Marston Bailiff court fine paid today online

[fencingdoctor]

Good Afternoon All.
I would like some advice please.
I have Marstons bailiff on my back.
I live at my parents house, they have two cars in an enclosed drive & they are in France on holiday.
I don't own anything of any value.
I have locked the house, closed the windows & shut the gate into driveway.
I failed to pay as directed my fine of £462.90 to the Magistrates Court only paid £200 in July.
So I owed £262.90 .
Today Marston Holdings put a Notice of Intention to enter & search your premises- removal notice & a final notice.
As of today
I rang Mr Vizor the bailiff & said I would pay him the full amount of £572.90( £310 increase!!!!) tomorrow, my brother & dad both spoke with him to discuss sorting but he gave them the needle with his attitude.

Anyhow after reading on here my brother has paid direct to the court online the amount owing of £262.90.

Please advise what to do next:

Do i contact Marstons?
Contact the baillif to say court fine paid direct today?
Is there a letter or law i can quote or email them?

I want to battle the bailiff as he is known to my family.

Any advice on my next step would be greatly appreciated

[zeke]

Good Afternoon All.
I would like some advice please.
I have Marstons bailiff on my back.
I live at my parents house, they have two cars in an enclosed drive & they are in France on holiday.
I don't own anything of any value.
I have locked the house, closed the windows & shut the gate into driveway.
I failed to pay as directed my fine of £462.90 to the Magistrates Court only paid £200 in July.
So I owed £262.90 .
Today Marston Holdings put a Notice of Intention to enter & search your premises- removal notice & a final notice.

The document you describe as a "Notice of Intention to enter & search your premises- removal notice & a final notice" is not a prescribed document in the Schedule 12 enforcement procedures. It looks like something the bailiff company has made up.

As of today
I rang Mr Vizor the bailiff & said I would pay him the full amount of £572.90( £310 increase!!!!) tomorrow, my brother & dad both spoke with him to discuss sorting but he gave them the needle with his attitude.

Anyhow after reading on here my brother has paid direct to the court online the amount owing of £262.90.

Please advise what to do next:

Do i contact Marstons?

Do not contact the bailiff company. They will mess you about. They are the aggressor so let them contact you.

Contact the baillif to say court fine paid direct today?

The law says the bailiff must be given notice the "amount outstanding" has been paid. Paragraph 59 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Is there a letter or law i can quote or email them?

This explains the legal position when you pay a court fine after the bailiff has been instructed.

[
I want to battle the bailiff as he is known to my family.

That might not be a bad thing because if you know the bailiff personally, then he might just let you off the hook.

If he is a sworn enemy then he could burgle the house because police have an institutional belief that bailiffs are incapable of crime, and bailiffs exploit this by committing crime, especially distraction-burglaries, with impunity.

You need to secure your home to protect it from bailiffs.

Any advice on my next step would be greatly appreciated

[fencingdoctor]

When I say he is known to my family, a relative was in a situation with Mr Vizor bailiff & he didn't follow procedure/wrong paperwork, also he cracked his head on porch woodwork & fell over all of his own accord very funny to see this happen to such a nice man

Below are the letters posted through my brothers door :

benmarstons.jpg

benmarstons2.jpg

Regards

[fencingdoctor]

benmarstons.jpg

[zeke]

That looks like an effort to claim personal injury against the occupants home insurance policy. Most addresses bailiffs attend are social housing properties or low-income households who for the most part, don't have insurance, so no personal injury solicitor will touch it.

The legal advice given in the document is a rather misleading interpretation of the law.

It's not known why Marston Group Limited uses the words "marston holdings" on its documents. The company Marston Holdings registered at companies house does not hold a contract with Court Service for the enforcement of unpaid court fines.

The Final Notice document is also a non-prescribed document used by Marston but only at addresses where they have been unsuccessful in recovering any money, or not sure if the debtor actually lives there. It's a last-throw-of-the-dice effort to try and engage the debtor.

[fencingdoctor]

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!!

This email was sent to Marstons with attachments of receipts added to the email:

benemalmarstons.jpg

Does this seem OK.

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

[John The Baptist]

I'm sorry to rain on your parade and all the rest of it but the law does not state any such thing at Par 59.

You still owe around £305 and the bailiff can continue to enforce.

You only have to read the thread below this one to see what a pigs ear "Schedule 12" makes of interpreting legislation. When he tells you "what the law says" etc, he is actually stating "what the law says" as he sees it. Sadly, more often than not, "Schedule 12" is way off the mark and the links that he posts are full of mistakes and misconceptions as well.

[fencingdoctor]

Ok then I have a question.

I am a drug addict can I use that in anyway to help me in this situation?

Regards

[zeke]

Does this seem OK.

It looks good to go.

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

You will have a pissed off bailiff wanting his commission because you went behind his back and paid the court directly after the warrant had been issued.

Come round to try & collect fees owed?

He may well come round. You must not let him access to your goods, otherwise, you will never get rid of him.

That is not to say you don't owe the fees, it only means the enforcement power has ended once the amount outstanding has been paid.

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

It's a computer-generated letter. Park it in the small round container normally found in the corner of the room. Its used to appease bailiff companies complaining that court service accepts money paid as court fines when it should refuse the money. Legally the court cannot refuse any money tendered in the discharge of a fine - even if it tendered by another person, because that ends the enforcement power leaving the court fine unrecoverable.

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

Regards

The bailiff will come round and pester the stuffing out of him and take £310 fees.

He cannot recover that money unless the bailiff took control of goods on a date the amount outstanding was paid into court -and given in evidence with the claim. This is why it is important to secure the property.

[zeke]

I'm sorry to rain on your parade and all the rest of it but the law does not state any such thing at Par 59.


You only have to read the thread below this one to see what a pigs ear "Schedule 12" makes of interpreting legislation. When he tells you "what the law says" etc, he is actually stating "what the law says" as he sees it. Sadly, more often than not, "Schedule 12" is way off the mark and the links that he posts are full of mistakes and misconceptions as well.

It would be useful for anyone reading these forums if you could explain why you feel my advice is wrong and maybe, give your own explanation, so he can make a more informed choice.

It is unhelpful to make a blind statement I am "way off the mark" and "what the law says as he sees it" because it doesn't give an alternative or any reason why it is way off the mark.

[John The Baptist]

I'm sorry to rain on your parade and all the rest of it but the law does not state any such thing at Par 59.


You only have to read the thread below this one to see what a pigs ear "Schedule 12" makes of interpreting legislation. When he tells you "what the law says" etc, he is actually stating "what the law says" as he sees it. Sadly, more often than not, "Schedule 12" is way off the mark and the links that he posts are full of mistakes and misconceptions as well.

It would be useful for anyone reading these forums if you could explain why you feel my advice is wrong and maybe, give your own explanation, so he can make a more informed choice.

It is unhelpful to make a blind statement I am "way off the mark" and "what the law says as he sees it" because it doesn't give an alternative or any reason why it is way off the mark.

It would be a pretty wrong post to cram it all in but I'll just give you a brief outline, starting from the changeover in 2014.

You hit the ground running with the ridiculous interpretation that in order to give notice, a bailiff had to physically hand over a document personally. Since then, this board has been littered with howler after howler from yourself that has been corrected by either Pote or myself. Your long standing opinion of what costs means is probably your most frequently quoted misconception and to suggest that costs only occur when goods are removed is quite frankly ludicrous - Even more so, given the Act does not even provide for any extra fees for removing goods.

Regarding your links, almost everything you "think" is actually incorrect and here is a quick explanation, starting with this link:
https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Pa ... liffs.html

Pay the "amount outstanding" online to HM Court Service, the enforcement power ends

Although this statement is correct, you then spoil it with your ridiculous interpretation of what "costs related to enforcement" means. The fact that you think a man/woman who is charged with drafting the regs would differentiate between costs and fees is actually quite shocking.

Court service will close the case

This never, EVER happens and in all cases we are aware of, the court has simply passed the money onto their agents. I think even you know this and it can't be put down to your stupidity so the question reaches out - Why do you state this?

The amount outstanding is the sum on the warrant of control

The Act clearly states what the amount outstanding is:

(3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

(a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

(b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

Bailiff fees are recoverable out of proceeds.

You then go on to quote Paragraph 6:

(3)The property in all goods ceases to be bound when any of these happens—

(a)the amount outstanding is paid, out of the proceeds of sale or otherwise;

Do you actually know what the effect of property being bound is? If the answer is yes then why are you quoting it regarding taking control of goods? Bound property only means that a debtor cannot sell it or pass title. It has nothing to do with the ability to take control of it.

"Costs" is defined in Paragraph 62 of Schedule 12 of the 2007 Act, and states:

(1) Regulations may make provision for the recovery by any person from the debtor of amounts in respect of costs of enforcement-related services.

If you don't understand what enforcement related services are, there really is no hope for you.

Paragraph 59(2) of Schedule 12 of the 2007 Act states:

(2) The enforcement agent is not liable unless he had notice, when the step was taken, that the amount outstanding had been paid in full.

This is you all over. Paragraph 59 is only applicable after:

(a)after the enforcement agent has taken control of goods, and

(b)before they are sold or abandoned

It has nothing to do with a bailiff visiting before taking control. (The clue is in P59[1])

Court Service might send you a letter, saying a "warrant is still live" and the money has been given to the bailiffs.

This is an effort to protect the financial interests of the commercial bailiff company.

Have you any evidence of this or is it just another one of your opinions? It could be read that the court service is giving the debtor further warning that they are still exposed to the threat of a bailiff visit.

The Law:
If a bailiff takes an enforcement step, then you can bring an action for breach of Paragraph 6(3) of the 2007 Act under Paragraph 66, which states:

The law according to Nigel more like. Why don't solicitors take these cases on? That should tell you everything you need to know.


Now for the other link:
https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Co ... ended.html

They work on commission and paid only when the recover the court fine AND the fees, in what bailiffs call "Payment in Full", or PIF. Otherwise if the fine by itself is paid, the bailiff receives nothing.

PIF is what it says, as opposed to a repayment plan.

When a defaulter pays a court fine direct to court online, Court Service cannot refuse that money because it revokes the enforcement power and the fine becomes unrecoverable.

Nonsense - You've just decided this. A court will always pass the money onto the bailiff who in turn takes his cut.

The fees regulations say the creditor, in this case, the taxpayer, has a first charge over money paid into court before the bailiff gets anything.

The fees regulations actually "say" nothing of the sort - Indeed, they are silent. That said, the explanatory memorandum makes it quite clear that the intention was for monies to be divided.

That £310 fee is divided between the bailiff company and the bailiff as £220 and £90 respectively.

That is just Marstons policy. Even then, it's only £90 within the M25 area, otherwise it's £80. All other companies have their own pay structure.

Some bailiffs move on, others do not take it so well.

It seems you must be a member of a secret society to know about these. Only you claim bailiffs move on. Nobody else has seen a shred of evidence to support this.

[zeke]

You hit the ground running with the ridiculous interpretation that in order to give notice, a bailiff had to physically hand over a document personally.

Ive never said " a bailiff had to physically hand over a document personally.".

That is only your interpretation of what I have said, which is: The enforcement agent must keep a record of the time when the notice is given.

I get that "theory" from paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 of the Tribinals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Since then, this board has been littered with howler after howler from yourself that has been corrected by either Pote or myself. Your long standing opinion of what costs means is probably your most frequently quoted misconception and to suggest that costs only occur when goods are removed

That is not what I have said. Its cost of enforcement related services, because enforcement related services is: "taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money" Section 62 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

is quite frankly ludicrous - Even more so, given the Act does not even provide for any extra fees for removing goods.

Nobody says it does.

Regarding your links, almost everything you "think" is actually incorrect and here is a quick explanation, starting with this link:
https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Pa ... liffs.html

Pay the "amount outstanding" online to HM Court Service, the enforcement power ends

Although this statement is correct, you then spoil it with your ridiculous interpretation of what "costs related to enforcement" means. The fact that you think a man/woman who is charged with drafting the regs would differentiate between costs and fees is actually quite shocking.

Costs related to enforcement is the cost of storing and removing controlled goods, regulation 8 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

Court service will close the case
This never, EVER happens and in all cases we are aware of, the court has simply passed the money onto their agents.

We see it on letters sent out to debtors, but no evidence of any flow of money from the treasury to a bailiff company to be apportioned with the balance returned to the treasury. The rules on apportionment only apply to Proceeds of Enforcement when they are less than the amount outstanding: Regulation 11 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

I think even you know this and it can't be put down to your stupidity so the question reaches out - Why do you state this?

The amount outstanding is the sum on the warrant of control

The Act clearly states what the amount outstanding is:

(3)The amount outstanding is the sum of these—

(a)the amount of the debt which remains unpaid (or an amount that the creditor agrees to accept in full satisfaction of the debt);

(b)any amounts recoverable out of proceeds in accordance with regulations under paragraph 62 (costs).

Correct. That is what the law says.

Bailiff fees are recoverable out of proceeds.

That is not what the law says. It says costs are recoverable out of proceeds.

If the law says the fees, as well as the costs, are recoverable from proceeds, it would say so.

You then go on to quote Paragraph 6:

(3)The property in all goods ceases to be bound when any of these happens—

(a)the amount outstanding is paid, out of the proceeds of sale or otherwise;

Correct. That is what the law says.

Do you actually know what the effect of property being bound is? If the answer is yes then why are you quoting it regarding taking control of goods?

No its not. Bounds goods are not the same as controlled goods.

The law stating when goods are bound is in paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

The law that states when goods become controlled goods is Paragraph 13 of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Bound property only means that a debtor cannot sell it or pass title. It has nothing to do with the ability to take control of it.

Incorrect. Bound goods enable bailiffs to take control of them.




My interpretation of "enforcement related services" comes from section 62 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which states: "taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money"

Have you any evidence of this or is it just another one of your opinions? It could be read that the court service is giving the debtor further warning that they are still exposed to the threat of a bailiff visit.


The law according to Nigel more like. Why don't solicitors take these cases on? That should tell you everything you need to know.

Solicitors take on cases over £10,000 because they cannot recover solicitors fees on claims under £10,000, so bailiff fee reclaims are done in the small claims track.

Now for the other link:
https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Co ... ended.html


PIF is what it says, as opposed to a repayment plan.


Nonsense - You've just decided this. A court will always pass the money onto the bailiff who in turn takes his cut.

The rule on apportioning costs from the sum recovered less than the amount outstanding applies to the proceeds of enforcement. Regulation 13 of the 2014 fees regulations again.

The fees regulations say the creditor, in this case, the taxpayer, has a first charge over money paid into court before the bailiff gets anything.

The fees regulations actually "say" nothing of the sort - Indeed, they are silent. That said, the explanatory memorandum makes it quite clear that the intention was for monies to be divided.

That £310 fee is divided between the bailiff company and the bailiff as £220 and £90 respectively.

That is just Marstons policy. Even then, it's only £90 within the M25 area, otherwise it's £80. All other companies have their own pay structure.

Some bailiffs move on, others do not take it so well.

It seems you must be a member of a secret society to know about these. Only you claim bailiffs move on. Nobody else has seen a shred of evidence to support this.

There is no secret society. Its what I get from the helpline.

[John The Baptist]

Ive never said " a bailiff had to physically hand over a document personally.".

Yes you did - You said that "given" meant that it must be handed over and if it was posted then it hadn't been given. The keeping a record is an entirely seperate issue.

enforcement related services is: "taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money"

No it isn't. It is anything done under or in connection with the power In fact, the Act includes for any costs incurred in the obtaining of a writ or a warrant. Sending a NoE is an action that takes place in connection with the power, as is visiting a premises.

Nobody says it does.

So how can there be costs for doing so then?

Costs related to enforcement is the cost of storing and removing controlled goods

This is absolute lunacy. A 10 year old could read and understand the regulations better than that. Regulation 8 covers disbursements. These are additional out of pocket expenses that have been incurred. This ridiculous interpretation/theory is exactly why your information is way off the mark.

The rules on apportionment only apply to Proceeds of Enforcement when they are less than the amount outstanding:

So there are no rules stopping the court passing on money then? The NS state that the creditor is responsible for any bailiff fees if they take payment directly.

That is not what the law says. It says costs are recoverable out of proceeds.

For the love of God man. It clearly states that the £75 should be handed over to the bailiff first and thereafter, fees should be divided pro-rata.

If the law says the fees, as well as the costs, are recoverable from proceeds, it would say so.

Go and have a read of Regulation 13 of the Fees regs and then come back and tell me which part you don't understand.

No its not. Bounds goods are not the same as controlled goods

Exactly - Bound goods have no relevance on or to anything

Incorrect. Bound goods enable bailiffs to take control of them

Really? Where is that stated?

My interpretation of "enforcement related services" comes from section 62 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which states: "taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money"

Your interpretation is wrong. It states at sub-paragraph 5: "Enforcement-related services” means anything done under or in connection with an enforcement power, or in connection with obtaining an enforcement power, or any services used for the purposes of a provision of this Schedule or regulations under it."

There is no secret society. Its what I get from the helpline.

So a secret society then. Every message board out there carries numerous tales of bailiffs re-visiting and none of them giving up but your helpline provides different statistics.

[Syd Snitkin]

Ive never said " a bailiff had to physically hand over a document personally.".

Yes you did - You said that "given" meant that it must be handed over and if it was posted then it hadn't been given. The keeping a record is an entirely seperate issue.

Yep. Not said it in a couple of years, but Nigel definitely argued it - I remember it well.