days now. My first post to you on this thread upset you. I do not wish to upset you but everything that I said there is correct. It is highly unlikely that the wrong address has been listed, given that you have received correspondence.

 

It is 99.99% unlikely that the bailiff does not hold a current certificate - Marston would not dream of sending someone out without a certificate in this day and age. Don't even waste your time with the bailiff register as it is so hit and miss.

 

For the purposes of enforcement, it is also extremely unlikely that your son is going to be classed as vulnerable. By your own admission, he has "bought enough cars to know what he is doing". By the same token, if he receives a fine, he knows that he has to pay it. Ignoring it will only make matters worse.

 

I know this isn't what you want to hear but it is the way it is. You are just going to get yourself worked up further and waste more time by thinking that you have redress. The only thing the bailiff did wrong in your case was to threaten to have your car removed so that she could gain access to your son's. This will not cause the bailiff any problems in a complaint.

 

In your friend's case, if the bailiff saw a document proving the sale of the car to your friend rather than the debtor then there is ground for a complaint if the clamp remained fitted to the vehicle. It is likely that the bailiff would have explained to your friend that any payment made was voluntary, which covers her backside, even in the face of a complaint over threats to remove the car.

 

I find the best way to obtain the footage taken is to send in a subject access request. Give Marston an unconditional pledge that the footage is for your benefit and enquiries only and you will not be posting it on social media.

 

If I could help you more, I would but I really think you would be best letting this one go - It is clearly winding you up and with the best will in the world, you are not going to get anywhere in either case.