Marstons quickie

We might be able to work it out.
Post Reply
Wingnut9811
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Jan 2016 16:13

#1 Marstons quickie

Post by Wingnut9811 » 24 Jan 2016 16:25

Hi peeps just a quickie.i recieved my first letter from marston saying I will get a visit on the 2nd of February for an unpaid ccj for 1300 quid from ukfuels "unpaid fuel card bill from November 15 when I was self employed" done the usual silly thing and ignored it "I know daft". Does anybody know if you can go back to the creditors and setup a payment plan and ignor these idiots or do I just plump with marstons plus there charges.

Wingnut9811
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Jan 2016 16:13

#2 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Wingnut9811 » 24 Jan 2016 17:10

image.jpg
this is the letter plus the amount is wrong as the ccj was for 1207 quid
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13089
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#3 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Schedule 12 » 24 Jan 2016 18:49

There are a number of ways you can scupper a nuisance High Court Enforcement Officer:


1. If you accept you owe the money but you just need more time to pay, then you apply, using a Form N245, for a STAY OF EXECUTION and a VARIATION at the High Court district registry address at the top right of the writ.

2. If you dispute the sum owed, or you had no previous knowledge of the proceedings, you apply, on a Form N244, for a SET ASIDE. If you need other grounds then run a High Court Enforcement compliance check to discover what grounds are available to you to get the writ set aside.

3. Pay the creditor direct. Provided there has been no goods removed then no costs of execution are due. Only the statutory fees remain, but if goods have been taken into control, the HCEO cannot recover fees by selling them because Paragraph 58(3) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 "No further step may be taken under the enforcement power concerned." and Regulation 17.1 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 "the enforcement agent may not recover fees or disbursements from the debtor in relation to any stage of enforcement undertaken at a time when the relevant enforcement power has ceased to be exercisable" and guideline 31 of the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards 2014 "Enforcement agents must not seek to enforce the recovery of fees where an enforcement power has ceased to be excersisable."

4. If the debtor is a company, wind up the company and reform it with a new one. The writ and judgment dies with the original company.

5. Pay the debt to clear it. Then reclaim it through the courts or via a chargeback

Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Wingnut9811
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Jan 2016 16:13

#4 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Wingnut9811 » 24 Jan 2016 19:13

So if I sort it out with creditors should I just ignore marstons

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13089
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#5 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Schedule 12 » 24 Jan 2016 20:27

They will pester you for their fees. But the cannot take control of goods to recover them.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Wingnut9811
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Jan 2016 16:13

#6 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Wingnut9811 » 27 Jan 2016 02:51

I've just noticed something and maybe if I'm right what should I do. This debt was from my old self employed driving job I was a sole trader and my credit limit was only £1000 isit it right that as I was a sole trader with a credit limit of less than £25000 any credit agreement is still governed by the consumer credit act 1974 which means that it can't be pursued by high court baliffs

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6460
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#7 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Jan 2016 07:00

Any debt covered by the CCA can only be enforced by a county court bailiff.

Looks like you've stopped Marston's. The CC bailiff will be easier to deal with.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Wingnut9811
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Jan 2016 16:13

#8 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Wingnut9811 » 27 Jan 2016 07:32

Sorted what do I do then phone marstons and tell them it's void or go back to the solicitor that delt with it or creditor

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6460
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#9 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Jan 2016 07:35

Copy in all of them.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Wingnut9811
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Jan 2016 16:13

#10 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Wingnut9811 » 27 Jan 2016 16:20

Right then I spoke to the creditors solicitor and told them that the high court writ was void as I'm under the consumer act, he didn't seem happy that I new this lol and said he'll be in touch. I sent an email to the creditor explaining that the writ is void and I am willing to make payment arrangements through them or there solicitor or the county court. Then I phoned marstons this was interesting as I explained how they were trying to issue me with an illegal writ the guy promptly realised and said ok and goodbye lol

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6460
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#11 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Jan 2016 16:39

Well done - that all came about because you noticed the CCA issue. The bailiff will now have to withdraw and the creditor will have to pay them - their mistake so tough. You can now set up a payment arrangement direct, hopefully.
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Wingnut9811
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Jan 2016 16:13

#12 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Wingnut9811 » 27 Jan 2016 17:03

Thought there must of been something in all of the masses of small print. It pays to read it. Incidentally if for some reason marstons still turn up what do I do about the bailiff

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6460
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#13 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Pote Snitkin » 27 Jan 2016 17:10

Tell them it's a CCA governed debt - so p*ss off. :mrgreen:
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

Wingnut9811
Posts: 8
Joined: 24 Jan 2016 16:13

#14 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Wingnut9811 » 27 Jan 2016 17:14

Love it lol

felix6934
Posts: 1
Joined: 24 Feb 2016 10:09

#15 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by felix6934 » 24 Feb 2016 13:43

Hello,
I have sent 1 relevant template to HMCTS but keep getting adamant responses saying that they have received payment but passed it on to the bailiffs (letter attached) also they have quoted some litigation that they say empowers the enforcement officer to collect his fees as well. I have paid this fine and not just that I sent a request for a payment card arrangement as my circumstances had changed, this was sent on the 23rd of Dec 2015, 5 days before the warrant was ordered (28th Dec) the court office have said they received no such letter, I then sent a copy of this letter with the template from your website but they sent the attached response.

What do I do now please?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13089
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#16 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Schedule 12 » 24 Feb 2016 14:09

This looks like the debt is a court fine, but the Notice of Enforcement in your first post is a High Court writ naming a creditor as UK Fuels Ltd.

The notice in your post #1 had made an incorrect calculation of the fees. Its charged £90 for the compliance stage fee, the law only provides for £75. You can ask the court to make a detailed assessment of the fees, and if the court finds in your favour, the creditor pays costs.

The uploads in your most recent post relate to an unpaid court fine and the letter is known as the Hereford Template. Its a generic copy/paste reply to any dispute about fees for the recovery of unpaid court fines.

It is so-named because it references decision in R. v. Hereford and Worcester Magistrates' Court ex parte MacRae which decided that, once issued, Warrants couldn't be withdrawn by the courts. Not only is this advice no longer legally correct, it is not appropriate for Court Service staff to give wrong advice to defendants

R. v. Hereford was repealed by Section 88(8) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 amended Paragraph 40A into schedule 5 of the Courts Act 2003, which reads;
  • (8)After paragraph 40 insert—

    “Withdrawal of warrant of control by fines officer

    40A(1)This paragraph applies if, in taking a step specified in a further steps notice or replacement notice, the fines officer has issued a warrant of control for the purpose of recovering the sum due.

    (2)The fines officer may withdraw the warrant if—
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

david-white
Posts: 2
Joined: 24 Mar 2016 23:31

#17 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by david-white » 24 Mar 2016 23:46

Hello all
regarding the fee of £90 as opposed to £75. is it the case of letter fee for £75
with VAT being added so £90 would be correct?.

Not sure if they can add VAT but it's the only observation I can come up with.

User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6460
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#18 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Pote Snitkin » 25 Mar 2016 06:35

No doubt trying to clarify the drivel of the CAG chimp, but no, VAT should not be added. This has been confirmed in court and by HMRC. See this thread;

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3434&p=47593
On 29/07/17, Compo said "If you are interested I actually typed the word label. My spell checker interpreted it as liable" Discuss.

david-white
Posts: 2
Joined: 24 Mar 2016 23:31

#19 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by david-white » 25 Mar 2016 11:50

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

User avatar
Schedule 12
Posts: 13089
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Location: London WC2
Contact:

#20 Re: Marstons quickie

Post by Schedule 12 » 25 Mar 2016 12:21

You can have a detailed assessment hearing and the fees disappear.
Run this Checklist. If no joy, then we'll fix it
Author: dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk

Post Reply