Bailiff final notice today

[Amy54!!]

Hi new here but need some advice, my aunt rang me earlier to say bailiffs (Marstons) had hand delivered a final notice today and it says they’ll be back next week. The house is rented by my aunt, the final notice is addressed to her son who isn’t on the tenancy. It’s an old court fine he assumed they were taking it from his benefits , he’s unemployed atm due to his ex partner dying and him becoming sole carer to their daughter (also lives at my aunts)
Everything in the house belongs to my aunt or her partner. The son is a waste of time he owns nothing just has his bedroom with his bed etc. Can theY force entry ? If my aunt rings them Monday to say it’s not his house would that make a diff? We think the fine was before he lost his job and become a single parent so would that class as a change in circumstance? He has obviously has warning letters and as he’s a nob he has ripped them up.
Any advice would be greatly received, my aunt is currently working two jobs , caring for our Nan who has just been diagnosed with dementia and this is just the icing on a shitty cake for her.
Thanks in advance x

[zeke]

He was unaware of the fine until a bailiff sent a document

The law says the conviction is invalid and he must make a statutory declaration addressed to the fines officer

Here is more about making a statutory declaration.

https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Te ... -fine.html


He can get a template here

https://www.nationalbailiffadvice.uk/Te ... -fine.html

Once the statutory declaration has been sent to the address on the document by RECORDED delivery, the bailiffs are off your back.

[Amy54!!]

Thank you, we actually think he knew and has been ignoring and ripping up letters but hasn’t told his mum (she owned everything in the house) he would’ve had Marston letters last week from my own experience

[delta157]

A statutory declaration will not help in this instance. This is due to what you have written above.

'It’s an old court fine he assumed they were taking it from his benefits' therefore he was already aware of this.

You need to advise him also it's a criminal offence to make a false declaration at court! Don't do it!

He can however, ask the Court to reconsider his finances. This then may allow the Court to reset the original fine. MAY is the key word here.

You should advise him to ask the Court for more time by completing an MC100 form and submitting this with a letter.

Also explain the death of the mother of his child. I'm sure the Court will take this into account. But, this will need to be done promptly.

If successful the EA fees will/maybe removed and a new order could be put in place.

[Amy54!!]

Thank you, Iv told my aunt to ring marstons and make them aware it’s her home to request time to provide evidence that it’s her address. He is not on the tenancy and that he is to ring the court tomorrow morning to consider a change in circumstances (unemployment and then becoming a single parent) and to ask them to consider taking it weekly from his benefits. He is an absolute idiot however my aunt works hard for what little she has and she doesn’t deserve this
Thanks again

[zeke]

Here is how to do a section 85 change of circumstances.

https://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/C ... tances.htm

Complete a form MC100

[John The Baptist]

Thank you, Iv told my aunt to ring marstons and make them aware it’s her home to request time to provide evidence that it’s her address. He is not on the tenancy and that he is to ring the court tomorro, he may not do so again.w morning to consider a change in circumstances (unemployment and then becoming a single parent) and to ask them to consider taking it weekly from his benefits. He is an absolute idiot however my aunt works hard for what little she has and she doesn’t deserve this
Thanks again

Hi Amy

Your Aunt should contact Marstons in writing (or by email), not by telephone, Furthermore, she should copy in the fines manager of the court in question.

She should inform Marstons that she is the occupier of the address and enclose/attach a copy of the tenancy agreement. Furthermore, a copy of the latest council tax bill might also be helpful.

It is highly unlikely that the son will wriggle out of the matter that easily (his window of opportunity appears to have long passed)

In your Aunt's shoes, I would include in my communication the offer to the bailiffs to come out and inspect the property for any goods belonging to the debtor. However, I would also point out that a bailiff may only take control of goods that he reasonably believes belong to the debtor. As the tenanted property is in your Aunt's name, it would be ridiculous to suggest that goods belong to anyone else other than the tenant.

I would invite Marstons to visit the property and look in the bedroom of the son. However, I would state categorically that all other items outside of the bedroom belong to the Aunt/partner and that receipts are not necessary in order to prove this - The fact that the tenancy is in their names is reasonable enough to suffice. I would further ad that any visit made by Marstons would be filmed.

Once the bailiff visits (if indeed he bothers to visit), he may not do so again, unless he has reasonable belief that the son has taken additional items of value inside.

Ringing Marstons is a complete and utter waste of time. You need to set out a paper trail and you need to copy in the fines manager. Let the son do what he thinks best but the Aunt needs to protect her property. Bailiffs have now been engaged - Somebody has to py for their work. You cannot simply ignore all previous correspondence and then ask for leniency at this lat estage - If it were that simple, everybody would be doing it an no fines would be paid on time.

[zeke]

I would invite Marstons to visit the property and look in the bedroom of the son.

I recommend not letting the bailiff into the house.

Last year, a claim uncovered Marston's absent debtor policy.

Marston’s in-house training instructs bailiffs to gain entry to the property and demand the occupier to pay "voluntarily" on the debtor's behalf.

If the occupant doesn't pay, the bailiff will move furniture from room to room, go to the master bedroom and toss out garments from the drawers, and disconnect the living room TV

A claim was brought after a Marston bailiff disconnected a TV and the occupant called an electrician to put it back. Marston paid the electrician bill.

[John The Baptist]

I think that by informing the court as well, Marstons would tread lightly. They can force entry eventually in any case.

Besides, sounds like there would be a pretty strong claim if Marstons took 3rd party goods.

The law has to be the starting point - The correct way of dealing with it would be to allow the bailiff into thr bedroom. We shouldn't be afraid of dealing with matters correctly because of threats of unlawfulness.

[John The Baptist]

Amy, please don't let the Enforcement Officer in, this will cause you issues in the long run.

I hope you followed earlier advice and contacted the Court today?

Secondly DO NOT pay for any advice unless it's from a Solicitor's office!

Yes it's late in the day to seek advice, but if in doubt you know where to go...

Please explain why this will cause issues in the long run? In this instance, a bailiff has the power to force entry in any case.

Legislation is set up for circumstances such as this. How pray do you think it wise to refuse entry and then suffer forced entry?

The son only lives in part of the house. Putting the bailiff on notice of this will protect goods belonging to the Aunt. Once the bailiff has visited, he may either remove goods belonging to the son or accept that there are no goods of value. Once this occurs, a bailiff may not re-enter except in exceptional circumstances (see Reg 24 TCGR 2013).

If you had bothered to read the OP, you would have seen that Amy was seeking advice on behalf of her Aunt - Who is not the debtor. She was not seeking advice on behalf of the debtor.

In order for a court to consider alternative options, it may well be the case that it must be satisfied that enforcement has been attempted and has failed. Do you really, even in your wildest of dreams think that a debtor can ignore all correspondence from the court and bailiffs, ensure that enforcement is thwarted by refusing entry and then blithely recall the debt and implement a soft repayment plan? The time for doing this was when the fine was imposed, not when bailiffs turn up. You should also be aware that in very exceptional cases where debts are recalled, the creditor is expected to pay the appropriate bailiff fees for work undertaken. Do you think it likely that a court will stand this loss for someone who has ripped all previous letters up. Once the visit takes place, the bailiff will not be permitted to return.

Also, why can the OP take advice from you (I assume you are not a solicitor?) but not purchase a letter from someone who is not a solicitor? There seems no difference to me.

Enforcement is a last resort. You cannot simply wait for this crisis point and then expect the matter can go away by writing a letter.

The best course of action would be to allow the bailiff entry so that he can search for goods himself - He is only going to force entry eventually anyway. The Aunt's goods are perfectly safe and Marstons wouldn't dare touch them after being put on notice that the tenancy (and goods inside) do not belong to the debtor. Espeially if the court has been copied in.

[John The Baptist]

I am not eager to line Nigel's pocket - I simply see no difference between his templates and your advice. You are both equally qualified (or equally not qualified). Nigel has a lot more experience than you have and dare I say it, has learned a lot from his mistakes.

You provide no proof that Nigel rips people off yet you unfairly claim it. Selling a template letter is not ripping people off.

I don't care about your advice. However, lately, your aim appears to be to disrupt threads and contradict what others have posted.

By Amy's own admission, the son is a "nob who has ripped up all previous correspondence". You ought to be careful that it's not YOU who is urging someone to commit perjury.

Regarding this matter, the recommended route (by others as well as me) is to as I suggested. Only goods of the debtor are at risk and if there are none, the matter is as good as closed. The bailiff cannot return without good reason and the debtor is then free to pursue some of the options that you suggested. Having ripped up all previous letters regarding this matter, I'm sure you will agree that he hasn't done himself any favours.

Whilst I am loathe to bring up old bailiff case law, it's worth considering these words from the judgement of the Stipendiary magistrate in Rai Rai v Birmingham City Council 1993:

.....the removal of goods (not the debtors goods) again, in my judgement, the levy was irregular. The bailiffs do have a duty of care to exercise. They must act with discernment and judgement. The power to distrain is not a dragnet trawling all within it. If the bailiffs are put on notice - as I find they were in this particular case - that certain goods do not allegedly belong to the debtor, then the bailiffs must act with due caution and circumspection

Now who, anywhere would reasonably believe that a son living in his mother's house, a house in which the mother is the tenant, would own the goods inside it (other than those in his own room).

In many situations, a creditor would seek confirmation that there were no goods available to control before escalating to another step. In other words, it is what would be required.

I ask you again, how could it possibly cause problems in the long run? The bailiff has the power to force entry, he doesn't need permission.

[John The Baptist]

Its not your concern.

And he still hasn't answered the question. The bottom line is he can't because he made that statement up to add value to his post. There would be no implications further down the line for a "no goods return".

He now talks about money being made rather than people being ripped off. This of course is fairer and acceptable.

The name changes are nothing to with me BTW - They are automatic.

The last known address IS the Aunt's address. It is also the current address.

[John The Baptist]

Also - How did I assume anything when I inserted a judgement to support my claim?

Let's face facts here - It is you who is assuming things isn't it? And we all know where these assumptions are coming from.

Why don't you take that Superman sticker from off your chest and concentrate on giving advice? Rather than disagreeing with J at every given opportunity.

[Syd Snitkin]

Playing Devil's advocate - the risk with letting a bailiff in is you never know the mindset of that bailiff. We've heard the stories of bailiffs insisting on receipts, then starting to remove goods, calling 'the van', creating panic and confusion. Then with any subsequent s85, will you get a judge who falls for the bailiff's arguments?

It is a potential minefield.

[John The Baptist]

Agree - That is why it's important to give notice (to both Marstons & the fines manager) In the case of court fines, there will ultimately be forced entry in any case.

Once the court are aware of what is going on, it's highly unlikely that Marsons will insist on receipts etc for items in the lounge or kitchen - It is more than reasonable to believe that these belong to the tenant, not the son who is effectively the lodger.