Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 662 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

 

The stage 3 appeal review is pretty much bs they dont even have any contact info or what i can do?

 

It states nothing about the assault and all they are pretty much telling me to do is accept the 200 quid and move on...

 

We are effectively back to my earlier question. What is it that you are looking for?

 

You clarified that you were not looking at having the 'goodwill' sum increased but that you wanted Marston to refund the sum paid by you (for what seems to be two valid warrants for failure to pay two road traffic penalties which you readily admit knowing about but ignored after the appeal stage ). Personally, I cannot see that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So its okay for him to hit me across the face for standing on the doorstep?

I want to receive compensation for that assault and £200 will not do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you request the Bailiff's to show you any documentation before or after identitifying yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So its okay for him to hit me across the face for standing on the doorstep?

I want to receive compensation for that assault and £200 will not do.

 

So get advice about suing the bailiff who assaulted you, but then you have to calculate the amount for their unlawful action. Marstons will assist in defending any such claim and state that their actions were not unlawful, plus you were only hit accidentally in the struggle with the bailiff.

 

Suggest you take the compo offered. If you had a video of the assault, you might be in a better position to take other action.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So its okay for him to hit me across the face for standing on the doorstep?

I want to receive compensation for that assault and £200 will not do.

 

To my knowledge, there are at least 4 enforcement companies that settle disputes/complaints by offering a 'goodwill' payment. They are not generous and do not need to be. It is a sensible solution to bring closure to a complaint.

 

You have readily admitted that you had received correspondence from local authorities about two parking contraventions. You did not use the councils appeals procedure correctly and chose instead to ignore future correspondence.

 

Given that you had received letters from the council, you would of also received two separate letters from Marston's entitled Notice of Enforcement. The fees charged at that stage would have been £75 (for each penalty) and if you wished to settle the debts, you could have done so by way of a payment arrangement at that stage. You chose not to do so and from what you have written, you have indicated that you had no intention of paying for these tickets at all.

 

Clearly, (because you had no intention of paying) common sense would tell you tell you that there would have been an argument at the door and a scuffle has broken out. Whether that constitutes 'assault' is something that would have to be decided by the courts. You have not indicated whether you had any injuries or that you had visited your GP.

 

As there had been a 10 year old child present, there would be little to gain from seeking to view the body worn camera footage.

 

From your posts, it would seem to me at least that your complaint is more to do with the fact that you ended up paying for two debts that you had no intention of paying for.

 

Taking the above into consideration, I would agree with the previous poster (Uncle Bulgaria) that you should accept the "goodwill" payment offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“You say assault, I say reasonable force... let’s call the whole thing off...”

 

Totally agree with BA’ post, above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes me too


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the police didn't take any actions, it's very unlikely that a judge would think you were assaulted.

Unfortunately there are no hard evidence to this offence, no CCTV footage, no visible injuries, no independent witnesses.

So the bailiff has got away with it.

It's a fact of life that sometimes justice cannot be done, but accepting the goodwill payment, you get something out of them at least.

I wouldn't worry too much, this bailiff will probably get more and more cocky about his ways and eventually will get in trouble, get arrested and lose his job.

It's only a matter of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If I make EAC2 claim what do i have to do?

 

It is not so much what you have to do (to make an EAC2 Complaint), it is what the risks are.

 

Information on most internet sites is hopelessly misleading and tends to only refer to Regulation 9 of the Certification of Enforcement Agents Regulations 2014.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ade?view=plain

 

What the public don't seem to be told about is that the court can order that they be made to pay the enforcement agents legal costs !! This requirement is outlined under Rule 84.20 of the Civil Procedure Rules

 

 

Complaints as to fitness to hold a certificate

84.20

 

(1) This rule applies to a complaint under regulation 9(1) of the Certification Regulations.

 

(2) The complaint must be submitted to the County Court hearing centre at which the certificate was issued, using the relevant form prescribed in Practice Direction 4.

 

(3) A copy of the complaint must be sent to the applicant at least 14 days before the hearing, and the applicant may respond both in writing and at the hearing.

 

(4) The complainant is not liable for any costs incurred by the certificated person in responding to the complaint, unless paragraph (5) applies.

 

(5) The court may order the complainant to pay such costs as it considers reasonable if it is satisfied that the complaint—

 

(a) discloses no reasonable grounds for considering that the certificated person is not a fit person to hold a certificate; and

 

(b) amounts to an abuse of the court’s process.

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-84enforcement-by-taking-control-of-goods#84.20

Edited by Andyorch
CPR link fxed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too one sided IMHO in favour of the EA's

this has been done to deter complaints.

it should be a level playing field for both sides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are regulated but not sufficiently, in fact Lord Denning wanted rid of Enforcement and bailiffs back in the 1980's, but sadly they are still with us. Adding debt to debt to collect it helps no one.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then be corrected, they have to execute a "peacful entry" so assaulting someone answering the door doesnt fit in with that. They can gain entry though open doors but have no powers to pick locks as that is considerd using force. Even turning a handle has been considered by a court to be using force to gain entry. However, that was a burglary and if your bailiffs didt have the correct paperwork for what they were doing at the time then that is what they were doing. Bad news is you will not convince a court of that as they can easily produce the necessary paperwork (after delaying things to create it).

 

As I read it,

they didn't force entry as the door was open,

although you were standing in the door way.

 

They forced themselves past you.

 

there is a difference as they probably thought they used reasonable force.

 

I stand to be corrected though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely

 

We mustn't mix up the ability to use force against the person with gaining forcible entry.

 

Bailiffs enforcing a warrant or writ of control cannot use force against a person, not under any circumstances, and what is more they cannot apply for permission to do so.

Under certain circumstances a bailiff may however gain forcible entry to a premises.

 

If a debtor seeks to physically block a bailiff exercising a legal right to force entry, the correct procedure would be for the bailiff to withdraw and report the debtor to the police for interfering with a the bailiffs lawful duty.

 

Although the right for a bailiff to use reasonable force(under warrant) against the debtor was included within the TCEA when passed in 2007, it was removed before the section was brought into use in 2014.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame the incident wasn't filmed by mother or other witness,. on a smartphone.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...