Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

Tell us how you beat the bailiffs.
User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14812
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 25 Aug 2014 00:43

And on that note, I think we should move on and look at solving the next step in the so-called Manchestergate case. I appreciate TT will probably continue to cover the proceedings from what she gets from Marston.

Given the recent revelations courtesy of pote-snitkin, I think its inappropriate and unwise for Marston Group to carry on trading people's personal details and financial affairs with someone who has scraped them off the CAG and LB forums while having convictions for dishonesty. Marstons continuance with its business with TT will say a lot about Marston Group.

WD, no email, and even if I did get one from you, I wouldn't waste my time. Stick with the CAG forum, it suits you.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Aug 2014 11:58

I notice that the usual Caggers are calling Kari a liar. What is wrong with these people? I think this is more about Jason than anything else, they can't bear the thought that he's right on anything, and they will protect their Marston Masters blindly. What a shambles they truly are.

I think it's brilliant that Marston have been shown up as the repulsive bullying goons they clearly are, treating vulnerable people in a manner that, in any other profession, would be criminal. I hope Kari continues to pursue them for more losses that she is owed. Well done Kari.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14812
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 25 Aug 2014 12:06

The CAG administrator says Kari didn't return the activation email, as are the CAG keyboard warriors.

How else would Ron FP get her details to pass on to TT? Kari certainly wouldn't have telephoned a website about parking tickets. On that note, I've just had a bunch of very angry "keep your mouth shut" emails from him.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

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

Post by Mark1960 » 25 Aug 2014 12:14

Pote Snitkin wrote:I notice that the usual Caggers are calling Kari a liar. What is wrong with these people? I think this is more about Jason than anything else, they can't bear the thought that he's right on anything, and they will protect their Marston Masters blindly. What a shambles they truly are.

I think it's brilliant that Marston have been shown up as the repulsive bullying goons they clearly are, treating vulnerable people in a manner that, in any other profession, would be criminal. I hope Kari continues to pursue them for more losses that she is owed. Well done Kari.
There are some reprehensible comments on there Pote, but none more so than those from Mr "head up his own backside"

I find it sickening. Kari hardly mentions him yet he sees fit to call her a "lying fantasist" What exactly has Kari said to deserve this tirade?

She simply stated that she received an email from him, just after the court case and just after TT sent an identical mail. I find it impossible to imagine that the two did not speak about this case prior to him sending the email. He claims it was out of courtesy yet Kari wasn''t even a client. Neither had sent anything in the months preceding the case yet both do within days after the case.

I've no doubt in my mind who the lying fantasist is.

CAG have not covered themselves in glory over this sorry episode and the posts over the last 12 hours or so on there are continuing in that vein.

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

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

Post by Mark1960 » 25 Aug 2014 12:18

jasonDWB wrote:The CAG administrator says Kari didn't return the activation email, as are the CAG keyboard warriors.

How else would Ron FP get her details to pass on to TT? Kari certainly wouldn't have telephoned a website about parking tickets. On that note, I've just had a bunch of very angry "keep your mouth shut" emails from him.
One of the highlights of the net for me is reading Rons angry outbursts. :lol: he cracks me up at times. I may even do another Hitler video with Ron as Hitler.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Aug 2014 12:28

Just seen that I'm now supposed to be GlennQ. :D I've been banned too many times to bother!
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14812
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 25 Aug 2014 12:43

Who has accused you? (for what better word) Kari and I were discussing last night who this could be but we are stumped as to who GlennQ is.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Aug 2014 12:49

Fair-Parking:

I've now managed to uncover a 'Glenn Q' who is a character in Family Guy known as 'Glenn Quagmire' so called because he gets himself into situations he finds difficult get out of. He is also a fictional commercial airline pilot.

Such obtuse characters are the hallmark of one person posting on forums other than the well known small mouthpiece - and such as 'Panaka' and 'Pote Snitkin' - obtuse Star Wars characters few people would know about - vbut which might well include one who claims to play science fiction themes on his organ.


Mind you, reading it again it could well be that he's saying it's you Jason, 'the fictional air-line pilot'! :lol:
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14812
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 25 Aug 2014 12:53

He's been on the google again. Erm, Syncopates?

I have better things to do than be a CAG warrior.

Speaking of which, I'm wondering why the CAG has so many warriors sidelining Marstons judgment and try to rubbish the fact it lost a case. On Thursday, the 14 day deadline Marston has to pay, risks another £400 court fee being added to the sum for a third party order to be applied. Their bank accounts become as useful as a wet paper bag.
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

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

Post by Andy » 25 Aug 2014 13:28

Kari - congratulations on winning your case, I hope your case will serve as a bench mark for people who have been robbed by marstons and want redress. I doubt it will change the industry but hopefully it is a start.
2nd Year University Law Student.

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

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

Post by Kari » 25 Aug 2014 14:15

I have read the replies on CAG. For the most part I smile as the tirade of abuse says more about these people than it does about me.
In life I get accused of being many things...persistent, consistent, adamant to name a few, all of which are true, but, a liar I am not.
As Jason will testify, from the outset with Marston Group and despite their attempt to drown me in a deluge of untruths and deceit to win the Court cases with me, I repeatedly informed all how I 'had the sword of truth on my side'. Some may call that fanciful in a Court room battle with the likes of the giant Marston, and, with hindsight it probably was fanciful, but, that was my stance with Marston Group at the outset in December 2012 and that is my stance today.
In short, I do not lie and the entirety of what I have written on this forum is the truth.

In their defence CAG state that I cannot post/reply on their site because I did not activate my CAG account. This is untrue & any rational reasonable person would not believe that an individual seeking help would sign up to a site then not bother to activate their membership via the link sent to their email address. Further, previously I have used this site and it was from CAG I found Mr Clarke (fair-parking).
As Mark1960 correctly and kindly points out, I have never said anything negative about Mr Clarke other than informing I received an email from him several days ago following the email I received from Mrs Harding.
Mr Clarke was enquiring about my case with Marston's as clearly he had read about it on here and other forums. This email seemed somewhat odd as my only dealings with Mr Clarke was one short telephone conversation (and 2 corresponding emails) made to him when I was initially seeking some help. In the first instance Mr Clarke duly informed me his speciality was parking matters and not bailiff issues so he swiftly passed my details on to a Saturn Five.
The aforesaid is my culminitive dealings with Mr Clarke save for a further email I have received from him today, the latter of which essentially vents his anger at me ignoring his email of the 22nd August & daring to mention him on here. No discourtesy was intended to Mr Clarke, but, as he informed in the first instance, his speciality is parking matters, not bailiff issues, hence it served no useful purpose giving him details of my Court case with Marston Group.
If it upsets Mr Clarke my not giving him all the privileged details of my Marston Court case so he can relay this to a plethora of others in his camp as if he too is 'in the know', so be it for I cannot legislate for the ego's of strangers.

It was not my purpose then, nor is it my intention now, to get into any war of attrition with any forum or forum member. I replied on this forum/thread because I was weary of reading half truths about my matter on various forums, which then prompted enquiries and replies from other members wanting to know more. Further, it was my hope that my success against Marston Group may spur others on to follow suit to reclaim any fictitious charges and or storage fees they may have lost to various bailiff companies.

If anyone wants the truth about my matter, they will not find it on forums such as CAG, they will find it on BHF via myself.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Aug 2014 16:40

And as is the normal practice over there, the thread has been closed - can't have Marstons attacked can we? :roll:

Someone created a new account 'sweetlaw' to praise the words of tomtubby & fair-parking (my guess is WD), changing the font as well (because if someone writes in a different font, it can disguise who they are, don't you know).

Sweetlaw praises the 'good name' of tomtubby AKA Saturn Five (two convictions for cheque fraud). Strange how she is now silently battling cancer as soon as she was aware that Kari had undergone treatment. I would have thought she'd have thrown that into the ring long ago.

Hey, we were all thinking it.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14812
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 25 Aug 2014 16:50

New and multiple names is a common trend of the CAG forum. They shill for TT in some way or another. There are the one-post names. A few minor exceptions such as Mr. Walkers Crisps (fletch70). Interesting posting history.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

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

Post by Mark1960 » 25 Aug 2014 16:57

In fairness to Saturn Five, I have had conversations with her in the past where she has mentioned the treatment that she has been undergoing. I don't think it's the kind of thing that someone would make up.

Likewise, just because someone is ill, doesn't mean they should roll over for bailiffs, as Kari has bravely demonstrated. I don't use the term fraud very often regarding bailiff fees but in this case, fraud seems to be the appropriate description of what has taken place.

CAG have definitely walked away from this one with their tails between their legs-Hopefully someone will read this who has been charged storage fees by Marston and start doing some delving. Marston may have deep pockets and prefer to shell out 3 grand to fight over 2 grand. Wouldn't it be nice for them to have to do this 10 times over?

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14812
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 25 Aug 2014 17:10

What doesn't sound right about TTs health problems, it was her husband that had the same problems she describes. When she speaks over the telephone to my clients, she makes repeated critic of me and DWB. Fortunately, it reflects on her more than it does me.

As far as the bounce cheque tax disc, I would have dismissed it has it been a one off offence and thought nothing more of it.

I would have thought Marston would have been honest about the car, but to tell a court it was stored from December to April when they knew someone applied for a V5 in February proves an intention to pocket thousands of pounds of someone else's money fraudulently.

I'm wondering if this could be a re-run of the Newlyn Mercedes case. Newlyn sold a Mercedes at "auction", the car was found and recovered and new keeper said the motor trader sold it for a much higher price than declared. The motor traders name was in the public register of certificated bailiffs.
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

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

Post by Hithard » 25 Aug 2014 17:52

It's highly likely that Marstons have been running the storage fee racket for sometime and it may very well be common practice.
Hopefully Kari's victory will lead to more people defrauded by Marstons coming forward and the company facing a proper investigation and losing it's contracts from the MOJ.
Descendite ne illegitimi

steveme
Posts: 14
Joined: 25 Aug 2014 17:40

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

Post by steveme » 25 Aug 2014 18:02

Pote Snitkin wrote:And as is the normal practice over there, the thread has been closed - can't have Marstons attacked can we? :roll:

Someone created a new account 'sweetlaw' to praise the words of tomtubby & fair-parking (my guess is WD), changing the font as well (because if someone writes in a different font, it can disguise who they are, don't you know).

Sweetlaw praises the 'good name' of tomtubby AKA Saturn Five (two convictions for cheque fraud). Strange how she is now silently battling cancer as soon as she was aware that Kari had undergone treatment. I would have thought she'd have thrown that into the ring long ago.

Hey, we were all thinking it.
If she had two convictions for fraud then my guess is she would have gone down. Fraud is an imprisonable offence with a max sentence of 10 years or so it says

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14812
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 25 Aug 2014 18:05

That is a long term plan to revive old cases and look into fraudulent behaviour. I have previous clients who have unsolved cases.

In Kari's case, we need to progress the dispute, and how cooperative Marston wants to be is up to them. I think it's best not to bring CAG forums into the loop because too many members are getting their fingers burnt by poking their beaks into matters that do not concern them.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Aug 2014 20:09

steveme wrote: If she had two convictions for fraud then my guess is she would have gone down. Fraud is an imprisonable offence with a max sentence of 10 years or so it says
Watch-oo talkin' bout Willis? Convicted twice - 2008 & 2011. Fined both times. As it didn't involve a 'vulnerable' victim, the sentencing range is a fine to 6 weeks custody.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Aug 2014 21:21

Mark1960 wrote:In fairness to Saturn Five, I have had conversations with her in the past where she has mentioned the treatment that she has been undergoing. I don't think it's the kind of thing that someone would make up.
In that case, she has my best wishes in fighting it. My Mum died of metastatic cancer so I know how nasty it can be. No kid gloves though - millions battle cancer every day.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

steveme
Posts: 14
Joined: 25 Aug 2014 17:40

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

Post by steveme » 25 Aug 2014 23:57

Pote Snitkin wrote:
steveme wrote: If she had two convictions for fraud then my guess is she would have gone down. Fraud is an imprisonable offence with a max sentence of 10 years or so it says
Watch-oo talkin' bout Willis? Convicted twice - 2008 & 2011. Fined both times. As it didn't involve a 'vulnerable' victim, the sentencing range is a fine to 6 weeks custody.
Sorry you said it was a case of fraud. In fraud cases the sentencing guidelines are nearly always a custodial as midway point . Of course if the actual charge was not fraud then the guidelines would be different

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

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

Post by Mark1960 » 26 Aug 2014 06:13

Nobody is going to be jailed for a dishonest financial gain of £160 (a years road tax)

I read recently on Scoop it about a mother who avoided jail after being convicted of benefit fraud to the tune of £100K.

It is wrong to assume that the charge dictates the sentence. It may well have the potential to impose greater punishment but circumstances will always be the deciding factor. This is especially true for cases heard at magistrates courts, where offences are generally minor and petty. The prisons are overflowing and magistrates are guided to look at alternative sentencing.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Aug 2014 09:48

That saved me from having to make a post.


Oh...
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

steveme
Posts: 14
Joined: 25 Aug 2014 17:40

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

Post by steveme » 26 Aug 2014 11:44

Maybe I should have explained slightly better. With two offences so close together you would expect the punishment to be much higher if they were fraud. Obviously we hear of community orders for huge frauds but we also hear of custodials for much less.
I didn't say she would have got a long sentence or even an immediate one just that the offence alleged is much more than a slap on the wrist.
My suggestion is that it was not fraud at all, an oft misused term

Can you point me to the sentencing guidelines of a fine to 6 weeks, what was that punishment for?

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14812
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Aug 2014 11:50

This is off topic.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Aug 2014 12:11

But let's clear it up....

The convictions were writing a cheque knowing it would bounce, then refusing to return the tax disc. This could be interpreted as fraud or theft, depending on the evidence.

Sentencing was at the Magistrates, so the maximum sentence would be 12 months. It's not for me to argue why the sentence was a fine in both cases - perhaps due to her age and gender.

Cheque fraud refers to a category of criminal acts that involve making the unlawful use of cheques in order to illegally acquire or borrow funds that do not exist within the account balance or account-holder's legal ownership.

One form is bad cheque writing; a cheque is written to a merchant or other recipient, hoping the recipient will not suspect that the cheque will not clear. The buyer will then take possession of the cash, goods, or services purchased with the cheque, and will hope the recipient will not take action or will do so in vain.

Have you even read about the cases? Now let's get back on track....
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

Jade
Posts: 11
Joined: 26 Aug 2014 12:19

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

Post by Jade » 26 Aug 2014 13:04

This thread is just too entertaining I'm compelled to join in. Off topic perhaps, but let me just get this straight... Sheila Marsdon's handle username is TomTubby as well (as various other names so she can apparently chat to herself on line) and this woman has 2 convictions for cheque fraud yet she is or was employed as a debt counsellor to pontificate how the great unwashed can resolve the financial problems? LMAO!
And, this little Ronnie chap also on CAG as 'fair-parking' is the same Ron who was slated by the Judge in the Andrews v Bolton case for being an idiot yet writes on CAG how someone like Kari Anderson is an 'idiot' because she didn't reply to his or TT's emails trawling for info about her Marston victory?
HAHAHAHA this really is all too amusing! Looks like Kari has done nothing more than put TT's and Ronnie boy's nosey beaks outa joint...and Marston's. Winner winner chicken dinner!

Jade
Posts: 11
Joined: 26 Aug 2014 12:19

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

Post by Jade » 26 Aug 2014 14:03

^sorry all, that shoulda said 'Saturn Five' not Sheila Marsden. Hahaha Freudlian slip...or should that be a cheque fraudlian slip? :-D

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4126
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

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

Post by Amy » 26 Aug 2014 16:12

Pote Snitkin wrote:One form is bad cheque writing; a cheque is written to a merchant or other recipient, hoping the recipient will not suspect that the cheque will not clear. The buyer will then take possession of the cash, goods, or services purchased with the cheque, and will hope the recipient will not take action or will do so in vain.
Under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, cheques are contracts in themselves. They are a promise by the drawer of the cheque that the person to whom it is addressed will be paid the money as stated on the cheque. If there are insufficient funds in the account to meet that promise, then the cheque has been dishonoured and the contract broken.

I would say she was lucky.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4126
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

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

Post by Amy » 26 Aug 2014 17:09

I forgot to mention the star of the show; Kari.

Very, very well done to you for your dogged determination in what must have been such an ordeal for you.

I'm just sorry you have had to deal with all the mud slinging from others; they can just never bring themselves to be happy for anyone.

We are very grateful to you for sharing the outcome with us.

xx

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14812
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Aug 2014 17:21

I knew all along she would win it, but just for the record, congrats Kari.

If she has been well enough to resume the adjourned form 4, I'm very sure she would have won that. There was no way Chris Royle (Barrister) couldn't have wriggled out of it. The swearing at her tenant, (lying C*unt), excessive levy, it was real a tirade of foul mouthed abuse given down the phone. The texts were still on her phone and the judge beckoned for it to be passed to him to see for himself.

Chris Royle made it clear at the outset they would be no claim for his fee against Kari, and Marston would be paying his bill regardless of the outcome.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4126
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

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

Post by Amy » 26 Aug 2014 17:31

The Judge's eyes would have popped out of his head at language like that!

I'd love to say maybe they've learnt a valuable lesson here, but I don't imagine for one second they have.

steveme
Posts: 14
Joined: 25 Aug 2014 17:40

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

Post by steveme » 26 Aug 2014 17:58

Pote Snitkin wrote:But let's clear it up....

The convictions were writing a cheque knowing it would bounce, then refusing to return the tax disc. This could be interpreted as fraud or theft, depending on the evidence.

Sentencing was at the Magistrates, so the maximum sentence would be 12 months. It's not for me to argue why the sentence was a fine in both cases - perhaps due to her age and gender.

Cheque fraud refers to a category of criminal acts that involve making the unlawful use of cheques in order to illegally acquire or borrow funds that do not exist within the account balance or account-holder's legal ownership.

One form is bad cheque writing; a cheque is written to a merchant or other recipient, hoping the recipient will not suspect that the cheque will not clear. The buyer will then take possession of the cash, goods, or services purchased with the cheque, and will hope the recipient will not take action or will do so in vain.

Have you even read about the cases? Now let's get back on track....
First off I should say , and I am sorry I haven't said this before, well done to Kari for getting a victory over the Bailiffs and I do sincerely hope they take it on the chin and do not appeal or even try to ( From reading other for a sometimes you first need to go to court to ask for leave to appeal) . I would suspect that this will depend on if they want to set any sort of precedent as at the moment it is only county court .

In reply to Pote , I have only read the links that were provided on here regarding the vehicle excise duty and I do not see anywhere it saying that the cheques were written knowing that they would bounce. I know that in my younger days I would write a cheque on a Wednesday knowing that my pay would be in the bank on Friday which would be the time the cheque would hit my account . If it wasn't presented for a week I may well have dipped into the funds for that . It is always sods law though that the cheque would be presented one day early in those cases and I would get bank charges .

Very sorry to have gone off topic, well done to Kari indeed and balls to those that try to rubbish the victory

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14812
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

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

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Aug 2014 18:36

The offences are not about bounce cheques. It's failing to return a tax disc.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6009
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 26 Aug 2014 18:48

So it's either:

a) fraud - knowingly writing a cheque that would bounce and hoping it wouldn't be pursued; or

b) theft - mistakenly allowing the cheque to bounce but keeping the disc anyway.

No wonder she supports those with a theft convictions to work as bailiffs:

http://www.jbwgroup.co.uk/mobile/news/2 ... -offenders


Oh, and she doesn't seem to have much luck with cars does she?

http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/ ... a/?ref=arc

They'll soon be renaming Court 3 there 'The Harding Court'. :lol:
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest