Episode 39: A Bailiff Calls.

An Encounter with Mr Butlin, an agent of ‘Marston Recovery’.

Fraud Alert: this Rogue Cast features an attempt by a Marston Group Bailiff (debt collector) to levy a false fine using a fake Warrant of Control.

Before I go any further, let’s remind ourselves of what the constitutional law of these lands says about the subject of today’s RogueCast:

Bill of Rights 1689: Grants of Forfeitures.

“That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegal and void”

 

Could it be plainer? “Before conviction” means that no fine or forfeit can be imposed until and unless the individual is convicted in a court of law.

For those with the eyes to see and ears to hear, that means any and all ‘fines’ issued by so-called authorities, like those of the (mis) Education departments, the Councils and the Police are null and void for want of due process – only a court of law can issue fines and penalties and that is only after the matter has been heard by a jury. The logical conclusion of which is that any and all such ‘fines’ are fraudulent and that any person seeking to rely upon them to extort moneys is acting in breach of the Fraud Act (2006) – see footnote for details.

By attempting to rely upon a false warrant, it could be reasonably be argued that any bailiff or debt collector is committing

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention)

The first thing I’d like to note about this encounter with Mr Butlin from Marston Recovery is that it didn’t get off to a good start. Bailiff ‘Barry’ aka Paul, turned up acting like the proverbial ‘Barry big bollocks’ – there had been no acceptance (receipt) of any paperwork in relation to the matter, including a legally-required Notice of Visit but that did not stop him knocking on the door and letting himself in to my home.

He was told, in no uncertain terms that he was trespassing and duly removed himself. He then objected to me filming him – a fallacious assertion that is dealt with in the conversation. As the dialogue unfolded, I have to say that on a personable level, I liked the bloke, notwithstanding his criminal attempt to enforce a non-existent warrant and having no Deed of Assignment (of the alleged debt).

Notice how at every point I conditionally offered to pay him, upon him providing the correct paperwork.

Note too the pertinent issue that nothing had been received (accepted) on the simple basis that any unsolicited post is invariably returned to sender. Contrary to what Mr B asserts, returned, or, indeed even mail that has been binned, has not been received. In other words, delivery is NOT acceptance in the same way an unwanted gift may be delivered, but politely declined.

As it turned out, the matter arose in Devon. However, it is all null and void as no Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued and therefore nothing was served. As stated in the exchange, zero correspondence has been received. Whilst some people would simply stick the correspondence in the bin, my personal preference is ‘Return to Sender – no contract’.

As I say to him,

“I kind of like your chutzpah, but I think you are on the wrong side.”

However, that does not absolve him from the fraudulent misrepresentation he is attempting to use to extort moneys. That is criminal, whichever way you want to coat it.

I also take the opportunity to bring up the issue of the illegal immigrants who are being used by the private High Court Enforcement Office companies to steal people’s homes, which is another invidious aspect of the Great British Mortgage Swindle (TGBMS).

It is also worth noting that a Magistrate’s court order is required for any agency to fit a clamp to your wheel, and that includes DVLA. If the debt collector refuses to remove the clamp, then you have every right to remove it as appropriate. Without that, the highway robber is acting illegally, which is the case 99.9%  of these situations.

In the end, the clamp was removed, Paul and I shook hands and, that very afternoon, a Notice of Fraud was sent via Recorded Delivery to the CEO of the Marston Group along with an administrative charge of £1,200.

Is Mr Butlin a good man, like he asserts he is or is he guilty of committing fraud by misrepresentation? I’ve stated my case against him but would be interested to hear what the viewers think.

In conclusion, let us turn to a trio of maxims that neatly summarise the episode:

• He who leaves the field of battle first (does not respond appropriately to an Affidavit) loses by default. See Book of Job; Matt 10:22. Legal maxim: He who does not repel a wrong when he can occasions it.
• Contra veritatem lex numquam aliquid permittit. The law never suffers anything contrary to truth. 2 Co. Inst. 252.
• Fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270.

---

As ever, thank you for watching. Should you appreciate the work at RM, then you may wish to buy me a coffee, or even several. Many thanks to Jerry and Lizzie for the coffees.

---

Footnote:

the Fraud Act (2006):
1. Fraud

(1)A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The sections are—

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F1the general limit in a magistrates’ court] or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

2. Debt Collectors Script– updated on 25/06/24 to include case law on how a warrant is only valid when signed by the judge who issued the order.  My thanks to Ashley Craven for this which includes also the numerous statutory instruments in support of the points made in the video.