Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

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

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

Post by jasonDWB » 26 Aug 2014 19:21

That's another conviction, in 2007. How many more convictions does she have? What does her husband and son make of all this?
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

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

Post by Kari » 28 Aug 2014 19:48

Thank you all for the kind comments regarding my case Kari Anderson v Marston Group Ltd.

It is simply not possible for me to personally reply to all the enquiries and congratulations I have received since this Court victory, so with the kind permission of the BHF I will utilize this site (and only this site) for updates on my matter with Marston Group Ltd.

The Court Order for this Hearing stated that Marston Group Ltd must pay the Judgement to me within 14 days. Marston Group have failed to do that so are now in breach of a Court Order.
At this juncture I smile and think what a pity I too can't 'visit' debtors to remind them of their unpaid debt & add to said debt a hundred quid or so for the privilege of seeing my smiling face...or behave as Marston's bailiff's do and intimidate, harass and generally be abusive until someone hands over some loot :lol:

It has been mooted on other forums such as CAG inter alia that Marston Group Ltd may Appeal this Judgement. Saturn Five aka TT initially floated this possibility on CAG. Since reading Marsdon Group may Appeal, many have asked me if this is a feasible concept.
In answer to the above question I say this; the only thing that WILL surprise me is if Marston Group Ltd do NOT appeal.

Word of my Court victory with Marston Group has spread like wild fire and according to those connected to Marston's, they are, for want of a better expression, spitting nails that despite sending to Blackpool County Court their barrister Ms Lisa Feng, they lost this case. In all fairness to Ms Feng, she was trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear as Marston's evidence was, in the words of Judge Bryce, 'a shambles'. That said, one would have considered that Exchange Chambers would have ensured all their ducks were in a row before they took aim in accepting this case and representing Marston Group.

I do not doubt that the past fortnight since this victory, Marston Group's legal team have been going hell for leather doing an autopsy on every aspect of law to see if the Honourable Judge Bryce erred anywhere alone the line thus allowing Marston's scope for Appeal.
According to the Marston camp, they want an Appeal for this case is not about money its about victory and being seen to win. We all know Marston Group are indeed the Goliath's of UK bailiff companies; Kari Anderson is just the proverbial David representing the common man.
As it currently stands the giant Marston's have lost and thanks to the world wide web, details of their failure has been cast far and wide so now this bullying giant aint happy.
I trust Marston Group would now rather spend 10k in barrister's legal fees ascertaining if there are any grounds for Appeal rather than cough up one brass farthing to me. Only time will tell. Tomorrow 'Mr Postman might look and see if there's a letter, a letter for me...'


Finally, regarding 'Manchestergate' I am sad to be sent the following which apparently appeared on CAG and was written by a Mr Ron Clarke aka 'Fair-Parking'.

Kari Anderson had a friend until the point she abused my trust and decided to post deceitful comments behind my back on another site whose owner is currently engaged in sending my private emails to him to Kari Anderson.

However in aligning herself with a lying fantasist at the expense of those who tried to help her and who cared enough to ask her how she got on she chose to bite the hand that was held out in friendship, so no I won't be congratulating her and if that is considered to be a failing on my part, then so be it - because it ain't gonna change my opinion one iota.

Firstly, Mr Clarke, you and I have never met thus we are not and never have been friends.
Secondly, as is evidenced by any and every word I have ever written on this forum, I have never posted any 'deceitful comments' behind your back or any one else's back as you aver.
Thirdly, you inform on CAG that the owner of this site has sent to me the 'private emails' you sent to him, which Mr Clarke is simply ridiculous for you are Sir a non entity and I have no interest whatsoever in any of the unsolicited love letters you type or any war of attrition you wish to invite with the Admins of BHF.
The facts are Mr Clarke I contacted you once. You passed me on to a Mrs Harding. Given that Mrs Harding has alleged convictions for dishonesty and cheque fraud in addition to working with Marston Group, I fail to see how you ever considered I 'had a friend' in you and, given the above, if anyone abused trust, it was Sir, you who abused mine.

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

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

Post by jasonDWB » 28 Aug 2014 20:41

Hear hear Kari. While marston plot their counter attack, they need to find a defence for a seizure of an obvious sign written trade vehicle, an excessive levy by taking a shiny new car when a garage full of gear was in full view. As this is pre-regulation, its an easy case to bring.

Wouldnt it be funny if the car just happened to be found, and its keeper paid a lot more than the £3100 as claimed by Marston group. Time to run a truth test? A refusal to take the test could be messy.
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

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

Post by Andy » 28 Aug 2014 20:48

Hear hear.
2nd Year University Law Student.

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

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

Post by Mark1960 » 28 Aug 2014 20:59

Theres a few things that puzzle me about this case. One issue that is eating away at me & hopefully Jason or Kari can put me right, is the issue of the car being used purely for business purposes.

How can it possibly be deemed to have been used partly for private use? It was sign written which OK, possibly isn't enough on its own but it would certainly be a good indication that the car was for business use only. What is really bothering me is that the restraint was fairly isolated, buses stopped running before the end of the shift, the business couldn't afford taxis for every employee-It made perfect business sense to run a car to ferry workers to & from work. Indian & Pakistani restaurants ferry their workers in this way on a regular basis. Everything fits for the car being used purely for business, of that there can be no dispute. Perhaps Kari used it occasionally to nip to the shops? or to the pub? She couldn't have could she because she couldn't drive? There is no possible way that the car could have been used privately as Kari didn't drive.

Is it too late to have a go for the whole value of the car to be refunded? As I see it, it should never have been removed.

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

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

Post by jasonDWB » 28 Aug 2014 21:17

Kari didn't have a driving license so private use is not in question. It was medical reasons.

Its the replacement cost plus the number of days she has been deprived of its use. There are other issues but for another day. Let me speak with Kari, I think your thoughts would be useful.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

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

Post by Kari » 28 Aug 2014 22:32

Hello Mark
The car was taken on the 6th of December 2012. The car was sign written down both sides. The car was bought for the business and used for the business. The main business was a restaurant. At night, staff were taken home in the vehicle. During the day, the car was used to visit the cash and carry etc.

When the car was 'caught' speeding doing a few miles over the limit, I was not the driver. I was not driving at this juncture on medical grounds as said. Due to disability I was being driven in the car and would have been present when the car was clocked speeding at approx. 35mph in a 30mph zone....by a traffic cop hiding in a van. The road the car was clocked on is on route to the restaurant.

Marston Group did not and would not accept that the car was a tool of the trade. Fact.
Marston Group seized the vehicle which was valued at approx £6.5-£7k to cover the speeding fine rather than remove any of the items in storage in the garage where the car was stood. Fact.
In order not to return one penny from the sale of the car Marston Group said they didn't sell the vehicle until April 2013...4 months after seizing it...thus charging me £25.00 a day in storage fees. Fact.
Marston Group in their own Witness Statement to the Court inform the car was sold on 6th of April 2013, yet, I received a letter from the DVLA informing me how someone was trying to register the vehicle in their name in late February 2013. Fact.
Marston Group then wrote to me in a letter dated April 2013 asking me to pay to them a further £1200 in storage fees, in addition to what they had already kept from the sale of the vehicle. Fact.

All of the aforesaid is despite the fact that Marston Group wrote to me on the 7th of Dec 2012 informing me that the vehicle would be sold at public auction in 7 days.
Bailiff Co's are governed by the Criminal Procedure Rules whereby goods must be sold within 7 working days.

Following the Court case on this matter, Marston Group now have to refund to me several thousand pounds within 14 days. Their time is up. They have failed to pay a penny.
Can we send in the bailiffs? :-D

The barrister for Marston Group tried to convince the Court that the reason Marston Group stored my vehicle for over 100 days charging me £25 a day in storage fees, was because I made a complaint to them so they had to investigate said complaint.
That's all fair and well, but, they didn't investigate my complaint as to why their seized a tool of the trade or why their bailiff lied and bullied.

Lets see if Marston Group lodge an Appeal or pay up. Either way, I have unfinished business with these people.

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

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

Post by jasonDWB » 28 Aug 2014 22:37

Il ask Amy to access you to members. The finer details need to be out of the public domain.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

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

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

Post by Jade » 30 Aug 2014 23:53

oh pleeeeeease send in the High Court Sheriff's to collect this debt...with a BBC camera crew in tow and a few tabloid journalists :lol:

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

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

Post by jasonDWB » 03 Sep 2014 14:44

Lookie what came thru the door today. They were late paying it, but. Clearly they realized they'd better stump up rather than Appeal - Kari.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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

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

Post by Amy » 03 Sep 2014 14:51

Fantastic. Well done.

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

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

Post by Pote Snitkin » 03 Sep 2014 15:13

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
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.

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

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

Post by Mark1960 » 03 Sep 2014 17:06

It shows their utter contempt for the law though doesn't it?

In one last show of petty defiance, they keep hold of payment for as long as possible, in total disregard of a judges instructions. Utter, utter scumbags.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest