Marston ...intention to enter and search premises notice

[thekoine971]

Hi all
going true hell with marston for a fails to provide driver name fine (£1121)
bailiff came around 3 to 4 time i wasn't home or didn't answer the door on the last 2 time
he came this morning at 6.30am saying if i don't open the door he will get a locksmith and enter my premises and leave this ( see attached pic )
my question is are they gonna really enter my property with a locksmith even if im not home ?
Just want him to return the case and then ill deal with the court BY PAYING BY INSTALMENT




THx
GREG .

[zeke]

The card you show is a template used by Marstons when they don't get an answer. Its designed to instil fear into a debtor by using the word "locksmith".

Enforcement regulations don't provide for entry using a locksmith other than to execute a warrant of possession, an eviction, or to enter commercial premises to recover debts owed by a trader or a corporate body. Here is some information about the legal position about bailiffs and locksmiths.

The law only provides entry by "reasonable force" which bailiffs interpret to mean breaking entry using a locksmith, or to hire a locksmith to interfere with the normal operation of a lock to open a door into a private home.

It has cost Marston lots of money in claims making the practice of breaking open homes for unpaid fines financially untenable, so they haven't done it recently.

Reclaiming court fines only makes £310 fees, of which the bailiff keeps £90 and the balance £220 to Marston. It's not worth risking £8,000 in legal fees and damages when they are caught breaking open a home.

Here are some ways to stop court fine enforcement.

Also, see if the court fine enforcement factsheet gives any pointers.

Here are some steps you can take to protect your home from bailiffs.

[thekoine971]

thx for quick reply .
what should be the next step ?
- contact the bailiff ?
-apply for more time to pay from the court ?
- or get a statutory declaration fill up ?

[zeke]

Do not contact the bailiff. Let them contact you.

Without knowing anything about the history of the fine, I can't comment on your options on stopping the enforcement or even nullifying the fine and the conviction.

[HC1]

I see the Notice is dated 2017 - is this an error or was it over a year ago?

Anyway, the legal position is that Schedule 4A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 authorises an enforcement agent executing a warrant issued under s.76 of the Act to enter your property and to use reasonable force to do so if necessary. Any advice to the contrary should be ignored as it will cost you, not the advisor!

[zeke]

That is not right. It doesn't apply after 2014.

In 2016, paragraph 24(2) of schedule 12 was amended deleting a right to use force against people. Parliament made the change because it was too dangerous to be breaking into homes for an unpaid fine.

The Deighton case demonstrated it was not worth the risk because debtors claim self-defence. The debtor was standing in his doorway when the bailiff become confrontational and was headbutted and knocked out cold. It also proved that a bailiff wearing body armour is totally ineffective, making it purely cosmetic.

[Syd Snitkin]

I don't think HC1 is implying force against the person, just the property.

[zeke]

The post refers to the 2004 Act that rushed through parliament at the behest of Steve Everson, the former keeper of what is now CIVEA.

When bailiffs were being hospitalised and police defending false arrest claims from debtors, it was repealed and a further amendment in 2016 was made which deleted the provision that allows force against people to be used.

I think the poster is advocating the use of force against property. The law is clear allowing it against commercial property and on domestic properties for unpaid fines and eviction only, but the latter for unpaid fines has proven too risky and expensive far outweighing the benefit gained.

[Syd Snitkin]

Who mentioned any 2004 Act?

Risky or not, the provision for forced entry for fines is there.

[HC1]

Anyway, regardless of the opposing views - was the Notice issued November 2018 or November 2017?

[zeke]

The bailiff is in error because the OP says he came "this morning" and his post is dated 12 November as is the bailiffs document.