Marston loses "Manchestergate" court case.

[zeke]

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.

[Andy]

Perhaps they will and that will shake things up a little bit, force bailiffs to comply with the law.

[zeke]

It's only a matter of time Sheila Harding 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.

[zeke]

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.

[johndoe]

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]

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

[Amy]

Using a proxy = banned. Goodbye.

[Andy]

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..

[Amy]

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

[Andy]

So they can discuss the alien agenda without fear of the men in black showing up no less

[Amy]

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.

[zeke]

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.

[Lozza1970]

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

[zeke]

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 Sheila Harding 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.

[Andy]

When was this ruled? That a concealed ISP is malicious communication?

[zeke]

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.

[Andy]

I see, you get these complaints via email for services provided?

[zeke]

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.

[Bobby]

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.

Nigel, 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 Bobby

[zeke]

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,

[Bobby]

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]

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.

[zeke]

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.

[Bobby]

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.

[zeke]

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.

[Bobby]

Hi Nigel, 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.

[zeke]

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.

[zeke]

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.

[Hithard]

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.

[Mark1960]

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.

[zeke]

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 Sheila Harding 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.

[zeke]

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.

[Syd Snitkin]

I notice that the usual Caggers are calling Kari a liar. What is wrong with these people? I think this is more about Nigel 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.

[zeke]

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.

[Mark1960]

I notice that the usual Caggers are calling Kari a liar. What is wrong with these people? I think this is more about Nigel 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.