Marston attendance fee query

Stop or Suspend Enforcement. Appeal the PCN. Claim Damages for Unlawful Interference with Vehicles.
Post Reply
Daveconfused
Posts: 5
Joined: 07 Aug 2017 19:01

#1 Marston attendance fee query

Post by Daveconfused » 07 Aug 2017 19:15

Hi,

Thanks for having a look at this. In hindsight I'm a bit confused about what happened earlier when a bailiff turned up at my door.

We moved house 3 years ago. My other half didn't update the address on her car's log book, only her driver's licence. She got clamped/fined in September 2016 and updated the log book address. Fair enough, our mistake, it's a pity that we didn't have warning letters forwarded to us but hey ho.

Today a bailiff turned up regarding a PCN for driving on a taxi only street in June 2016. Again, we hadn't received any previous correspondence regarding this.

I paid up in full but have since become confused about the £235 Attendance Cost.

The bailiff came to our current address at 10am, but we have subsequently found out that he originally went to our old address at 8am and handed an identical notice of fees to our the people who moved into our old house.

What bugs me is why have they didn't trace our new address before leaving the office and send us a letter regarding the fine thus saving us £235?
I did phone the Bailiff on his mobile to ask this and he said that the £235 isn't just a fee in relation to attending an address, it is a fee that was added to the fine because the fine had become a warrant and that process incurs the costs (and that calling it a fee just for attending an address isn't strictly true?!).

We have been on the electoral role ever since we moved house, we have a traceable credit history linking our old/new addresses, and what surprises me most is that Kirklees Council must have contacted the DVLA with her vehicle registration and we had already updated our address with them (drivers licence but not log book). They could've searched the electoral role via 192.com for as little as 40p and found our new address as soon as they were asked to chase the fine, or ideally Kirklees could've done this before passing it onto Marston.

I've read that the Attendance Cost is limited to £235 to prevent unreasonable charges but surely £235 is unreasonable given the ease and low cost of tracing someone that isn't trying to hide from anyone?

I've also read that we should've received a Notice Of Enforcement prior to the Bailiff attending our property and given the fact that he initially attended our old address the address on the warrant would have been incorrect?

Would you feel that we have grounds to contest the £235 Attendance Cost added to our fine?

Any advice would be gratefully received.

Many thanks,
Dave

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6566
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#2 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Pote Snitkin » 07 Aug 2017 20:49

The notice of enforcement went to an old address. In such cases, if the bailiff discovers you live at a different address a new warrant must be made and a new NOE sent. The bailiff has unlawfully made you pay £235.

You need to contact the council that issued the PCN, tell them that regulation 8(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 state:
  • 8.—(1) Notice of enforcement must be given—

    (a) by post addressed to the debtor at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business;
You were not given the notice therefore the next enforcement stage cannot take place until you have. Ask them to refund you the £235.

In addition, you could have grounds to rewind the case back to the start, removing all fees and other penalties as you were not aware of the PCN. However as this was due to the DVLA not being updated, any appeal would be difficult.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13258
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#3 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Schedule 12 » 07 Aug 2017 21:35

You must appeal the PCN on grounds you were not given a Notice to Owner (NTO).

http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/St ... ailiff.htm
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Daveconfused
Posts: 5
Joined: 07 Aug 2017 19:01

#4 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Daveconfused » 07 Aug 2017 22:20

Hi. Thanks so much for taking your time to reply. Very much appreciated after what has happened today.
I'll speak to the council and email Marston as per your advice tomorrow. It sounds great that there are these safeguards to protect people. Let's hope they see sense!
All the best,
Dave

Daveconfused
Posts: 5
Joined: 07 Aug 2017 19:01

#5 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Daveconfused » 08 Aug 2017 08:07

Hi.
After waking at 0330hrs continually thinking about this I have collated the following info.
I intend to send this Marston in the first instance along with a little more info from my initial post and more formal formatting.
Any advice? Thanks again, Dave
-----------------------------------------

Issues surrounding this case:
The notice of enforcement went to an old address. No efforts were made to contact us at our new address despite the ease and low cost of tracing someone that isn't trying to hide from anyone throughout the 14 months since the supposed offence. We have been on the electoral role ever since we moved house and we have a traceable credit history linking our old/new addresses. We have identical hand written requests for fees from the bailiff, the first of which was handed to the current owners of our previous property at 0800hrs on 07/08/17 and the second presented to us at 0945hrs on the same morning. At the point during that morning that the bailiff discovered that we now live at a different address a new warrant should have been drafted and a new NOE sent to the new address.

The regulation 8(1) of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 state:
8.—(1) Notice of enforcement must be given—

(a) by post addressed to the debtor at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business;

We were not given the notice, despite the bailiff having every opportunity to do so, therefore the next enforcement stage could not have taken place until you had done so thus making the £235 attendance fee unlawful.

Further more, Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act includes an aim to support early payment and compliance by debtors as they will be fully aware of the costs implication if they fail to do so, and provides the debtor with an opportunity to settle the debt at the compliance stage without the need to face a bailiff visit.
Schedule 12 procedure, paragraph 7 states:
"An enforcement agent may not take control of goods unless the debtor has been given notice (of enforcement)".
In this case, a notice of enforcement was not received despite the bailiff having every opportunity to send one by post after visiting our old address on the morning of 07/08/17; instead unlawfully opting to visit our new address and insisting that the only option available was to pay there and then in full despite the address not appearing on the original warrant and the need for a notice of enforcement being ignored.

This is supported by the requirement to issue a Notice of Enforcement to every debtor. The details of which are described in Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 Part 2 paragraph 6 (minimum period of notice of enforcement) and:
8(1) Notice of enforcement must be given—
(a) by post addressed to the debtor at the place, or one of the places, where the debtor usually lives or carries on a trade or business;

We were not afforded the opportunity to settle at compliance stage as Marston did not give us notice in accordance with legislation despite knowing "where the debtor usually lives". The notice was clearly sent to our previous address and not correctly reissued to our new address as per legislation despite the bailiff having every opportunity to do so.

We ask that Marston now refund us the £235 enforcement fee that we paid without first being given the opportunity to settle at compliance stage as prescribed in legislation.



-----------------------------------------

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6566
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#6 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Pote Snitkin » 08 Aug 2017 09:23

Too much mate. Keep it short and to the point.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#7 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by JimUk1 » 08 Aug 2017 09:54

No real need at this stage - Let Marston shift through it. Why create work for yourself just to make life easier for Marston?

I only really look at the length of a letter/complaint when I'm writing to the LGO, otherwise, I just concentrate on ensuring all relevant info is included.
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

Daveconfused
Posts: 5
Joined: 07 Aug 2017 19:01

#8 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Daveconfused » 09 Aug 2017 08:41

Ok cheers. It was a bit of slightly neurotic learning exercise to get my head around the standards and correct process. I haven't sent all of this yet, I'm just waiting for an initial response from Marston in relation to the £235.
It's theft as far as I can tell. They'll be raking it in since the paper car tax disc was discontinued.

Daveconfused
Posts: 5
Joined: 07 Aug 2017 19:01

#9 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Daveconfused » 22 Sep 2017 07:10

Hi,

I have finally been refunded the £235 from Marston.

Marston were very unhelpful/robotic/rude when spoken to and felt that the £235 was legitimate. They have not responded to any emails therefore giving no explanation to the reasoning for the refund other than being asked to do it by a Parking Officer at Kirklees Council.

It seems like they do what they like regardless of the regulations. See below for the email exchange with the council. It shows the timeline of the letters and when it was passed on to Marston therefore showing the lack of attempts they make to actually identify a possible new address (all good ££££ for them) and the fact that the log book address had been updated to our new address 4 months (and 2 council reminder letters) prior to it being passed to Marston. Marston then sat on it for 7 months earning £75 for sending out a letter to an address that was highly likely to be wrong. They abuse the system. Parasites. I bet they hate the regulations that restrict their earning capacity so bend every rule and hope to steamroller and stonewall people into accepting what they say as being true. I've still got the bailiffs mobile number, I'll have to ask him about it one day. :D

Thanks for your help with this.

Cheers,
Dave

.............................................

From: John Lee
Sent: 08 September 2017 08:53
To: 'Dave Alexander'
Subject: RE: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf

Hi…..David

Good morning.

I have managed to contact our liaison officer with Marston and asked them to reconsider your request to the refund of the attendance fee. Please look out for that as they have agreed to arrange for a refund to you.

Regards
John
Senior Parking Officer
Kirklees Council

From: Dave Alexander
Sent: 06 September 2017 17:07
To: John Lee
Subject: Re: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf

Thanks,

I have spoken with Marston and they feel that the £235 attendance cost was lawful despite their warrant having a different address on it and no notice of enforcement being posted to our new address therefore meaning that the next enforcement stage had not been reached. Apparently my payment was made "voluntarily", which the customer service agent suggests is my own fault despite the bailiff insisting that full payment was the only option. It seems that had I not answered the door and acted like an honest citizen I would've received a notice of enforcement through the post requesting £173 therefore saving myself £235.

Could you please advise me further on making an out of time witness statement. Is this something that needs to be done prior to contacting the LGO?

Thanks
David

From: John Lee
Sent: 06 September 2017 16:17
To: 'Dave Alexander'
Subject: RE: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf

Hi…….David

The PCN reference KM88398003

The process from the issue of a PCN right up to sending the case to a debt collecting agency is configured to a standard industry time line which is also automated. For any none payment or communication from the keeper of vehicle, they will be passed on, there is no second trace unless the letter sent was return marked: Gone away, moved away, etc.

The process is followed as in accordance to the Department of Transport guidelines.

Regards
John
Senior Parking Officer
Kirklees Council

From: Dave Alexander
Sent: 06 September 2017 16:08
To: John Lee
Subject: Re: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf

Many thanks.

Could you please provide the PCN number relating to our case?

I'm surprised to hear that you took so long to pass the case to Marston as I would've assumed that seeing as Marston stand to gain financially by not rechecking with the DVLA for a new address (a common occurrence since the paper tax disc ceased) that they wouldn't have checked, but seeing as you are a public service I would've hoped for more common sense. A majority of people would pay in good time in order to reduce the fine, so if there is no reply it stands to reason that they may have moved. A second check with the DVLA (or any of the other sources of tracing people) prior to sending your second letter, third letter, or before handing the case to Marston would've identified our new address. Surely as a council you can easily access electoral rolls?

Regards,
David



-------- Original message --------
Subject: FW: Request for PCN number and comment re the unlawful practices being adopted by Marston Holdings whilst acting on your behalf
From: John Lee
To: Dave Alexander
CC:

Dear Sir

Whilst you wait for a response from Marston, I will provide the information regarding a PCN incurred by the vehicle.

On 19/6/16 at 1220hrs, the above mentioned vehicle went through a Bus Gate enforcement at St George’s Square. We subsequently done a trace with the dvla for the keeper’s details. Upon receiving the keeper’s information, we sent 3 statutory letters (dated 23/6/16; 27/9/16 and 19/1/2017 respectively) to the owner before passing the case to Marston (standard procedure).

The original address from dvla was: ..............


Regards

John Lee
Senior Parking Officer
Kirklees Council

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13258
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#10 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Schedule 12 » 22 Sep 2017 09:54

Daveconfused wrote:
22 Sep 2017 07:10
Hi,

I have finally been refunded the £235 from Marston.

Marston were very unhelpful/robotic/rude when spoken to and felt that the £235 was legitimate. They have not responded to any emails therefore giving no explanation to the reasoning for the refund other than being asked to do it by a Parking Officer at Kirklees Council.
This demonstrates why it is pointless contacting a bailiff company. They will mess you about. Always pursue the creditor.

Common sense prevailed, and well done.

I see you put your enquiry on another forum, and you got a result with help from "alreadyexists", so a big well done to him for solving it. The other commentators on there are well-known trouble-makers who closed ranks to frustrate alreadyexists help he was giving you. He did pretty well considering he was up against all four of them.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#11 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by JimUk1 » 22 Sep 2017 10:26

It also demonstrates why it is pointless listening to Bailiff Advice or her pet chimp, Dodgeball. Both gave Dave dangerous advice and fed him with misinformation.

Anyone else notice how Bailiff Advice is always the first to congratulate the person if she has contributed positively to the thread?

Have you also noticed how the angry, bitter old fool has not offered a word of congratulation to Dave, because she had offered appalling incorrect advice and had posted misinformation about LGO decisions?
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13258
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#12 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Schedule 12 » 22 Sep 2017 10:30

All she did was disrupt the help being given with cheap digs at the helper 'alreadyexists'.

I found this bit funny: posts 29 & 30: https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... ost5051075

These two are husband and wife. They hold conversations with each other in a public forum using their pseudonymous names.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6566
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#13 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Pote Snitkin » 22 Sep 2017 13:56

Let's have a look at the advice from the CAG regulars:
  • By all means write to Marston's to request a refund but I would not suggest that you hold out too much hope of a refund.

    I would however reiterate that you should not hold out too much hope of them refunding the fee. Like many enforcement companies, they will likely refer you to the correct procedure which is to submit an Out of Time witness statement to the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

    Yes, I think the OOT will be all that is required here.

    The OOT is the best way forward at the moment, the first you knew about was the bailiff fetching up.
The advice from alreadyexists matched the advice given on these boards:
  • I feel that you have grounds to contest the £235 fee. Be warned though, it's doubtful that Marston will give it back without a fight so there might be a fair bit of letter writing. In the first instance, you should write to Marston direct, briefly outlining the situation as you have done in your post.
The outcome?
  • I have finally been refunded the £235 from Marston.

    Marston were very unhelpful/robotic/rude when spoken to and felt that the £235 was legitimate. They have not responded to any emails therefore giving no explanation to the reasoning for the refund other than being asked to do it by a Parking Officer at Kirklees Council
Old Ma hubbard could only muster up through gritted dentures:
  • Well done Dave, pleased to hear you got a partial refund.
Despite it being a full refund of what was overcharged. The crank managed a reply that has no meaning to anything discussed on the thread:
  • Far more important was that the case was resolved without issuing legal proceedings.
Sadly, no input from Krusty as yet.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13258
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#14 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by Schedule 12 » 22 Sep 2017 14:39

Someone wants the credit for alreadyexists's work.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

JimUk1
Posts: 217
Joined: 02 May 2017 16:08

#15 Re: Marston attendance fee query

Post by JimUk1 » 22 Sep 2017 15:42

Another example of Bailiff Advice in all her splendour:

Bailiff Advice:
I wouldn't worry either about the 'sale fee' of £110 being applied.

OP:
they've added 75 compliance 276 enforcent and 110 sale stage

Bailiff Advice:
The proposed charging order will also not be a option

OP:
Council have agreed due to the house now being up for sale to take the case back from the baliffs and go with charging order
https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/f ... -CTAX-debt
Dodgeball: As the discerning viewer will realise , I was aware of the mistake in the reply when I posted it

:lol: Of course you were Dodgeball - It was purely coincidence that you only mentioned it after it had been pointed out to you on here.

Post Reply