Council tax complaint to cipfa

Cipfa 26-11-2010

Dear Jyoti Kakad

Cipfa

From a member of the public George David Cant, 48 Lambert Road, Grimsby. A victim of the system described below

Daer Cipfa

I have sent you loads of correspondence complaining about the management and application of council tax/nndr around our council from 2003-2010. I understand you still have not taken a decision as to with its a problem or not. So I will show you the basics of the problem in easy to understand terms and I will explain the paperwork I have sent you

Here is a basic walk through that simplifies what I have been showing you in more technical ways and relates directly to summersise the complaint I have in with you about the management of council tax an NELC

First some history

1997 – 2003

Substantially badly managed council, failed markers with auditors and inspections, under special measures by the audit commission, audit commission SI report ( 2004 ) and CIPFA investigation.

http://www.crazycouncil.co.uk/watching

2003- removal of Head of paid service ( old finance officer ) after report by .Mr Andrew Ecelson

http://www.cipfa.org.uk/press/press_show.cfm?news_id=27590

Pack History of false accounts

My council then formed a special executive arraignment that included all the rest of the failing staff

My council special executive changed the application and processing of CT and NNDR accounts ( 2004 ) by the special executive arraignment.

( See table 1below )

This change consisted of

Changing the payment dates ( instead of the 30^th of the month, they become due on the 1^st of the month.) ( The only council that does not allow three payment dates within the month )
Changing how fast they take court or baillif action ( 1 month instead of 6 months )
Changing how they deal with ccounts after they have been sent to baillifs

Before this change, the published rate was as low as 93%

After this change the rate rose substantially to 98 %

My complaint focus in how that 5% was achieved within the rest of the figures and the affect on the total amount of paid ( total money collect from working public ), the affect on the public ( costs ) and the ongoing affect on employment in the area over the five year period.

Since I first brought it to you I have been able to find some other inconstancy in these figures.

The figures presented below in table one are gained from FOI requests ( www )

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/george_cant this is me

ones you should read

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/questions_for_council_tax_and_bu#incoming-126084

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/info_on_you_council_tax_accounts#incoming-66360

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/nndr_benefits_applied_correctly#outgoing-94625

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/liability_orders_and_section12a#outgoing-94531

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/questions_for_council_tax_and_bu#incoming-126084

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/executive_posts_the_yearly_pay_f#incoming-122156

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/compleate_copy_of_munuits#outgoing-72999

I will explain this from 4 prospectives

Point 1 — just what the figures represent

Point 2 – the management of these figures over the 5 years and the implications

Point 3 – the Financial implications for the public and gains for the bailiffs.

Point 4 who why were what, how much wages have they now got.

Actions before this change in relation to the public

Pack- History of false accounts

shows how badly CT and NNDR accounts were managed befreo 2003

Just the figures

Basic understandings.

The figures I have complied under the FOI act

table one

I think this shows the following

That all they did was play around with the dates applicable for liability orders and how fast the process them to bailiffs. Its obvious when you follow the figures for one year through this system

lets take 2005-2006 as an ave ridge.

Bills sent 70080

Percent on notices 51.16% Summons 16.79% Liability orders 11.36

Published successful collection rate 97.8% = Total amount of bills this represents 68538

Now a closer look at what happens to accounts after liability orders on that year

Point 1 the bailiffs

——————————————————————————————————————–

Number of liability orders 7959

Cases sent to bailiffs 4382

Amount collected by bailiffs £ 1344,901

As I have explained in my previous correspondence, the bailiffs collect 99% the full amount and return the rest of the cases to the council ( limboing accounts away from the bv indicators )

So, If we say the ave ridge Council tax being £ 1000 that means they collected from approximately 1344 bill payers ( or approximately 2% ) Leaving 3038 accounts sent back to the council and left off the collection rates

These 3038 corrections is part of were the 5 % increase has been ( 3038 = 4.34% )

——————————————————————————————————————–

Point 2 The actual liability orders

Number of liability orders 7959

Cases sent to bailiffs 4382

This leaves 3587 accounts with the council.

Now the council are going to say the difference in-between these figures are people making payment arraignments before they are sent to the bailiffs and I disagree. You simply don’t get time because when your on a liability order your account get sent straight to the baillif and your not allowed to pay the council.

I say ESTIMATE that less then 20% of this figure enter payment agreements, the other 80% are accounts that they never should have sent for liability orders because they are incorrect. And they take these out before sending them to the bailiffs.

I suggest that they do this again to be able to report a high collection rate on the three dates throughout the year that they publish it ( again limboing the accounts off the system for the bv indicators )

So from 70080 bills sent, 7959 get liability orders, the bailiffs ( estimate ) collect from 1344

and that leaves 6615 ( Or 9.4% of total bills ) managed by the council for that year and this is were I am saying the 5% increase comes from and is limboed. I am saying between the council and the bailiffs that make sure they limbo mistaken accounts and benefit accounts off the system to be able to report the high rate.

When the council ( pre 2003 ) waited until at least month 6 until they took people to court, most ( But not all , see pack history of false accounts ) we corrected by the council, i.e., accounts removed from system ( double chaghes ) or benefits applied for the year. After 2004 they would not correct accounts while they are with the bailiffs and the bailiffs don’t return them as non-collectable until after the council publish the rates.

By my extensive research and study I believe the correct rate for this year would be 93-94 %

Point 2 – the management of these figures over the 5 years and the implications

I have to explain this from my prospective ( paying member of the public ). On to how they have been managed, I am going to rely on some of the packs that I have sent you that contain my account information over the years.

Pack liability orders

This pack shows that the council will gain liability orders on account even when there is payment on the accounts, What’s really scary about this pack is that it probably shows the ave ridge accounts taken for liability orders. Ie WRONG

Pack Payment arraignment with proof ( sept 2005 – sept 2006 )

Pack My attempt to pay ( Sept 2006 – June 2007 )

Pack Tony Hunter Finals ( April 2010 )

Everyone who works for the SYSTEM, seems to think they can blame the system for how it operates. The above pack show how they MANAGED me and refused to accept payment from me while bankrupting me.

Pack Accounts has they should have been

Pack Visual representation and Key

Pack Court and Insolvency

All the above show that the officers activating this system knew that the money was not owed ( Formal complaint of fraud to the police in relation to 6 liability orders ) ( formal complaint to the police about the production of some documents used against me )

http://www.crazycouncil.co.uk/fraud-act-legal-guidance-the-crown-prosecution-service/682

http://www.crazycouncil.co.uk/theft-act-1968-c-60-statute-law-database/685

A formal complaint to the fraud office has been sent in November 2010. A formal complaint to the serious fraud office is under way. ( the amount of people that this affects and the finances concerned fit there remit )

And I am going to formally ask why the regulators did not see this. The audit commission, you ( cipfa ) and solace )

These pack shows to what lengths the council employees will go to instead of correcting there mistakes and what a fight a member of the public has top put up.

Pack Visuals for my Bankruptcy

This pack shows that even the accounts they suggested existed on there system, ( though personaly,you have to see the seriousness in the above three packs )

I was looking through he rest of the CT and NNDR systems for odd numbers and I started to realise were some of the hidden mistakes lie.

Read this FOI response form our records manager at the council ( Paul Ellis, was responsible for ct from 2002 and part of the team responcable for pack History of false accounts)

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/notification_of_clams_for_sbr_re#outgoing-89282

They LIE without consideration.
They then wont back down from lieing until you spell it out for them.
They did not advertise SBR relief from 2005-2007 ( they LIED on this response ).
Over 900 business that are eligible for this discount never new about it.

You can see by my last statement on that request, getting accurate information in relation to the operation of council tax from our council takes some doing.

And, whats significant, CT regulation state that they have to advertise it, or if not, people can claim benefits back to the start. I presume NNDR regs are the same

How many of them 900 do you think ended up with liability orders,

So, again, to protect the people at the bottom, that the government have set aside assistance , to ensure they can keep working, our councils managers can not manage. The consequence to this is that instead of struggling business paying 50% of the council tax, they have to pay 123%

and the sole reason for that is the inability of the managers at our council to manage the system properly.

And the consequences are borne out by the working family round here.

Point 3 – the Financial implications for the public and gains for the bailiffs.

Now this is the very seriously wrong part of this.

Extra cost imposed by on the working public

Firstly what management would consider it appropriate to demand the full years payment if you miss one month, no private organisation would act in this way, Then what management considers that imposing the extra cost on the public is appropriate when people are behind.

Court costs.

Band a 2007

and

So the council make a profit from the court action. What’s interesting is what they pay out of this, Our council use this fund for the following ( From FOI )

IT costs and systems,

Collection costs

Staff wages ( not sure who’s )

from east riding council the following data

The cost of employing staff who deal with the issue of the Council’s summonses. This also includes the costs of National Insurance and Superannuation.

The costs of providing the office space for the work to be done, including insurance and support services (telephones etc.).

The cost of the computer equipment which monitors and stores the payment records to allow the summons to be issued.

The cost of the laser printer which prints the summons (including the cost of the paper used).

The cost of the envelopes used.

The cost of the postage of the summons.

That leaves a question why didn’t any of the accountancy regulators question this. ?

How can they budget costs from this year on year, especialy wages, as if all accounts were correct and people paid, this fund would not exists. My council have fought not to give me the detail breakdown of this account ( see the unanswered questions in www )

I call this Farming off accounts, and I meen it in the finacial sence of the word E you create a system were you can claim extra costs by managing peoples accounts in such a way that they are unable to manage them.

Back to the public’s costs and bailiffs profits.

So, we send out approx 70,000 bills. I estimate that approximately 20,000 don’t pay anything, leaving 50,000.

This 50,000 paying public is made up of the full range of working people, From people earning £ 3000 pw ( Monitoring officer of our council) to working parents and working single parents with incomes including benefits of less than £ 200 pw.

I am saying that nearly all these liability orders are for people at the bottom of the working scale, and it makes a massively significant difference when your income is only £ 200 pw and because of failure to manage an accounting system, my council can impose extra cost 23% for collecting .

And to put that in prospective a working parent on £ 200pw that pays a council tax of approximately £ 1000 get an extra cost of £ 230 ( over one weeks wages ) MINIMUM ( extras charges are imposed for paying through the bailiffs as well ( 25% approx )

You do the maths.

I am going to make a suggestion here that none of the regulators are going to like.

None of the regulators have seen the significance of this because you would have no understanding what its like to bring kids or even just get by in current society on £ 200 pw. These people on liability orders are the Working poor, people who would rather work for the same amount you can get on benefits but choose not to.

There are a lot of office type people that are supposed to make sure this particular sector of the public are allowed to work, and have failed to.

This correspondence explains everything in simple terms.

Let see if Cipfa deal with this properly

Point 4 who why were what, how much wages have they now got.

Whoo

well, when we have a solicitor that has worked for our council since 1997 that has been able to promote himself out of the firing line, this part was always coming. He started ( as much as I can tell he started on about £ 35,000 pa and has promoted himself to £ 120,000 pa ). When you ask yourself how come this system has been able to evolve in this way you have to ask your self what would you expect when you put a solicitor in charge of democracy,

By definition, solicitors are one sided.

Our solicitor, been the legal hand responsible for many debarkes in our council, bass leisure is a good one, A16 CPO orders, Guildford street CPO orders and a special mention has to go the Icelandic fiasco, the only leauge table we have ever topped, is now our business exec ( role agreed with Alan Madin before his pay-off ) on £ 120,000 py

So, a failing council now has a solicitor that has never worked for a private business, let alone started or run one, as Top business executive. And thats apparentlyu a good deal for the people of NELC

As I have made clear in my previous correspondence with you I blame 10 people in our council for this, Monitoring officers, three ward councillors ( maybe 5 ), and a few of the finance officers, Alan Madin really take the least responsibility for this because he was only at our council since 2004 and I suggest that he didn’t understand the full implications of this system because he had no understanding of the faults before that. I also feel that Alan Madin had less of a hand in the Icelandic fiasco than the solicitors and other finance officers ( One has been promoted within our council, as noted in the audit commission Special interest report )

I also feel that part of this failure may lie with the regulators and auditors for failing to see it, I suffer from a condition known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia but I do excel with numbers and maths, but, I have not had the easy access to the figures like all of you have.

And finally

I have researched about 50 councils to make sure that my council are significantly different. Rather than show you loads of boring data I will just use our neighbouring council NORTH LINCS COUNCIL as an example to base the figures from

This shows that they send twice as many bills, yet only 70% of the liability orders.

NELC 11.36% of bills get LO 6.25 % get sent to bailiffs

NLC 4.36 % of bills get LO and 2.69 % get sent to bailiffs

ERY 2.93 % of bills get LO and 1.28 % get sent to bailiffs

Even in this basic format, it does not show it as bad as it really is, you have to factor out the following

Out of total amount of bills sent out, ( NELC 70,000 ) about 20,000 don’t pay anything ( benefits or exempt ). So, if we take our 70,000 bills, remove the 20,000 that don’t have to pay or manage a ct account. . That leaves us with 50,000 bill payers. We take 8000 to court and that is 16 % of bill payers.

We can use the data from ONS or openlylocal.com to split the income levels and claimant levels in our area and it shows a shudderingly bad relationship between poverty and court action in our area.

East riding of yorkshire councils data make it look even worse, three times as meny bills sent, yet same numbers sent to liability orders and same sent to bailiffs

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/18776/response/51051/attach/html/2/Response.xls.html