Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Tell us how you beat the bailiffs.
Post Reply
User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#1 Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 14 Aug 2014 20:26

Today at Blackpool County Court Judge Bryce presided over case A2QZ0505 in the matter of Kari Anderson (claimant) v Marston Group Ltd (defendant). The claimant sued Marston Group Ltd to recover incorrect storage fees Marston Group wrongly charged. Marston Group sent their Barrister Lisa Feng from Exchange Chambers to have the case dismissed. District Judge Bryce ruled in favour of the Claimant preferring the evidence of the Claimant and saying that the submitted evidence of Marston Group was an 'absolute shambles'. The judgement is payable by Marston Group withing 14 days. Judge also awarded interest, all court fees and loss of earnings to the claimant.

This is a landmark victory against Britain's largest bailiff company, ant highlights that even when bailiff complies believe they are in a class above the law, they are not immune from being brought to justice.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1588
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#2 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Andy » 14 Aug 2014 22:46

Perhaps they will and that will shake things up a little bit, force bailiffs to comply with the law.
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#3 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 15 Aug 2014 08:51

It's only a matter of time Saturn Five starts ringing up the claimant with a tirade of abuse. It will be on here no sooner she puts the phone down.

This is not the last of the court proceedings, there are other aspects of this particular case that still needs to be unravelled.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#4 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 15 Aug 2014 10:24

The wishful thinking CAG machine is at work already. Marston might appeal.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ost4594349

Fortunately, Marston cannot appeal. And someone has asked for the legal argument used, so I give a skeleton legal argument for now. It is not a full do lose because it could undermine any future criminal proceedings. This is all I can say for now.

The law says under the criminal procedure rules that goods seized can he stored for a maximum of 5 days before being sold unless the defendant gives permission otherwise. The defendant did not give any permission to store any vehicle.

Marston group contradicted itself on its own storage fees on its own paperwork, £30, £20 and £25.

Marston did not offer any defence, their barrister just wanted the case dismissed because a point of law decides storage. The point of law is part 52.8 [crimpr][/crimpr] which sets Maximum of 5 days storage, and Marston charged over 100 days, and in any event, Marston did not perform the work of storing any vehicle for any length of time.

Marston documents said the vehicle was taken direct to the auction house from the defendants premises proving Marston has not paid any storage fees at all.

Marston dated a document 7th December saying the vehicle will be sold in 5 days but it was postmarked on the envelope 2 weeks later reaching the defendant after the vehicle was sold, and the auction company was not open for business until the new year.

This is a benchmark case because this is the first time a judge has ruled according to the criminal procedure rules that storage of goods cannot exceed 5 days. This can re-open a number of old court fine storage cases which bailiffs have charged more than 5 days storage, and claims are exempt from the limitation act because it involves fraud or a mistake.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

johndoe
Posts: 1
Joined: 13 Aug 2014 21:24

#5 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by johndoe » 15 Aug 2014 11:04

I think it is great that a bailiff company is held to account. I do not like the tv programmes that make them look all warm and fluffy.
I went onto cag to look for manchestergate . Wasnt that a form4 complaint.

This seems like a straightforward county court claim for excess fees

CEscobar
Posts: 1
Joined: 17 Aug 2014 00:44

#6 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by CEscobar » 17 Aug 2014 01:46

JasonDWB, what is your relation to the case? You appear to be quite in-the-know.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4124
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#7 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Amy » 18 Aug 2014 13:10

Using a proxy = banned. Goodbye.

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1588
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#8 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Andy » 18 Aug 2014 15:27

I've never understood the obsession with this proxy thingymebob my browser has a built in proxy but I don't think it ever activates unless I click search via proxy...why are all these folks posting using proxy? This is too much technical gizmo for me, I need to lay down.. :lol:
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4124
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#9 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Amy » 18 Aug 2014 15:40

It could have something to do with the fact that they are idiots.

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1588
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#10 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Andy » 18 Aug 2014 15:55

So they can discuss the alien agenda without fear of the men in black showing up no less
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4124
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#11 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Amy » 18 Aug 2014 16:06

I should have banned them for the misuse of multiple exclamation marks and question marks in the same sentence. Writing skills of a 12 year old.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#12 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Aug 2014 09:31

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... (8-Viewing

Tomtubby discussing this case with herself as 'Annie71' over on the CAG forum.

The proxy address for 'Bobby' is the same server hosting 'bailiffadviceonline.co.uk'. Too much coincidence.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Lozza1970
Posts: 23
Joined: 17 Aug 2014 14:38

#13 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Lozza1970 » 19 Aug 2014 09:43

I do not understand servers and things but I do know that everywhere you go people rattle on about internet security and there are so many websites that sell proxy services , firewalls and other services. There is inprivate browsing on internet explorer although I do not know what that means .
Maybe they are just being overly security consious as opposed to trying to hide something, just a thought

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#14 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Aug 2014 09:57

Using a webserver to conceal their ISP is nothing to do with sevurity. Weve had this all before. It is classed as malicious communications.

Later today, the OFT is to make a decision on this Saturn Five effort to orchestrate mass complaints against Dealing with Bailiffs. I handed over the crime number to the OFT and TT previous history of making complaints about Dealing with Bailiffs. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... ost4525308

I pointed out the CAG forum is fiercely moderated and this instance of malicious communication is endorsed by the site administrator because it is still there.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1588
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#15 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Andy » 19 Aug 2014 10:19

When was this ruled? That a concealed ISP is malicious communication?
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#16 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Aug 2014 11:33

It's the content that is malicious. The fact it was made using a concealed IP number only corroborated malicious intent.

I'm repeatedly getting a complainant name 'Barbara Richardson' appearing but I have no idea who that is. It also appeared in a Horsham complaint, so I think they might be looking into the motive for all these complaints by the same person using this alias.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Andy
Moderator
Posts: 1588
Joined: 28 May 2014 17:34

#17 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Andy » 19 Aug 2014 12:51

I see, you get these complaints via email for services provided?
2nd Year University Law Student.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#18 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Aug 2014 13:15

No, they are not clients. I don't even recognise most of their names, but the complaints have recently been routed via Horsham and I produced the Tomtubby CAG post and a copy of her rival website and explained it is all part of a concerted effort to disrupt DWB that goes back several years. They were able to marry it up with her previous complaints.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Bobby
Posts: 50
Joined: 17 Aug 2014 20:36

#19 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Bobby » 19 Aug 2014 18:36

jasonDWB wrote:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... (8-Viewing

Tomtubby discussing this case with herself as 'Annie71' over on the CAG forum.

The proxy address for 'Bobby' is the same server hosting 'bailiffadviceonline.co.uk'. Too much coincidence.
I'm getting worried now. I came here with my daughter after she bought the templates on Monday 11th as I just posted on my post. I asked a question, got answers, happy customer and now I read all this. I use a proxy all the time - Hide My Ass so you know and I always log onto the internet from Nottingham.

Jason, I (well my daughter) has paid you good money to get your templates and I don't like this Tom Tubby crap and stuff. Can you explain why you think I'm someone else - you've got my daughter's email address from the template purchase. I was happy till today, but now I feel like I've gone to a shop, paid for the stuff I wanted and then been accused of stealing. Whatever is happening, will you leave me and my daughter out of it please. I'll look forward to your email, or an explanation here if you want - I don't mind. Manchestergate may be a big thing for this forum but it's sweet FA to do with me :mrgreen: Bobby

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#20 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Aug 2014 18:43

The reason why you were flagged is because you were showing as a proxy user and we get trolls from bailiff companies coming here using proxies to cause trouble.

I'll have a look through the templates listing, but I don't actually manage these personally. Other people do administrative and operational duties on DWB on my behalf. It leaves me to deal with those with bailiff problems,
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Bobby
Posts: 50
Joined: 17 Aug 2014 20:36

#21 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Bobby » 19 Aug 2014 18:59

jasonDWB wrote:The reason why you were flagged is because you were showing as a proxy user and we get trolls from bailiff companies coming here using proxies to cause trouble.

I'll have a look through the templates listing, but I don't actually manage these personally. Other people do administrative and operational duties on DWB on my behalf. It leaves me to deal with those with bailiff problems,
I'm like a yo-yo here lol. I take your point and as I said I use Hide My Ass -- I have to use it for private surfing at work so stay in the habit at home so I don't forget - simple. Do look through the templates or I can post the full email response from you on here if you'd prefer - no problems doing that as proof. All seeming surreal here, though I guess you've got to be careful of bailiff companies coming on, I get that bit. Sorry again for any problems - not been through anything like this before.

Bobby
Posts: 50
Joined: 17 Aug 2014 20:36

#22 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Bobby » 19 Aug 2014 19:37

Here's what you sent my daughter - I can post the whole thing up if you want. I've removed a few bits to keep your identity and mine safe as I see you take payment under someone of a totally different sex lol. Hope it's enough to prove I'm really me now but will post the whole thing up if you want. A bit worried.
Bobby

PayPal logo 11 Aug 2014 22:XX XX BST
Transaction ID: 0XXXXX13LXXX3150G
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

You sent a payment of 15.00 GBP to Dealing With Bailiffs.


It may take a few moments for this transaction to appear in your account.
Merchant
Dealing With Bailiffs
dXXna@laXXXXte.co.uk
+44 758XXXX459 Instructions to merchant
You haven't entered any instructions.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#23 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 19 Aug 2014 20:07

No problem. I don't actually have access to PayPal transaction information, but there's no need to use a proxy especially after you have made a full disclosure by making a card payment.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Bobby
Posts: 50
Joined: 17 Aug 2014 20:36

#24 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Bobby » 19 Aug 2014 21:34

Glad all sorted - have posted the same on other post also. Did mention that I'm likely to be here using a proxy as it's a habit that could cost me my job if I forget so please look at user name before you zap me lol. I posted more proof there as well so delete it if you need to - I don't care whether it all stays or goes. Just want help with this clamp - kept in garage as didn't have the balls to take it to the police station. Hopefully all sorted anyway now so won't be on much. Thanks for your help.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#25 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 22 Aug 2014 10:01

I recommend not using a proxy at your work place.

Your employers IT manager can see you are using a proxy, and can also see what website you are visiting through the proxy, and not only that, he can see what images you are downloading.

It only hides your IP number from the website you are visiting, unless the website is running a htaccess script that does a trace route (DOS command - tracert) which identifies the terminal IP number which is the one given by your place of employment to access the Internet.

Using a proxy on a Web forum only tells a forum administrator you have something to hide. Proxy users are very easy to detect, -which is probably why they are banned before they get time to make their first post.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Bobby
Posts: 50
Joined: 17 Aug 2014 20:36

#26 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Bobby » 22 Aug 2014 11:18

Hi Jason, we're told to use a proxy at work cos it's private use and they don't want the original IP address showing. If we don't have a proper proxy - apparently with some you can still see an IP address - we're not allowed to use the computers there for personal use even during breaks. I've got the policy somewhere around - if I can find it I'll post it up you might find it interesting. If I don't use a proxy and get caught I face disciplinary and could lose my job though I think it would be a warning for a first offence.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#27 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 22 Aug 2014 12:21

I would do as your employer says and don't use his internet for unauthorised activity. I wouldn't like my staff to be messing about in my paid time, and contradicting T&Cs in their break.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Kari
Posts: 10
Joined: 20 Dec 2012 23:53

#28 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Kari » 24 Aug 2014 19:56

jasonDWB wrote:Today at Blackpool County Court Judge Bryce presided over case A2QZ0505 in the matter of Kari Anderson (claimant) v Marston Group Ltd (defendant). The claimant sued Marston Group Ltd to recover incorrect storage fees Marston Group wrongly charged. Marston Group sent their Barrister Lisa Feng from Exchange Chambers to have the case dismissed. District Judge Bryce ruled in favour of the Claimant preferring the evidence of the Claimant and saying that the submitted evidence of Marston Group was an 'absolute shambles'. The judgement is payable by Marston Group withing 14 days. Judge also awarded interest, all court fees and loss of earnings to the claimant.

This is a landmark victory against Britain's largest bailiff company, ant highlights that even when bailiff complies believe they are in a class above the law, they are not immune from being brought to justice.
I am Kari Anderson, the Claimant in the above case.

Since the aforesaid Hearing much has been reported about the entirety of my matter with the Marston Group and this said Hearing. The media via Panorama, Watchdog, The Mail and the Sunday Mirror amongst others have enquired about my story. For the most part, I have stayed silent and have read with interest a plethora of forums alleging to be 'in the know' about both my Form 4 Complaint dubbed 'Manchestergate' and my recent Blackpool Court Hearing.

I am choosing to write on this forum because the Administrators of sites such as CAG took it upon themselves to report all my issues with the Marston Group on their forums, then blocked me to ensure I had no voice of reply to their diatribe.
Then in order to trawl for further information on my matter, on the 19th of August 2014 I received a somewhat lengthy email from a Saturn Five, whom I understand, is the Admin of CAG in addition to operating under numerous usernames/alias's on other Bailiff Help/advice forums.
I have not replied to Saturn Five's email as correspondence with this woman serves no useful purpose.
Because I have ignored Saturn Five's said email, I have now received an email from Ron Clarke of fair-parking.co.uk who is, essentially, reiterating the email of Saturn Five. Clearly the two are in cahoots and somewhat eager to ascertain updates on my matters.

For clarity both Saturn Five and Ron Clarke can obtain my reply to the many questions to me via this website because aside from writing on my own Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/swedishangel) I have no intentions of replying on any other bailiff forum.

In the first instance I would like it known that when Jason DWB reported on my matter publishing my full name, he did so with my full permission. Saturn Five et al has criticised this openness. I opted to let my full name be known for authenticity purposes should any other victims of Marston Group choose to follow my lead and need details of my case.

For those of you interested in my much reported Form 4 Complaint against a Martson bailiff (aka 'Manchestergate') and my Court victory against this company, here is the truth. I hide behind no username and I report the facts as they are.

On the 6th of December 2012 a female bailiff arrived at one of my rental properties to seize a work vehicle. The vehicle in question was a 3yr old Vauxhall Corsa SXi with 12k milage and one lady owner, me.
The car had been purchased new for my business and was sign written with the Company logo. Due to a disability, I was unable to drive the vehicle, in fact at this juncture, I had no licence due to the disability and was reliant on another driving me in the car.
The said car was often parked overnight at this property because it is secure due to the geography of it, it also has a large garage; the garage is used to store business equipment.
On the day the bailiff arrived, the car was parked outside the garage. The garage is clearly marked as being owned by myself. Due to the fact one of my employee's had pulled the garage door off its runner, most of the items inside the garage were visible...ie commercial fridges/freezers/ovens/microwave/furniture.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid chattels, the Marston bailiff wanted the car and so seized this by clamping it. She then contacted me on my work mobile which was on the car's logo.

It transpired that the reason for this bailiff visit was an unpaid speeding fine.
Apparently the work car had been clocked by a traffic cop hiding in an unmarked van...the car had been going 5 miles or so over the speed limit. Being the registered keeper, I finally received the fine of £60. I duly informed DVLA I was not the driver & as such sent an alternate name.
DVLA informed the above information came too late and the matter had been passed to the Magistrates Court.
I attended the Magistrates Court and in essence as I was the registered keeper the fine was mine...plus an extra 65 quid in Court fees etc now making the fine £60 fine + £65 costs Total payable = £125.00. This was the summer of 2012.

Annoyed at the above decision I made an Appeal. My Appeal was listed to be heard at Preston Court. However, due to bereavement, my work schedule and other matters, I decided to cancel the Appeal and just pay the £125.00 fine and be done with it.
My working life means I am in Preston Court on a regular basis, so, whilst at the Court I went into the public office and handed over a company cheque for £125.00, got on with life and thought no more of this matter.

Fast forward six months or so to December and outside one of my rental properties stands a Marston Bailiff clamping my work vehicle and now demanding in excess of £600 or 'the car goes'. The Bailiff alleged many visits had been made by her to the rental property...each visit adding to the debt. The fact she had been attending the wrong property as could be proven, was irrelevant. Ditto all Court correspondence on the matter.

At this juncture I was not in the North West of England but on business in the South.
The Marston Bailiff was told that the fine had been paid but, she said it hadn't so I checked with the Preston and Blackpool Courts, in addition to our book-keeper. The cheque had not been cashed.

Despite the fact of there being sufficient items in the garage to satisfy the Warrant, this bailiff seized the work vehicle. Long story short, she clamped it and left the premises vowing to return the following day with a tow truck.

As the clamped car could not be moved the garage was blocked preventing use of it. Upon inspection, the female bailiff had not fitted the boot on the car properly thus allowing the car to be moved some 200 yards so my employees could place further items in and out of the garage as we do on a regular basis.

The Marston bailiff returned the following day with a tow truck. The tow truck reversed 300 yards or so down the large drive with all it's sirens beeping...only to discover the clamped car was not there. World War 3 ensued.

In her fury, the bailiff constantly rang my mobile leaving one abusive message after another.
I was then sent a plethora of texts informing me how I had 'stolen' my own car and that the police were now on their way. I was informed a locksmith had also been deployed and would now force entry into my tenants home to remove her goods.
The bailiff was told that the tenant in situ at this address had nothing to do with this matter. The tenant was now in a panic that all her worldly goods were to be removed and so rang the bailiff to explain the situation. The Bailiff called my tenant a 'lying cun*' and told her she wasn't the tenant at this address and a locksmith would be breaking entry within the hour.
My tenant then rang Marston Group and spoke with the bailiff's manager. The lie that a 'locksmith was on route to break into the property' was reiterated by the bailiff's manager.

Thankfully, the cerebrally challenged bailiff and her entourage finally spotted the vehicle parked happily across the road and so removed it with the waiting tow truck. However, clearly still miffed she then took it upon herself to place a large red and white Marston sticker on the front door on the tenants home informing bailiff's had called and the vehicle had been seized and removed.
The bailiff signed her name on the sticker and drew a smiling face next to it such as this :D This was glued to the front door for all the neighbours to see.

The car was removed on the 6th of December 2012. On the 7th of December 2012 Marston Group wrote to me informing that unless they were in funds the car would be sold at auction in 7 days. Marston Group then held onto the letter until after the 14th of December 2012. The said letter was received just before Xmas....after the '7 day' period had lapsed.
On receipt of this letter, I contacted Marston Group to ask if my car had been sold. I was told 'dunno...maybe'. I asked to speak to someone of authority but was told most were at their office Xmas party.

Xmas 2012 and New Year came and went.

In 2013 I anticipated receiving a substantial cheque from Marston Group for the balance of my car after their deductions. This did not happen. Again I contacted Marston. Again I was stonewalled.
Then in mid March 2013, I received a letter from the DVLA saying someone was trying to register my car as the keeper. Clearly, my car had been sold.
In April 2013 I finally received a letter from Marston Group. This long awaited correspondence informed how my 10k car had now been sold for an alleged £3,100 and that I now owed Marston Group in excess of another thousand pounds in storage fees. This was in addition to the several thousands they were already charging me for alleged 'storage fees'. Clearly Marston Group were doing this in order to keep for themselves every penny from the sale of my work vehicle.

After due consideration I instigated a Form 4 Complaint primarily against the unprofessional behaviour of the bailiff in question. This was made to Altrincham Court where she obtained her licence. The Court considered the Complaint serious enough to warrant a Hearing and as such a Hearing was listed at the Manchester Court.
However, in the meanwhile, my health took a downturn and I was admitted to The Christy Hospital in Manchester. Despite not being well, the date of the Hearing approached and I wanted to attend this Hearing rather than have it dismissed or adjourned.
Marston Group sent to the Hearing their top barrister so at to defend them.
The Hearing continued all day until the Court time was exhausted. Marston's barrister placed me under oath in the Witness box all day so as to interrogate me. By 5pm or so I too was exhausted.
The Judge asked all parties to return to the Court the following day. However, the following day I was too unwell to attend and sought an adjournment. As the case was part-heard, an adjournment was not possible and the only option available to the Judge was to dismiss the matter.
It has been reported on numerous other websites that Marston Group 'won Manchestergate'.....it has been reported that I received a bill of costs....it has also been reported that Jason DWB acted as a Mckennzie friend after being 'rumbled' by the Judge. All of the aforesaid are untrue. The latter was reported by Saturn Five, who, it is noteworthy to state, even knew what both myself and Jason wore to the Hearing, something only those connected to myself or Marston's would have known...and neither I nor Jason informed of this.

Jason (DWB) did attend the Manchester Form 4 Complaint Hearing with me, but this was solely to offer moral support as I was alone and he was aware of my ill health. No other website offered anything, least of all worthwhile advice. It is fair to say that no other website offered any help whatsoever, in fact it is true that aside from this site and DWB, all other sites merely frustrated matters and showed themselves to be in league on some level with the Marston Group, albeit incognito so as to get debtors to enter into payment arrangements inter alia.

The Form 4 Complaint against Marston Group was dismissed for the reasons said.
I was not able to re-vent this complaint in sufficient time due to my ill health and work commitments. However, entirely because of the Form 4 Complaint, Marston Group were obliged to give me sight of the evidence on which they intended to rely. This should be exchanged 14 days before the Hearing, but, Marston Group handed me their 100 + pages of evidence as we entered the Court...
...and what did I find on Page 52 of Marston Group's own evidence? A signed document from the auctioneer verifying that my car was actually taken directly to the auctioneer on the 6th of December 2012...the day it was seized. Clearly, the car hadn't been stored by Marston Group Ltd at all. A mute point perhaps as clearly some outfit stored it. That said, storage cannot exceed 5 working days in accordance with the CPR on these matters.
Because of this I issued Court proceedings against Marston Group to recover their alleged 'storage fees' inter alia. Again, rather than resolve the matter as amicably as could be hoped for, Marston Group preferred to employ another expensive barrister, this time Ms Lisa Feng from Exchange Chambers.

The Hearing took place last week at Blackpool Court and was heard by the Honourable District Judge Bryce.
Again, on entering the Court, Marston Group handed to me their evidence...clearly this is a tactic of Marston Group and can now be expected *yawn*

After almost 3hrs the Honourable District Judge Bryce ruled in my favour. Marston Group now have to return to me their 'alleged' storage fees.
Some have asked if this refund amounts to a £25, £30, or exceeds £100. None are correct as what Marston Group have to stump up runs into the thousands of pounds they took from me.

The District Judge also awarded me my Court costs and loss of earnings for the day...though Lisa Feng who no doubt billed Marston Group a few thousand pounds for a full day's work, strenuously objected to me also receiving a full day's loss of earnings hence the Judge allowing me just half a day. As Tesco say's 'every little helps'.

It has been written on CAG and elsewhere that Marston may Appeal this Judgement....clearly CAG are in the know on such matters.
All I can say is that their Barrister Ms Feng did not request permission to Appeal from the District Judge. The fact that she did not request permission does not mean that Marston Group cannot Appeal. However, as Ms Feng knows, one cannot Appeal just because they fail in an action, one can only Appeal if the Judge erred in law and, to my knowledge District Judge Bryce hasn't.
The Judgement is payable in 14 days and Marston's time is up this Thursday the 28th of August 2014. Should Marston Group fail to pay up, Judgement will be entered against them and I will then be at liberty to enforce the Judgement, which, ironically includes the sending in of the bailiffs to seize their goods though one must wonder which, if any, Bailiff Company or High Court Sheriff would actually do this and if given the task would make a serious attempt to seize Marston's goods. Only time will tell.

These are the facts thus far about my Form 4 Complaint in Manchester aka 'Manchestergate' and my Court victory against Marston Group Ltd. Apologies for the length of this comment but much rubbish has been written about my matter and this at least for those interested, sets the record straight thus far.

Finally, all I can say to the plethora of various people reading this reply both for and against me and/or the use/tactics of bailiffs, my matter with Marston Group is not over. Marston Group have proven to be not only bullies in the extreme, but liars and cheats.
The ironery of it all is that these people are primarily employed by the Magistrates Courts...an Honourable body in existence to uphold all justice.
It is now high time the UK Government brought in an Ombudsman to regulate and oversee all bailiff activity because in its current form, the system in situ is both unworkable and unacceptable despite the 2014 reforms.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#29 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 24 Aug 2014 20:23

Good to see you on the board again Kari.

I don't know why TT and fair-parking felt the need to poke their beaks into affairs that do not concern them.

I recommend not using HCEOs for enforcement against Marston. They will bank your fee cheque and return the writ nulla-bona. If Marston defaults, then apply for a disclosure order to obtain all their bank accounts, then do a third party order. It's minimal effort and solves the problem quietly. The cost of the disclosure and the third party order is added to the sum recovered. Marston can't afford a CCJ given their current heavy borrowing.

unless Marston decides to come clean and agree an amicable settlement, I can't see the proceedings finishing anytime soon.The alternative is go back to throwing thousands at warring barristers trying to make a futile defence.

How things move forward beyond this point is entirely up to Marston.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Hithard
Moderator
Posts: 856
Joined: 19 Mar 2013 13:54

#30 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Hithard » 24 Aug 2014 21:19

What a great post Kari.
You really do expose Marstons for the utter underhanded lying crooks that they are.
You are correct. It is shameful that the court services in this country choose to use such a crooked and corrupt company.
Descendite ne illegitimi

Kari
Posts: 10
Joined: 20 Dec 2012 23:53

#31 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Kari » 24 Aug 2014 22:32

Thank you Jason and Hithard.

It appears that someone has copied and posted my reply onto CAG, which in turn has warranted replies, the most sensible of which come from Uncle Bulgaria.

Despite the fact that I have never participated on CAG I have as said been blocked, so I cannot voice any reply. I am left wondering why, a forum such as CAG would wilfully choose to constantly report on my matter with Marston Group as if they have first hand knowledge and are 'in the know', then prevent me from correcting or commenting on any of their reports/comments. I suspect CAG realize that I will read their comments about me and my Court cases with Marston Group and that I will reply asking them where the hell they get this information from as it is incorrect.
I have been labouring under the misapprehension that forums blocked/banned users that are offensive...and I haven't been....so the fact that CAG chose the ban me from their site so as to prevent me telling the truth on it says more about them than it does about me.

Mark1960
Posts: 4112
Joined: 20 Mar 2013 11:36

#32 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Mark1960 » 24 Aug 2014 22:49

If its any consolation Kari, I too was banned from CAG for telling the truth.

I also applaud UB's comments. Brassneck has also made a valid point and hopefully this victory and your willingness to share it with is will not be dragged down to WD's petty levels.

You mention at the end of your post, your feelings that an ombudsman/regulator should be appointed. Part of me agrees with this, part of me however thinks we should wait 12 months to see how things pan out under the new regs. Going on internet posts alone, I see some companies rarely mentioned these days-Companies who would pop up every other day pre-April 6th. It is important to focus on positives as well as negatives regarding these companies.

Kari
Posts: 10
Joined: 20 Dec 2012 23:53

#33 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Kari » 24 Aug 2014 23:01

To Wonkey Donkey c/o CAG.
I read your further comments on myself with some concern as it appears that you question by ability to post on CAG.

As is evidenced below by what I have copied and pasted, clearly I can view posts/comments on CAG but I am blocked/banner/barred/prevented (whatever terminology you wish you label it) from replying to anything on there.
To prove the aforesaid, I have madam taken the liberty of copying and pasting what appears on CAG when I attempt to reply to your diatribe.
Clearly, if I could reply to your aforesaid diatribe, I would do so instead of replying to your mockery via a reputable forum.

I rest my case so please refrain from perpetuating your untruths as this is now somewhat tiresome asyou are proving to be something of an ass...and a wonky one at that.


New Posts | Mark All Forums Read | Advanced Search



Message from The Consumer Action Group

.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Message from The Consumer Action Group



Kari Anderson, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
1.Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2.If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation. You may not have sufficient posts to permit you to carry out your intended action

Log Out Home
.



Complaints
| Privacy Policy
| Contact Us
| The Consumer Forums
| Archive
.



Viewing CAG on a small screen? Switch to the mobile version of the site

Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14800
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#34 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by jasonDWB » 24 Aug 2014 23:28

Earlier this year, I was hauled up by HMRC for a tax investigation. I've never had one before, but cut to the punchline, I stopped the Interview under caution before the caution could be read over to me, and I required the investigator make over Standard Disclosure. In other words, show what evidence they are using to explain why am I being investigated?

Disclosure was made, and the information they were relying on was uniquely known to only one person. It could only have been Saturn Five of the CAG forum. That was based on the information about me she had been distributing around the internet.

I asked for the identity of their "anonymous informant" and offered some CAG forum content as evidence. The address the 'tipoff' was linked to was already well known in DWP circles, and is believed to be that of WD.

I mention this because WD made a comment about what we were wearing at Manchester court, and at a nearby coffee shop. The only person who would have known apart from Kari is Chris Royle of Exchange Chambers who represented Marston. He saw us at the coffee shop which proves the line of communication was something like this.

Chris Royle 》Marston 》TT 》WD 》CAG forum.

Both Kari and I are scratching our heads who GlennQ is.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Kari
Posts: 10
Joined: 20 Dec 2012 23:53

#35 Re: Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Post by Kari » 25 Aug 2014 00:22

Whoever GlennQ is, I am indebted to him/her for it appears he/she is copying my replies onto CAG for Wonkey Donkey to read. Bravo! Clearly, if I could write the replies onto CAG myself I would, but, CAG prevent me from writing on their forum. I can read what is written on there, but as previously informed, I cannot reply to any comments made as CAG prevent me from doing so.

For the last time, I have just visited CAG and frankly, I am reminded of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for it appears that lunatics are now running that particular asylum.
I note TT's comment
'UB. I would firstly like to make clear that I have no issues at all with 'Kari'. None whatsoever !!! This is despite the fact that her emails to me last July are very much at odds with her lengthly post on the other forum today. There are a lot of discrepancies. However, I have no intention of embarrassing her in pointing these out. It would be most unfair on her to do so.'

In reply to the aforesaid there are no 'discrepancies' in what I write now and what I wrote previously.
Previously I informed that my Court actions with Marston Group was instigated by myself and myself alone. As already stated, I was afforded initial guidance on Bailiff Laws and this guidance was given by DWB and BHF, not by CAG amongst others.
I took full responsibility for my Form 4 Complaint, if I had won or lost it...the perils of losing were abundantly clear to me from the outset yet I continued with it nonetheless and if the matter could be re-vented I would certainly do this.
CAG reported at the time how debtors were somewhat foolish to instigate Form 4 Complaints as these carried with them huge risks by way of costs. However, I was aware of this but continued regardless as my matter was one of principle, not money. The employee's of Marston Group Ltd acted in an unprofessional and deplorable manner and this is a fact no fancy footwork from their barrister Chris Royle can untangle. Thankfully for Marston Group the Form 4 Complaint against their bailiff Ms Ellis was dismissed purely because the matter was part-heard and I was too unwell to attend the Court the following day having just been discharged from The Christy Hospital.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest