marstons previous court cases

[abuseofpower]

anyone knwo of any previous marstons court cases and the results

having tried to get them to let me have access to their ethical committee board which is made up of senior executives from charities etc without luck surprise surprise.i have decided to take legal action against themselves and leeds city council.unless they are willing to answer or let me have access to so called impartial people within their company i will understand that to mean that their abuse of me is of no issue to them or their customer

what maybe of issue is the fact that marstsons withheld from the council a secret indemnity they got me to sign whilst under mental health care to say that i would not sue .leeds city council were not aware of this which forgive me if im wrong accounts to fraudulent concealement of a financial gain from a vulnerable person

i understand the council have been told that they no longer use this type of indemnity(no shit sherlock)so perhaps under oath they can answer why they ever issued it in the first place

anyone any postings of this so called ethical enforcement agents court cases would be appreciated


does anyone else know of a enforcement agent that gets a customer to sign a indemnity to say they wont sue them if they return the goods they shouldnt have taken in the first place
anyone else know of a enforcement agent that does this then hides it from there customer in case it loses them a contract?

[zeke]

anyone knwo of any previous marstons court cases and the results

There are plenty, but nearly all are county court, such as interpleader claims, detailed assessments, injunctions, and damages claims.

having tried to get them to let me have access to their ethical committee board which is made up of senior executives from charities etc without luck surprise surprise.

I wouldn’t get concerned about an ethical committee board, its existence is political than rational.

i have decided to take legal action against themselves and leeds city council.unless they are willing to answer or let me have access to so called impartial people within their company i will understand that to mean that their abuse of me is of no issue to them or their customer

You won't find anyone in a bailiff company to be impartial.

If you have a cause of action, then just bring it and let the legal machinery do its job.

what maybe of issue is the fact that marstsons withheld from the council a secret indemnity they got me to sign whilst under mental health care to say that i would not sue .leeds city council were not aware of this which forgive me if im wrong accounts to fraudulent concealement of a financial gain from a vulnerable person

A signed indemnity is worthless if they made it under duress or using goods as a lien to get a signature.

I've seen the court thrown them out many times after bailiff solicitors try to claim abuse of process under CPR 3.4.

i understand the council have been told that they no longer use this type of indemnity(no shit sherlock)so perhaps under oath they can answer why they ever issued it in the first place

anyone any postings of this so called ethical enforcement agents court cases would be appreciated


does anyone else know of a enforcement agent that gets a customer to sign a indemnity to say they wont sue them if they return the goods they shouldnt have taken in the first place
anyone else know of a enforcement agent that does this then hides it from there customer in case it loses them a contract?

This forum and Dealing with Bailiffs has successfully brought about a change in the enforcement industry.


For example,

A class action brought against Metropolitan Police settled out of court after setting up a roadblock stopping vehicles with unpaid PCNs to allow bailiffs to take control of the vehicle while being used by a driver.

Result. Police stopped doing traffic stops for commercial bailiff companies. Damages for abuse of police authority.




The TV Show Can’t Pay We’ll Take it Away on Channel 5 resulted in several individuals becoming unwilling participants in the show and broadcast on public airwaves for commercial gain for the bailiff company and financial loss to the claimant. Channel 5 settled six-figure claims and several claimants went public.

Result: TV show cancelled. Damages paid.


A Bailiff company started taking control of vehicles on hire purchase because it believed that the driver had a cumulative beneficial interest in the vehicle even when the purchase option is not made.

Result: The bailiff company stopped taking vehicles on hire purchase. Damages paid for deprivation of hired goods and damage to hired goods while in the bailiffs pound.



A bailiff company had a policy of taking enforcement action to take a fee after they paid a court fine into court. The client brought a detailed assessment under CPR 84.16

Result: Practice discontinued, solicitors costs and damages paid to the claimant.



A bailiff company had a policy of having a locksmith break entry into domestic property without a warrant of entry under a belief the entitlement to enter using reasonable force extended breaking entry.

Result: Damages paid for the repair of property. Bailiff ceases the policy of breaking entry.



Bailiff companies enforcing high court writs charged two enforcement stage fees when the claimant paid the debt on or before the first attendance.

Result: Detailed assessment determined that the 2nd enforcement stage fee is only recoverable when any part of the debt remains unpaid after the first attendance.

Those are a few examples of the top of my head.

[delta157]

A class action brought against Metropolitan Police settled out of court after setting up a roadblock stopping vehicles with unpaid PCNs to allow bailiffs to take control of the vehicle while being used by a driver.

From memory wasn't this by someone else

[zeke]

Who?

[delta157]

Since the case has been settled can you please post up the details now. Especially the hand down?

As you know I have an interest In all matters regarding successful cases against Enforcement Agents and their companies.

[delta157]

I'd like especially to see those sections where your above statements confirms your post! It shouldn't take you long to do so.

[zeke]

I will not be posting client cases on these boards.

You made a rebuttal comment that someone else brought the action in LB Croydon and Commissioner of Met Police, so let us see it.

If you cannot support a rebuttal, then so you should refrain from doing so.

[Syd Snitkin]

I thought it was part of this - http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index. ... 929.0.html

[zeke]

It was about that time.

The notomob article is about a different case because it references to section 127 of the Magistrates Act - I think meaning the Magistrate’s Courts Act 1980, which is about no bail warrants for unpaid court fines.

The Croydon/MPS case was a roadblock event looking for vehicles with unpaid CIVIL parking debts, and the police asked a few cursory questions following a police stop, then assisted a bailiff to take control of the vehicle on the roadside with the driver still seated in it.

The case exposed an operation involving taxpayers money being used to benefit a private company to take control of goods which, contradicted regulation 10 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 because the vehicle, an item belonging to the debtor was being used by someone at the time the bailiff took control of it.

Steven Baker and notomob were not involved.

His MO is to writ to lots of officials and post the replies on his website.

The notomob has a policy of going around Islington in bike gangs wearing masks warning drivers of a police camera. That is a criminal offence, a so-called Section 89.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/w ... d-12736933

[delta157]

I will not be posting client cases on these boards.

You made a rebuttal comment that someone else brought the action in LB Croydon and Commissioner of Met Police, so let us see it.

If you cannot support a rebuttal, then so you should refrain from doing so.

You've made a claim that you and BHF were instrumental in the successful case, it must be public knowledge by now? I'd like to see this, if you can't prove this fact then I'll take your claim a pinch of salt!

Just like 'other cases' are public knowledge! People and law deal in facts, if you can't prove this then...... many will/may see this as an outrageous claim!

[zeke]

You are welcome to take it with a pinch of whatever you like.

[delta157]

Why is it you always refuse to show, but never take another's word.

I guess I and other readers will come to the same conclusion then thx

[zeke]

Law firms and solicitors dont publish their clients on the internet.

I am no different.

In fact solicitors have told me not to put clients on the internet.

[delta157]

I beg to differ again on your post I'm afraid, link below, there are many cases that have been decided and published take your pick...

https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/comm ... d-addison/

Then the CPS put up their results just a sample
https://www.cps.gov.uk/news?area=3