Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 433 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

Good Afternoon All.

I would like some advice please.

 

My brother has Marstons bailiff on his back.

He lives at my parents house, they have two cars in an enclosed drive & they are in France on holiday.

He doesn't own anything of any value, just lives in a bedroom.

He has locked the house, closed the windows & shut the gate into driveway.

 

He failed to pay as directed a fine of £462.90 to the Magistrates Court only paid £200 in July.

So he owes £262.90 .

 

Today Marston Holdings put a Notice of Intention to enter & search your premises- removal notice & a final notice.

 

As of today

He rang Mr [removed] the bailiff & said he would pay him the full amount of £572.90( £310 increase!!!!) tomorrow,

 

 

myself & our dad both spoke with him [removed] to discuss sorting but we got the needle with his attitude.

 

After reading on other websites I paid direct to the court online the amount owing of £262.89 .

 

 

I noticed later today that the amount paid to the court online was 1p short so we paid another £5 as were not allowed to pay a penny!!

 

My brother is a drug addict & has had a problem for 10 yrs or so is there any loopholes I can help him with?

 

What do you imagine the next course of action will be from the baillifs?

Come round to try & collect fees owed?

 

A letter from the court saying all money paid online will be sent to Marstons?

 

Now the court fine has be paid in full what is the worse that can happen please as my brother is still worried.

 

Regards

 

I have attached bailiffs letters & email sent to them.

benmarstons2.jpg

benmarstons.jpg

benemalmarstons.jpg

Edited by dx100uk
names

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you paid the court amount. Did you pay the bailiff charges as well?

 

It is completely false information that you can only pay the original amount to the court when bailiffs are involved and not the bailiff charges.

 

The court is correct. The money will be sent to marstons, their fees will be deducted and the rest allocated to the court to pay off the fine.

 

The websites that advised you different dont care about the law, or the debtors circumstances. They will just throw out info no matter how bad it is, then when you go back and complain, they will block you from the site. Some even charge money for this false info.

 

The bailiff is completely within their rights to continue chasing for the remainder owing.

 

As for your brothers medical issues, someone else is better suited to advise on that.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only paid the original Balance not the Bailiffs fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this was the website :[removed HB]

Edited by honeybee13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we don't allow links to that site and mungh them

 

safe to say they are wrong sadly

 

so you must pay the fees

noway out of it sorry

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that site is very well known for giving out bad advice, then running off when you complain to them. Pay the bailiffs fee's asap before it escalates into a much more serious issue.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that site is very well known for giving out bad advice, then running off when you complain to them. Pay the bailiffs fee's asap before it escalates into a much more serious issue.

 

 

..and more expensive.

 

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I contact the court regarding the original debt explaining he is a drug addict who needs help & bailiffs are not helping the situation,

 

he is unaware of letters etc etc for formal demands,

 

he has moved in & out of my parents house so he may not even have received final demands from them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They post all that crap because theyre freeman of the land believers. They think no laws apply to them and they can pick and choose the ones that do.

 

If you follow any of it, you will almost always end up in a much worse situation.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After reading on other websites I paid direct to the court online the amount owing of £262.89 .

 

I have attached bailiffs letters & email sent to them.

 

 

 

Back now to the 'Paragraph 59' notice.

 

As I have explained many times on this forum, Paragraph 59 must be read in conjunction with Paragraph 58 which says this:

 

58 (1) This paragraph applies where the debtor pays the amount outstanding in full—

(a)

after the enforcement agent has taken control of goods, and

(b)

before they are sold or abandoned.

 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12/part/2/crossheading/payment-of-amount-outstanding?view=plain

 

In your particular case, the enforcement agent had NOT taken control of any goods and accordingly, the ‘Paragraph 59’ notice that you were instructed to serve on the bailiff was misleading and utterly worthless.

Edited by Andyorch
Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After reading on other websites I paid direct to the court online the amount owing of £262.89 .

 

I have written endless threads on this forum regarding the legal position of 'paying the court or council direct' after receiving notification from a bailiff company. Providing links to legislation serves little purpose to debtors. What they are looking for when they visit forums such as this one is for a simple explanation. I will try my best to do that:

 

When the government introduce legislation, they will produce something called an 'Explanatory Memorandum'. This is usually a short document which explains the purpose of the legislation. Bailiff fees are set under the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. The Explanatory Memorandum supporting the fee regs states the following under section 8.3:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

 

 

8.3 The consultation response stated that in cases where the proceeds of enforcement are less than the amount outstanding, they should be distributed on a pro-rata basis between creditor and enforcement agent (regarding the outstanding debt and the enforcement fees and disbursements respectively). However, it has since been demonstrated that this would cause enforcement agents to operate at a loss for some time before they recovered their fees, undermining the fee structure model by significantly delaying remuneration and preventing the necessary investment in enforcement businesses required to provide a sustainable service.

 

Without this, successful enforcement could potentially decline significantly and enforcement agents may be encouraged to act in an aggressive manner in order to try and recoup the entire debt.

 

It was therefore decided that enforcement agents should be paid the compliance stage in full first, followed by a pro-rata division of proceeds between enforcement agent and creditor.

 

As outlined above, one of the reasons for the compliance fee (of £75) being deducted first, was to curb aggressive bailiff behaviour.

 

Last year, the government undertook a 'review' of the bailiff regulations in order to find out whether the regulations were working and whether there was a need to make any changes etc. A copy of the governments response to the review was released a few months ago and most importantly, the government highlighted one problem area under Section 4.7.3 the following. You will note that the government lay the blame for this problem on 'online sources' (i.e.; forums and websites):

 

Direct payment of debt

 

One issue raised by enforcement agents is that debtors are sometimes erroneously advised (mainly by informal online sources) to pay their creditor directly after receiving notice that the enforcement process has begun, in an attempt to avoid the enforcement fees. In this situation, the creditor is supposed to pay the compliance fee to the enforcement agent out of the debtor’s payment and the shortfall remains outstanding.

 

If the debt has reached the enforcement stage it becomes more complicated as the enforcement fee is paid pro rata from the amount paid off. This leads to an administrative burden on the Local Authority as they have to separate the fees and a portion of the debt still remains requiring enforcement.

 

Although the simple solution to this problem would be to reject direct payments, many Local Authorities have systems that do not allow a payment to be rejected, particularly when the debt is paid online.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/695833/one-year-review-bailiff-reform-web.pdf

 

In the case of magistrate court fines, what happens in EVERY case is that any direct payments made after a warrant of control has been issued are automatically forwarded to the relevant bailiff company by HMCTS so that they can deduct their compliance fees of £75 and apportion the balance on a 'pro rata' basis. This is precisely in keeping with legislation and this procedure was confirmed by the Parliamentary-under Secretary of State for Justice (Shaliest Vara) in response to a series of Parliamentary questions in the House of Commons regarding magistrate court fines (see below):

 

Question from Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of instances in which enforcement agent fees paid by a defendant were transferred directly by HM Courts and Tribunal Services to enforcement agents in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the amounts transferred in that period.

 

Reply from Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice.

 

If an offender makes a payment on a financial imposition after a warrant of control has been issued and referred to the EAE, HMCTS transfers the full payment to the AEA to enable them to reconcile their accounts and take the fee owed to them and they then return any balance owed to HMCTS.

 

The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act states that the AEA is entitled to retain the first £75 of any amount paid on a warrant and then their fees are retained on a pro rata basis with the balance paid to HMCTS.

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...l%22#g34637.r0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As confirmed by the government under their 'One Year Review' of the enforcement regulations the creditor (either the court or local authority) should deduct the compliance fee of £75 from any online payments and pay this fee over to the enforcement agent. As we know, in the case of magistrate court fines, HMCTS will simply pass over the entire payment so that the enforcement agency can deduct their fees and pass the balance to HMCTS.

 

In the case of council tax (for example), some local authorities may not have the accounting systems to enable them to deduct the bailiff fees. So what happens then?

 

This was the exact position that was the subject of a significantly important legal case (Bola v Harrow Council & Newlyn plc). I outlined details of the case in the following thread:

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477808-Paying-the-creditor-direct-to-avoid-paying-bailiff-fees-has-landed-a-debtor-with-a-%A37-000-cost-order.

 

It should also mention that during the hearing, the Judge asked the claimant to read to the court the relevant part from the Notice of Enforcement where it refers to methods of how to pay. The NoE stated that payment could be made:

 

By online payment to the enforcement company.

By telephoning the enforcement company

By BACS transfer into the enforcement companies bank account

 

The Judge stated that nowhere on the statutory Notice of Enforcement did it provide that payment should be made direct to the creditor.

 

Of significance was this comment from the Judge:

 

The Judge disagreed with the claimants analysis of the various regulations stating that:

 

‘no amount of reinterpretation of the Regulations’ comes to the aid of the claimant and that ‘no purposeful reading of the Regulations can support the claimants contention’ and that it is clear that whether Harrow Council apportioned the payment of £172 or not, was irrelevant and that Newlyn were entitled to take control of goods and remove them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My brother has Marstons bailiff on his back. He lives at my parents house, they have two cars in an enclosed drive & they are in France on holiday.

 

He doesn't own anything of any value, just lives in a bedroom.He has locked the house, closed the windows & shut the gate into driveway. My brother is a drug addict & has had a problem for 10 yrs or so is there any loopholes I can help him with?

 

The problem as I see it is this:

 

As confirmed by you, your brother lives at your parents home. Accordingly, before getting to the very late stage of an enforcement agent visit, your brother should have received the following :

 

A Summons advising of the offence and a request to him to plead guilty or not guilty (as the case may be)

 

A Notice of Fine Collection Order from the court advising of the amount of court fine

 

A final notice from the court entitled: Further Steps Notice giving your brother one final warning before a warrant is issued.

 

A Notice of Enforcement from Marston's. This notice would have included the Compliance fee of £75 and would have invited your brother to set up a payment arrangement in order to avoid a personal visit (and the debt increasing to include an enforcement fee of £235).

 

As your brother lives at the property, it has to be assumed that he received each of these notices. You mention that he has been a drug addict for 10 years. This may mean that your brother is considered vulnerable.

 

Does your bother work?

If not, is he in receipt of benefits?

Is your brother receiving medical care from his GP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of accuracy, I should also add that the advice that I have given above, mirrors that of the Local Government as outlined in the following decision:

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477356-Local-Government-Ombudsman-(LGO)-decision....Vulnerability-...Paying-the-council-direct...Pro-Rata-distribution-and-more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of significance was this comment from the Judge:

 

‘No amount of reinterpretation of the Regulations’ comes to the aid of the claimant and that ‘no purposeful reading of the Regulations can support the claimants contention’ and that it is clear that whether Harrow Council apportioned the payment of £172 or not, was irrelevant and that Newlyn were entitled to take control of goods and remove them.

 

I need to correct the above statement.

 

District Judge Carr in his summing up stated this:

 

Having considered carefully the provisions, I find that I agree with the defendant, and no amount of reinterpretation of the Regulations, it seems to me, comes to the aid of the claimant. In other words, no purposeful reading of the Regulations can, it seems to me, support the claimant's contention.

 

It is clear to me that whether the £172-odd that was paid was apportioned or not (and it is accepted by the defendants that it was not, that Harrow kept the full amount in payment of their debt) is irrelevant to the right or the power of Newlyn to enforce what had then become due by reason of their appointment, being the compliance fee.

 

So they were entitled to take control of the goods as they did. It therefore matters not that they then traced the vehicle which had been hidden by the claimant and removed it. They were entitled to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your advice in this matter.

 

I paid the bailiff the remainder & sorted the debt out for my brother.

 

Unfortunately he is still putting coke & crack cocaine up his nose.

 

But at least my parents don't have the worry of the bailiff, now it will be the drug dealers!!!!

 

Just had another fun day with High Court Bailiffs arriving for another debt!!

 

Rang their office explained whole situation & they are going back to the claimant in this particular matter!!

 

If it doesn't rain it pours

 

Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would advise you try and get your brother to get help, or cut his finances away from yours. He needs help, but your folks need to be protected as well. Even if it means putting your brother in a hostel or similar so he can get help.


Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

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...